The Justice Department has reached a deal with Boeing, averting criminal prosecution for misleading regulators about the 737 Max. This agreement involves Boeing paying over $1.1 billion, including $445 million for victims’ families, in exchange for dismissal of fraud charges. The deal avoids a potential criminal conviction that could have impacted Boeing’s federal contractor status. While some victims’ families and senators opposed the non-prosecution agreement, the Justice Department maintains this resolution provides financial accountability and benefits for future air travel safety. Boeing will also retain an independent consultant to oversee compliance.
Read More
Despite a guilty plea last year, the Department of Justice is reportedly dropping criminal charges against Boeing in favor of a non-criminal settlement. This settlement will add $444.5 million to the crash victims’ fund, but families of the 346 victims killed in two 737 Max crashes are outraged, deeming it insufficient and a betrayal of justice. The decision stems from Boeing’s withdrawal of its guilty plea and subsequent assertion of a litigation risk, a claim disputed by victims’ attorneys. Families intend to challenge this decision in court.
Read More
A federal judge ordered the immediate return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the US after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador, where he was imprisoned. The judge deemed the deportation an illegal act, as the Justice Department offered no explanation for his removal despite possessing no legal authority to arrest him. Abrego Garcia, who had legal work authorization and protection from deportation, was wrongly accused of gang affiliation based on unsubstantiated claims. His wife, a US citizen, and their children await his return.
Read More
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered the dismissal of all corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a decision made without prejudice and potentially subject to future refiling. Bove’s memo suggested the charges were politically motivated, a claim disputed by legal experts. The charges, which included bribery and campaign finance violations stemming from Adams’ time as Brooklyn Borough President, were brought by a Biden-appointed U.S. attorney and will be reviewed upon the confirmation of a Trump-appointed replacement. Adams and his attorney have consistently maintained his innocence.
Read More
Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll defied a Justice Department order to dismiss agents involved in January 6th riot investigations, refusing to provide a list of thousands of involved personnel. This action, though initially feared to result in Driscoll’s dismissal, ultimately led to the forced removal of eight senior FBI executives but not the broader list’s release. Driscoll’s defiance was met with conflicting statements from the FBI and Justice Department, but sources indicated that the Trump administration aimed to fire agents involved in January 6th cases, raising concerns about the legality of these actions and potentially chilling future investigations. Legal experts deemed the firings illegal due to lack of due process.
Read More
At least six high-ranking FBI officials, including those overseeing cyber, national security, and criminal investigations, have been ordered to leave their positions by Monday. These personnel changes, extending a purge that began last week at the Justice Department, follow the Trump administration’s stated intention to replace leaders appointed under former FBI Director Christopher Wray. The actions have caused internal concern, particularly as the targeted officials were not involved in Trump-related prosecutions. This follows anxieties among hundreds of agents involved in investigations of the January 6th Capitol attack and Trump’s handling of classified documents, who fear similar repercussions.
Read More
The Justice Department has ended its appeal of the dismissal of charges against Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, two co-defendants in the classified documents case against Donald Trump. This decision, aligning with the co-defendants’ wishes, effectively concludes the criminal cases against all three men. A federal judge previously dismissed the charges, ruling that the special counsel’s appointment was unconstitutional. The DOJ’s action follows the dropping of charges against Trump himself after his election victory.
Read More
Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated several Justice Department officials involved in prosecuting Donald Trump, citing a lack of trust in their ability to implement the president’s agenda. These career lawyers, including Molly Gaston, J.P. Cooney, Anne McNamara, and Mary Dohrmann, worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and attempts to overturn the 2020 election. The firings are seen as retaliatory and have been condemned by legal experts as anti-rule of law and anti-democratic. The dismissed employees retain the right to appeal their terminations through the federal Merit Systems Protection Board.
Read More
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s handling of the investigation into Donald Trump’s actions surrounding the January 6th insurrection is widely criticized for its delay and perceived lack of decisiveness. While initially focusing on lower-level participants, Garland’s slow response to investigate Trump directly allowed time for the Supreme Court and other actors to hinder subsequent prosecutions. This inaction, coupled with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Trump v. United States*, is argued to have significantly weakened efforts to hold Trump accountable, ultimately contributing to the rise of reactionary forces. The author contends that Garland’s failure to act swiftly represents a significant dereliction of duty.
Read More
A federal judge blocked the Justice Department from releasing to Congress the portion of Jack Smith’s report detailing his classified documents investigation of President Trump. Judge Aileen Cannon granted a request from Trump’s co-defendants, citing concerns that the release would prejudice their ongoing criminal proceedings. She rejected the Justice Department’s argument that releasing the report was a historical practice, emphasizing the lack of congressional subpoenas or pending legislation related to the report. The judge found the Department’s justification insufficient and determined that congressional access would likely lead to public dissemination of sensitive information.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker