New reporting reveals Donald Trump demanded the Justice Department pay him $230 million in damages stemming from investigations, marking a significant ethical breach. Experts like Michael Schmidt and Andrew Weissmann highlighted the severity of Trump’s actions on Deadline White House, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of shaking down the American taxpayer for personal financial gain. This unprecedented move is seen as a new low, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the Justice Department.
Read More
Trump Said to Demand Justice Dept. Pay Him $230 Million for Past Cases, and honestly, the whole situation feels like it’s teetering on the edge of absurdity. It’s hard to believe, but reports suggest that Donald Trump is attempting to get the Justice Department to hand over a staggering $230 million. The reactions are understandable; it’s a lot of money, and the mere audacity of the request is, frankly, breathtaking. It immediately raises questions about the integrity of the system and the potential erosion of trust in the government.
The core of the issue, as many are pointing out, is the inherent conflict of interest and the appearance of corruption.… Continue reading
In a recent ruling, a federal judge in Virginia denied the Justice Department’s request for extended discovery deadlines in the case against former FBI Director James Comey. The court ordered prosecutors to provide all discovery materials to the defense by October 13. This decision came after disagreements between the prosecution and defense regarding evidence sharing, with the judge emphasizing fairness and the need to keep the trial on schedule. The first round of motions is due on October 20, with a trial date set for January 5, 2026.
Read More
A federal grand jury indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday for bank fraud, with U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan personally presenting the case. The charges stem from allegations that James misrepresented her intent to use a Virginia home as her primary residence, potentially securing a lower mortgage rate, despite contrary indications in other documents. This indictment follows a pattern of the president weaponizing the Justice Department, as Halligan, recently appointed due to frustration over investigation pacing, also secured charges against former FBI Director James Comey. James has stated that the charges are politically motivated.
Read More
Federal prosecutors have asserted that reposted comments made by U.S. Justice Department officials concerning the case of Luigi Mangione, charged with assassinating UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, will not jeopardize a fair trial. The prosecutors clarified that the officials in question were not involved in the case, unaware of the judge’s warning, and have since been cautioned. They also emphasized the considerable time before a trial date as minimizing any potential influence on prospective jurors, asserting the individuals operate entirely outside the prosecution team’s scope. The judge had previously indicated that the reposts potentially violated court rules, prompting the Justice Department to explain the incidents and outline measures to prevent recurrence.
Read More
Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to allegations of lying to Congress five years ago, initiating a legal battle that is expected to involve motions to dismiss the indictment. The indictment followed public pressure from President Trump on Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against Comey, as well as the appointment of a new prosecutor to file charges. The two-count indictment accuses Comey of making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding, though the evidence and specific information discussed with the media are unclear. The case has brought attention to the Justice Department’s targeting of Trump’s adversaries and its impact on the long-broken relationship between Trump and Comey.
Read More
A federal judge believes the Justice Department may have brought criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia out of vindictiveness after his successful lawsuit against the Trump administration for his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. The judge cited evidence suggesting the government sought retaliation, potentially to deter Abrego Garcia from further legal action. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are now seeking to dismiss the charges and gather evidence to prove the administration’s improper motives, which may include testimony from officials. If successful, it could be an embarrassing outcome for the Justice Department, especially considering public statements from officials and the unusually delayed nature of the charges.
Read More
A federal judge believes the immigrant defendant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, may have been targeted with a criminal charge by the Justice Department out of vindictiveness for suing the Trump administration. The judge is allowing further evidence gathering and a hearing to investigate this claim, potentially including testimony from officials. This follows Abrego Garcia’s wrongful removal to El Salvador and subsequent indictment for transporting undocumented immigrants after a 2022 traffic stop, with the timing of the charges being unusually delayed. Furthermore, public statements from administration officials and a Deputy Attorney General’s comments on TV have raised suspicions of an improper motive, potentially providing direct evidence of vindictiveness.
Read More
Former special counsel Jack Smith expressed deep concern regarding the current state of the rule of law, stating it is “under attack” like never before. Smith highlighted instances of the Justice Department’s diminished credibility, citing the dismissal of career public servants and the perceived erosion of nonpartisan enforcement. He noted that political opponents and perceived enemies are targeted for investigation, while those close to the president face no such scrutiny. Smith’s remarks emphasized the critical importance of equal application and enforcement of the law for all citizens.
Read More
Justice Dept officials’ statements on Luigi Mangione broke court rules, judge says. It’s a phrase that immediately raises eyebrows, doesn’t it? It speaks to a potential breakdown in the very foundations of our legal system, where fairness and due process are supposed to reign supreme. And the fact that Justice Department officials, the very people tasked with upholding the law, are accused of this, adds another layer of complexity. You can’t help but wonder, what exactly did they say, and why did it warrant such a stern rebuke from the bench?
The crux of the issue, it seems, revolves around the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood