All posts tagged "justice department"

Todd Blanche torched by legal experts for unraveling his own 'meritless' judges case

Attorney General Todd Blanche's Justice Department undermined its own misconduct complaint against a slew of outspoken federal judges, legal experts argued.

The critique came in a Saturday editorial published by The Contrarian and co-written by lawyer and publisher Norm Eisen, retired U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, and lawyer and legal scholar Matthew Seligman.

On Wednesday, Blanche filed a judicial misconduct complaint targeting almost every active federal judge in Minnesota after several of them spoke publicly about the strain an immigration enforcement surge put on their courthouse last winter. The authors noted that during that period, federal officials repeatedly ignored court orders and judges received threats.

"The complaint is meritless," the authors wrote. "Worse, it is an attack on the independence of the federal judiciary at a moment when that independence is under extraordinary pressure."

Blanche's chief target is Judge Patrick Schiltz, a Bush appointee and former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who recently stepped down as the district's chief judge. Schiltz told The New York Times last month that the situation in Minnesota posed a serious danger to the rule of law.

"This is a flagrant violation in the department's view of the Code of Judicial Conduct," Blanche told reporters.

Blanche claims the judges broke the federal judicial code of conduct by commenting publicly. The authors countered that the relevant rule only bars judges from weighing in on the merits of pending cases, which they said Schiltz specifically avoided doing. Blanche's reading "badly distorts the ethical rules governing federal judges," they wrote.

The authors also argued the complaint works against itself, since much of it focuses on rulings the judges issued rather than anything they told the Times. They wrote that the filing "inadvertently reveals the weakness of its ethics argument."

The DOJ has asked that Schiltz and Judge John Tunheim be pulled from all cases involving the Department of Homeland Security.

"A litigant unhappy with a court's rulings is trying to pick its own judges," the authors wrote. "That should alarm anyone who cares about judicial independence."

They pointed out that the judiciary's own ethics committee advised in February that judges may speak up in defense of the rule of law and judicial independence, including against threats to defy court orders.

"The canons of judicial ethics exist to protect an independent and impartial judiciary," the authors wrote. "They cannot be transformed into a muzzle that prevents judges from defending judicial independence when it is under attack."

GOP board defies chair in demand that Trump DOJ declare state's voting machines illegal

Georgia's Republican-controlled State Election Board is asking the Justice Department to declare the state's voting machines illegal ahead of the midterms.

In a letter sent Thursday, board Executive Director James Mills asked Attorney General Todd Blanche and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the DOJ Civil Rights Division, to "prohibit" the state's QR code-based vote counting. Mills also urged federal officials to "set a binding six-month deadline" for Georgia to switch to a different voting system.

The letter takes aim at the ballot-marking devices Georgia voters use to make their picks, which turn those selections into QR codes that scanners later read. Mills argued that "unreadable, unverifiable QR code-based vote tabulation" runs afoul of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) because voters can't check the vote that actually gets counted.

Mills went further, pressing the Justice Department to force a statewide software update before November and to investigate the secretary of state's office over allegations that it withheld or altered election records. He also claimed the system "can be compromised in seconds with an ordinary ballpoint pen, as demonstrated in federal court."

The letter follows a resolution three board members approved earlier this week directing Mills to seek help from the Trump administration. Member Carolyn Roddy, the Republican Party's appointee, introduced the measure, and Vice Chair Janelle King and member Salleigh Grubbs joined her in passing it, Democracy Docket reported.

Grubbs backed the resolution despite calling herself "a strict constitutionalist" who opposes federal involvement in state election matters, according to Democracy Docket.

Board Chairman John Fervier, Gov. Brian Kemp's appointee, opposed it.

"I have a fundamental issue with the federal government becoming involved in Georgia elections," Fervier said. "I just fundamentally disagree with it."

The Constitution leaves election administration to state and local officials, and the Justice Department has no legal power to declare voting machines unlawful or seize them on its own, Democracy Docket noted.

Mills copied Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on the letter. Mullin has separately asked the Justice Department to declare QR code machines unlawful under HAVA.

Trump DOJ ordered to fast-track Epstein files release after 'big win': expert

A federal judge ordered the Trump Justice Department to fast-track a watchdog group's request for Epstein files, including records mentioning President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the ruling in a memorandum opinion filed Wednesday. She granted in part a motion for summary judgment from Democracy Defenders Fund, finding the group is entitled to expedited processing of three Freedom of Information Act requests it submitted to DOJ in July 2025.

"BIG WIN for making the Epstein Files public," Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, celebrated in a post on X after the ruling. "Orders DOJ to get busy giving us the docs. We will hold their feet to the fire."

The group's July 2025 request to the DOJ's Criminal Division sought records from the department's investigations of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell that mention Trump or Mar-a-Lago. Its July 28 requests sought communications about the Epstein files involving top officials, including then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, FBI Director Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.

Kollar-Kotelly found the requests involved matters of "widespread and exceptional media interest" that raised "possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence," the standard under DOJ's own regulations.

"All in all, the coverage cited by DDF surfaced possible ethical issues that had the potential to reduce public confidence in governmental institutions," she wrote.

The judge pointed to a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing 69 percent of Americans believed the government was hiding details about Epstein's clients. She also cited reports that Bondi "had 'pressured' approximately 1,000 FBI personnel in 24-hour shifts to review an estimated 100,000 Epstein-related records and to 'flag' any records in which President Trump was mentioned."

The win was not total. Kollar-Kotelly narrowed parts of the July 28 requests to the officials named in them rather than "any [DOJ] official," finding the broader language overbroad. She also rejected the group's argument that it qualified for expedition under FOIA's "compelling need" provision, ruling it had not shown it is "primarily engaged in disseminating information."

She wrote, "Although it is a close call, the Court concludes that, on the present record, DDF has not established that it is primarily engaged in disseminating information."

The ruling moves the group's requests to the front of the line but does not set a production deadline. DOJ can still withhold material under FOIA exemptions.

Trump DOJ accused of using bonkers Epstein scheme to protect Wall Street banker: report

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) accused the Justice Department of "secretly hiding" an FBI interview with a banker tied to Jeffrey Epstein to protect Wall Street.

Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, made the accusation in an interview with MeidasTouch on Wednesday. The same day, he sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel demanding every FBI 302 report tied to investigations into Epstein and his associates.

"I have learned that the Department of Justice is secretly hiding an FBI Epstein document for one reason, to protect the Wall Street banks," Wyden said. "This document describes an interview with one of the Epstein bankers, and it would help make the case that the biggest Wall Street banks need to be punished for looking the other way."

"My view is that Todd Blanche and Kash Patel are covering this up," he added. "Covering this up to protect the banks who worked with Epstein."

According to the letter, Wyden's investigators recently learned that the FBI has a 302 report memorializing the banker interview, which was conducted as part of a criminal investigation. The report was left out of the documents DOJ released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Wyden wrote that its existence "indicates that it is likely that the FBI possesses additional related 302s that have not been released."

The letter, which was featured in a Wednesday report by MeidasTouch, does not name the banker, the bank or when the interview took place. Wyden told MeidasTouch, "I'm not naming the person who was interviewed in order to protect my source."

The demand builds on a Finance Committee report Wyden released last month. It presented evidence that executives at JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America violated federal anti-money laundering laws by failing to screen and report Epstein's suspicious transactions in a timely manner, according to reporting by MeidasTouch.

According to the letter, the banks were "looking the other way" as Epstein withdrew millions of dollars in cash with no clear business purpose and took part in thousands of suspicious wire transfers worth at least $1.4 billion.

"If the Wall Street banks had just followed the law that was on the books, nothing new, just the law that was on the books, we could have ended this Epstein horror show years and years earlier," Wyden told MeidasTouch. "And the banks don't want that out."

Eric Schmitt was warned about unvetted Jack Smith 'gotcha' texts before blunder: report

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) was warned that texts he used to accuse former special counsel Jack Smith of perjury were unvetted.

Republican staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee cautioned Schmitt ahead of Smith's testimony Tuesday that the Justice Department texts had not been verified, a source with direct knowledge of the conversation told MS NOW for a report on Wednesday. Schmitt went ahead and used them anyway.

According to the source, Schmitt had asked GOP staffers for material tying Smith's investigation of Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' Georgia case. His team was given access to the texts after showing interest, but committee staff made clear that checking the information was their job, the source said.

The Justice Department had shared materials with Republican Judiciary staff before the hearing, according to multiple sources. Committee Chair Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) team put together a memo on key information for the hearing but left the texts out of it, one source said.

Grassley also didn't give the texts to Democratic senators in advance, according to a Democratic staffer and another person briefed by committee staff. One of them said the move deepened Democrats' suspicion that congressional Republicans and the Trump administration were working together to undermine or trap Smith.

During the hearing, Schmitt claimed Smith had been at an Atlanta Hawks game on February 3, 2024, suggesting he may have been secretly coordinating with Willis. Smith looked puzzled and said he couldn't remember being in Atlanta, apart from possibly waiting in the airport for a connecting flight.

"I definitely did not go to a Hawks game," Smith said. "I'm sure of that."

Schmitt smiled at the answer.

"I think you've already perjured yourself," he said.

Minutes later, Smith remembered attending a women's college basketball game around that date. It was the Iowa Hawkeyes against the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland, played the same day as the Hawks game. MS NOW reported that the seat number cited in the staff texts doesn't exist at the Hawks' State Farm Arena.

Neither Schmitt's office nor the DOJ immediately responded to MS NOW's request for comment.

Trump DOJ lawyer dares federal judge to rule against him in courtroom standoff: report

A Justice Department lawyer dared a federal judge to rule against the Trump administration rather than give the court advance notice.

Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias flagged the exchange in a Tuesday livestream, saying it was "urgent enough that it deserved the alert" his viewers received. The line came from "a trial lawyer for the Department of Justice's civil division," Elias said.

"If you want to enjoin us, enjoin us," the lawyer said, per Elias.

Elias noted that "it is rare for a lawyer, for a party to tell a judge to rule against them."

At issue are citizenship lists that the Department of Homeland Security plans to "ship to states." Elias said, "The clear implication is that anyone not on this list is not eligible to vote." Elias said the lawsuit in Maryland argued, "it would violate the privacy rights of the individuals on this list."

The judge's request was modest, according to Elias.

"The judge wasn't telling the Department of Justice they couldn't release these lists," he said. "What the judge was saying in Maryland was just that she wanted a heads-up."

She asked for "30 days notice," or immediate word if a release was coming sooner. Elias put the DOJ lawyer's response in blunt terms.

"Look, your honor, we would rather you rule against us. We would rather you say we can't release these lists at all than to have to be transparent, than to have to tell you in advance that we are going to release these lists."

"It's kind of an incredible thing that the Department of Justice would rather have a lack of transparency and lose the case than have transparency," Elias said. "I mean, it leads you to kind of wonder what are they hiding? Why are they so concerned?"

His answer was that "the Department of Justice wanted to appeal." A loss would clear the way for "an immediate appeal," so "they just wanted to take a loss so that they could appeal this rather than have that transparency."

The judge refused to "take the bait," Elias said. "To use her exact words, I'm not doing anything to enjoin you." Instead, she "issued an order saying that she expects that she will be notified in advance."

"The Department of Justice is constantly in this position of playing cat and mouse with the federal courts, which is a far cry from what it used to be," Elias said. "Department of Justice lawyers used to be the most straight laced, the most sort of by the book lawyers."

'Fatal' DOJ concession flagged that torpedoed Trump's Reflecting Pool case

The Justice Department is trying to revive its case against David Hearn despite admitting that it cannot prove he damaged the Reflecting Pool.

Legal analyst Adam Klasfeld offered updates on the DOJ's efforts after a judge grilled prosecutors during a hearing on Friday. Writing for All Rise News the same day, Klasfeld noted that the DOJ's concession that it can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hearn damaged the Reflecting Pool has proved "fatal."

D.C. Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman asked DOJ prosecutors why they want to revive the case against Hearn.

"Why isn't the threat of harassment faced by Mr. Hearn completely different from prosecutions in a normal case?" Edelman asked, per Klasfeld.

Last month, Edelman dismissed Hearn's indictment after admissions by the Trump administration made the case unsustainable, Klasfeld noted. Edelman considered throwing out the case against Hearn "with prejudice" on Friday, which would mean the DOJ can no longer bring cases against Hearn for allegedly damaging the Reflecting Pool, according to Klasfeld.

The Trump administration already conceded that the damage to the Reflecting Pool resulted from a "botched installation and not vandalism," Klasfeld wrote. The peeling of the pool's sealant was caused by an "over-spray," and a National Park Service engineer cut the sealant with a knife to contain the damage, Klasfeld wrote, noting admissions by the Trump administration.

A felony vandalism charge requires proof of damages for at least $1,000, and Edelman seemed to weigh that during Friday's hearing, Klasfeld noted.

"The Justice Department concedes it cannot prove that prong of the case beyond a reasonable doubt," Klasfeld wrote. "And that concession seemed fatal to the judge."

Edelman asked DOJ prosecutors, "What future prosecution could ever occur?" Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Spence told him the question would require "speculation."

When asked whether DOJ is currently investigating Hearn, Spence said, "No," adding, "Ten minutes from now that decision could change."

Misread email subject line accidentally freezes Trump DOJ's work with top ally

The Justice Department accidentally stopped working with Canada after a division chief misunderstood instructions to reschedule a meeting, The Wall Street Journal reported.

According to a Friday article, the DOJ's antitrust division was instructed to halt all work with the Canadian government after an email was sent out with the subject line, "Pause on Canada." The chief of the antitrust division's international section, Lynda Marshall, sent out the email after she was told to reschedule a meeting.

The email ordered DOJ officials in the division to stop all cooperation on cases and engagement on policy issues with Canadian authorities, according to The Journal. Marshall didn't offer any reasoning in her email for why the division had to stop working with Canada, but she wrote that she would "circle back if the guidance changes," The Journal reported.

A follow-up email was sent on Friday to section chiefs within the division demanding lists detailing areas of cooperation with Canada by the end of the day, according to The Journal. In yet another email from Marshall that came later that day, she told staff in the division that she had been mistaken and cooperation with Canada could continue.

Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Covington told The Journal that the directive to stop cooperation came after Marshall misunderstood a directive. Covington explained that Marshall had been told to push back a scheduled meeting, The Journal reported.

The mix-up came as the Trump administration and Canada are in a dispute after trade talks broke down last month, with both the U.S. and Canada imposing tariffs on each other.

According to The Journal, the DOJ division has resumed working with Canada. Representatives from Canada or its Competition Bureau didn't respond to The Journal's request for comment.

The Journal noted that Canadian and U.S. antitrust authorities have multiple agreements in place to increase cooperation and have collaborated on major investigations since the 2000s. The two countries worked together on investigations into price-fixing in the auto parts and air cargo industries as well as on cases about mergers in tech, aerospace, and other industries.

DOJ's own courtroom promise comes back to sink Trump mail-in ballot rule

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration's mail-in ballot rule by turning the Justice Department's own courtroom promises against it.

The ruling is the latest twist in the months-long fight over the Trump administration's push to give the federal government a gatekeeping role in mail-in voting. The Supreme Court let the administration move forward on August 24, and the U.S. Postal Service finalized the mail-in ballot rule two days later, which sent states and voting-rights groups racing back to court to block it before mail ballots start going out in September.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Thursday granted a fourteen-day temporary restraining order freezing the mandatory core of the U.S. Postal Service's rule for any election on or before November 3, including envelope-design approvals, voter enrollment in a new federal portal and provisions letting USPS refuse to mail non-compliant ballots.

The rule flowed from President Donald Trump's March executive order directing USPS to police mail voting. Two weeks ago, DOJ lawyers had assured her that challengers would have a fast remedy once the rule was issued, Talwani noted in her ruling granting the injunction.

"When the final rule is implemented, if it affects an individual voter's ability to vote, then they certainly have standing to challenge that final rule," Talwani wrote. "And courts are able to work in an expedited basis. It would only take a very short amount of time for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to issue."

Days ago, the DOJ said plaintiffs could "simply amend their complaint." But once they did, it reversed course and argued they were now too late because "appellate review in the ordinary course would come too late for the 2026 midterms." Talwani rejected the DOJ's pivot.

"But the question is not when appellate review will be completed," Talwani wrote. "The issue before the court is whether plaintiffs have met the traditional standards for emergency relief."

She found the states likely to win and ruled the USPS lacked authority to regulate election mail. The postal service's interest in "correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement," she wrote.

A preliminary injunction hearing is set for September 3.

'Hidden costs' of Trump DOJ's corruption come home to roost as cases stall: expert

The Justice Department's "nakedly political" prosecutions have made it harder to convict criminals, which will hurt the public, a former prosecutor warned.

In a Tuesday Substack article, former U.S. attorney Harry Litman argued that the reprisal prosecutions dominating the headlines, including cases against figures like James Comey and Letitia James, are only one face of what he called "the other side of the DOJ's corruption." The more damaging fallout lands where few are looking, he warned.

Litman pointed to a run of losses in Washington's federal courthouse under D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, whose office has "spent the presumption [of regularity] down to nothing." Jurors now take their seats "already jaundiced" toward a department they no longer trust, so even strong cases are buckling, he warned.

"The damage comes home to roost in other righteous cases that have always been the hallmark of the DOJ," Litman wrote. "We're seeing cases that likely would have and should have proceeded to conviction coming up short, with tangible costs borne by the public."

His prime example is accused MS-13 ringleader Moises Rivera-Luna, who is "no sandwich-thrower," as Litman put it. The government accused Rivera-Luna of ordering murders from a Salvadoran jail cell. Two D.C. juries deadlocked, and Pirro's office plans to try him a third time in September by "running the same script that failed twice," Litman wrote.

Litman branded the pattern the "hidden costs of the Justice Department's corruption and fecklessness," and he stressed that the bill for those hidden costs doesn't land on Trump.

"When Rivera-Luna walks out of that courtroom because the jury could not bring itself to trust the government that charged him, the price is not paid by Jeanine Pirro or by the president who installed her," Litman wrote. "It is paid on the streets of Washington."

He placed the blame on Pirro and Attorney General Todd Blanche because they're "proud to champion" the abandonment of decades of prosecutorial norms.

"Make no mistake," Litman warned. "It's the public that pays the wages of the corruption."