The DOJ and FBI’s recent review, concluding no “client list” and confirming Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide, has ignited a firestorm of skepticism and distrust, and frankly, who is really surprised? It’s a conclusion that feels less like an impartial finding and more like a calculated effort to protect certain individuals. The narrative has been built around an absence – the lack of a list – and a definitive pronouncement of suicide, and this is where the seeds of doubt truly blossom. The idea that a figure like Epstein, entangled in such a web of influence and power, simply took his own life without any further investigation feels far-fetched to many.… Continue reading
DOJ, FBI conclude Epstein had no “client list,” committed suicide: Well, here’s a thought, straight from the collective internet consciousness: the DOJ and FBI have concluded that there’s no client list associated with Jeffrey Epstein, and that he died by suicide. That’s the official word. Now, where do we even begin to unpack that? Because, let’s be honest, that conclusion is landing with a resounding thud in a lot of corners.
This whole thing reeks of potential cover-up and the people who were most involved are just walking around free. It feels like a slap in the face to all the victims, and anyone who’s been paying attention to this saga.… Continue reading
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is making denaturalization a top priority, directing its attorneys to aggressively pursue cases against naturalized citizens who commit crimes. This initiative will focus on individuals who may have committed fraud or other violations, expanding the criteria for which crimes could result in a loss of citizenship. Immigration experts express serious concerns about the constitutionality of the effort, especially regarding its potential impact on naturalized citizens and their families. The government has indicated that it plans to pursue these cases through civil litigation, raising due process questions and fears of creating a second class of citizens.
Read More
The Justice Department is prioritizing the revocation of citizenship for naturalized citizens who commit crimes, expanding the criteria for denaturalization, and granting district attorneys wider discretion in pursuing these cases. This initiative, as stated in a recent memo, designates denaturalization as a top enforcement priority, potentially impacting millions of naturalized citizens. Immigration law experts have expressed serious concerns over the constitutionality of the initiative, particularly the reliance on civil litigation, which may compromise due process rights. This effort builds upon actions taken during previous administrations and is a continuation of actions taken by the Trump administration.
Read More
The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Washington state over Senate Bill 5375, a new law requiring clergy to report sexual abuse, due to its potential impact on the confidentiality of confession. The DOJ argues that the law infringes upon religious freedom protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. The lawsuit aligns with the concerns of Catholic bishops in Washington, who also filed their own suit against the state to block the law. A hearing is expected this summer, with the outcome potentially impacting similar laws in other states.
Read More
The appeals court’s decision to bar the Department of Justice (DOJ) from representing Donald Trump in his appeal of E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case is a significant development, raising crucial questions about the role of the government in personal lawsuits involving former presidents. The ruling effectively prevents the use of taxpayer funds to defend Trump in this specific case, a point many find to be a long overdue correction of a deeply concerning precedent.
This decision underscores the principle that the DOJ’s responsibilities are to represent the interests of the American people, not to serve as a personal legal shield for any individual, even a former president.… Continue reading
The Department of Justice (DOJ) will not release Mahmoud Khalil from detention, despite a court ruling prohibiting his detention based solely on Secretary of State Rubio’s assertion that his pro-Palestinian activism contravenes U.S. foreign policy. The DOJ cites the court’s failure to order unconditional release and maintains the right to detain Khalil on other grounds, specifically alleging fraud in his green card application. Khalil’s lawyers contend he meets the conditions for release and have requested his immediate freedom. The DOJ counters that Khalil should pursue release through standard immigration procedures.
Read More
Rep. LaMonica McIver faces assault charges for allegedly interfering with law enforcement at a Newark ICE facility during a congressional oversight visit. The Justice Department, under acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, filed the charges, while simultaneously dropping trespassing charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was also arrested at the scene. McIver vehemently denies the accusations, asserting the incident stemmed from ICE agents escalating a peaceful inspection. Supporters, including Mayor Baraka, express confidence in McIver’s vindication, while House Democrats condemn the charges as politically motivated.
Read More
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has sidelined a lawyer involved in a deportation case deemed “wholly lawless” by a judge. This action highlights a concerning trend of prioritizing loyalty over legal integrity within the administration. The lawyer, in his attempts to fulfill his duties, truthfully answered questions posed by the judge regarding the deportation. These answers apparently revealed a lack of evidence justifying the detention and deportation, exposing the questionable legality of the government’s actions.
The lawyer’s honest responses, instead of being praised for their transparency and adherence to legal ethics, resulted in him being placed on leave. This suggests that the administration values unwavering support above accurate reporting and the pursuit of justice.… Continue reading
Judge Alsup denied the Trump administration’s request to stay his order reinstating thousands of unlawfully fired probationary federal employees. The judge cited the increasing difficulty of reinstatement with each passing day and the government’s attempts to obstruct the legal process. Alsup deemed the administration’s mass firings a sham, designed to circumvent statutory requirements, and rejected the DOJ’s arguments regarding administrative burdens and speculative harm claims. He emphasized that OPM cannot direct agencies to fire employees under the guise of guidance, and the administration’s refusal to provide testimony further demonstrated its obstructive tactics. The DOJ intends to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker