A federal judge has ordered prosecutors to respond to allegations that Trump administration officials violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1 with social media posts concerning Luigi Mangione’s case, potentially infringing upon his right to a fair trial. The judge cited posts from high-ranking DOJ staff members that appeared to violate the rule, which restricts non-lawyer personnel from releasing opinions that could prejudice a trial. Specifically, the posts referenced Mangione’s alleged guilt in the shooting of Brian Thompson. The court warned that future violations, particularly those falsely linking Mangione to unrelated violent incidents, may result in sanctions and ordered the DOJ to respond.
Read More
DOJ official ordered to rescind inquiry to FBI agent who sued Alex Jones: Sources is a story that, on the surface, feels complex, but when you break it down, it reveals a disturbing pattern. It seems we have a situation where a Department of Justice official, Ed Martin, was instructed to back off on an inquiry targeting a retired FBI agent. This agent had previously sued Alex Jones and secured a significant financial judgment against him.
The details, as presented, suggest that Martin, seemingly acting on behalf of Alex Jones, attempted to intimidate or influence the retired agent through an inquiry that hinted at potential criminal charges.… Continue reading
Trump’s pressure on Bondi, as Schumer suggests, is indeed a critical juncture, one that arguably signifies a dangerous trajectory for American democracy. The core concern stems from Trump’s public demand that Attorney General Pam Bondi take action against his perceived political enemies. This isn’t just a simple political squabble; it’s a blatant attempt to weaponize the Department of Justice, turning it into an instrument of personal retribution and political persecution. The implications of such actions are chilling.
This behavior echoes patterns seen throughout history in nations that ultimately succumbed to authoritarianism. Countries such as Italy, Spain, Cuba, Germany, and many others, all slipped down the slippery slope to dictatorship, fueled by leaders granting themselves immunity from prosecution, curtailing freedom of the press, and suppressing dissent.… Continue reading
DOJ quietly removes study showing right wing attacks ‘outpace’ those by left
The revelation that the Department of Justice (DOJ) quietly removed a study from its website highlighting the disparity between right-wing and left-wing domestic terrorism is, frankly, concerning. The study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), reportedly showed a significant imbalance, with right-wing incidents far outpacing those originating from the left. The very act of removing such research raises eyebrows and invites questions about transparency and the potential suppression of inconvenient truths. The fact that the archived version of the study is still accessible via the Wayback Machine, a digital preservation tool, is a testament to the enduring power of the internet and the difficulty of completely erasing information.… Continue reading
Following the assassination of right-wing political commentator Charlie Kirk, the U.S. Department of Justice removed a study from its website concerning the frequency of “far-right attacks.” The study, which remains accessible through the Wayback Machine, concluded that far-right extremists have committed significantly more ideologically motivated homicides than those on the left. The study’s removal occurred after Kirk’s death on September 10, 2025, during a speaking event. Former President Donald Trump later commented on the situation, stating that the radicals on the left are the problem, and they are vicious and horrible.
Read More
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has removed a study detailing that white supremacist and far-right violence remains the most prevalent form of terrorism and domestic violent extremism in the United States. The study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice, was hosted on a DOJ website until at least September 12, 2025, according to archived records. A message now appears on the webpage where the study was hosted, indicating a review of websites and materials is underway, citing recent Executive Orders and related guidance. During this review, some content may be unavailable.
Read More
GOP momentum grows to force Trump DOJ to release Epstein files – Here’s what’s really going on.
So, we’re hearing rumblings about “GOP momentum” to get the Epstein files released, huh? Let’s be real here, this is a story that’s been kicking around for a while. The idea is simple: expose the truth, let the chips fall where they may. The sentiment is out there – people want to know what’s in those files. The issue is the lack of actual movement or action to support the announced agenda. It’s like we’re perpetually on the verge of something happening, but the finish line keeps getting moved.… Continue reading
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued requests for voter information to numerous states, encompassing both Republican and Democratic-led jurisdictions. Some states were offered access to the federal SAVE database to verify their voter lists. However, legal concerns have been raised by election law experts, who suggest that the request may violate the 1974 Privacy Act. Both Democratic and Republican officials across the country have rejected the DOJ’s requests, citing concerns about the federal government’s overreach into state electoral processes.
Read More
The Department of Justice is seeking to keep the names of two Jeffrey Epstein associates confidential after they received a combined $350,000 from him in 2018. NBC News filed a motion to unseal the names, but the DOJ is resisting, citing privacy concerns as the associates have objected to their names being released. The associates, described as “co-conspirators,” allegedly received the payments around the time of renewed scrutiny on Epstein’s past plea deal and were promised immunity from prosecution. Prosecutors suggest the payments may be evidence of efforts to influence witnesses.
Read More
The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to keep the names of two associates who received significant payments from Jeffrey Epstein in 2018 sealed, citing privacy concerns. These payments, totaling $100,000 and $250,000 respectively, were made shortly after the Miami Herald began publishing stories critical of Epstein’s 2008 plea deal. Prosecutors had previously argued the payments were evidence of efforts to influence potential witnesses, who were also given protection from prosecution in the plea agreement. NBC News requested the names be unsealed due to Epstein’s death and the closure of criminal proceedings, but the Justice Department is defending the associates’ privacy interests.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood