Autocrats wield law enforcement to punish dissent and protect allies. Under Mr. Trump’s leadership, the Justice Department has pursued legal action against critics and ordered investigations, often at the President’s behest. Appointees, including former personal lawyers, have issued indictments and targeted those perceived as enemies, while executive orders have also been utilized. This environment of retaliation has created fear among public officials, while supporters have been shielded from legal repercussions, as seen with pardons for January 6th rioters.
Read More
In a recent Truth Social post, former President Trump called for the prosecution of several Biden-era Justice Department officials, including Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray. Trump’s accusations stem from an FBI probe known as Arctic Frost, which involved the scrutiny of Republican lawmakers’ phone records related to the 2020 election fallout. The former president claimed these officials engaged in illegal and unethical behavior without specifying the exact crimes committed. This follows a pattern of Trump urging prosecution against individuals he views as political adversaries, amid ongoing investigations into his actions and legal challenges against him.
Read More
Former special counsel Jack Smith is seeking to testify publicly before Congress about the investigations leading to criminal charges against Donald Trump. Smith believes public hearings are necessary due to “mischaracterizations” surrounding his work and wants to defend the integrity of his investigations. However, Smith requires assurances from the Justice Department that he won’t face repercussions for revealing information still under seal or protected by grand jury secrecy. Furthermore, Smith is requesting access to files created during his tenure as special counsel to ensure full and accurate answers.
Read More
Former President Donald Trump has demanded that the Justice Department pay him $230 million in taxpayer dollars as compensation for actions he disagreed with, stemming from investigations into Russian interference and the Mar-a-Lago search. These claims, submitted in 2023, allege violations of his rights. Ethics experts have raised concerns due to the potential for conflicts of interest, as those tasked with approving payments include Trump’s appointees. Despite the obvious ethical challenges, the Justice Department has not clarified whether those involved would recuse themselves.
Read More
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
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood