DOJ, RIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember when the Supreme Court’s rationale for “absolute immunity” was that it would prevent politically motivated investigations against former political opponents?

It only covers former presidents, not the broad category of political opponents.

You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

Bondi *can’t* fire a U.S. Attorney appointed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). Only President Trump can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bondi *can’t* fire a U.S. Attorney appointed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). Only President Trump can.

Wow. Shenanigans in New Jersey. Bondi and Blanche think they're omnipotent.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/alina-habba-successor-fired-by-justice-department/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bondi *can’t* fire a U.S. Attorney appointed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). Only President Trump can.

Wow. Shenanigans in New Jersey. Bondi and Blanche think they're omnipotent.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/alina-habba-successor-fired-by-justice-department/

More DEI for mediocre people, I suppose. If it wasn’t for DEI there wouldn’t be a single maga with a job.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the person running this office should have more than five years experience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the person running this office should have more than five years experience?

Interesting article. The federal law enforcement officers have been found in many cases to be outright lying and fabricating stories while trying to justify arrests of protestors.

Officers caught lying should be charged with crimes against the Constitution. They are the worst of Big Government agents.

No joke - a cop who lies to the courts to try to send someone to prison and deprive someone of their freedom should be hung from the nearest tree for all to see.

According to an investigation summary of the incident reviewed by The Times, a U.S. Border Patrol officer claimed a man was screaming in his face that he was going to “shoot him,” then punched him. The officer said he and other agents started chasing the man, but were “stopped by two other males,” later identified as Mojica and Bryan Ramos-Brito.

Blanco said she obtained social media videos showing no such chase took place and presented them at Mojica’s first court appearance. The charges were soon dropped.

“The agent lied and said he was in hot pursuit of a person who punched him,” Blanco said. “The entirety of the affidavit is false.”
….
Similar issues arose in the case of Andrea Velez, who was charged on June 25 with assaulting a federal officer. The criminal complaint alleged Velez, who is 4 feet 11 inches, stood in the path of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer with her arms extended, striking his head and chest when they collided.

Diane Bass, Velez’s attorney, said the incident occurred when masked, unidentified men in plainclothes pulled up to question a downtown L.A. street vendor.

Velez had just been dropped off for work when some of the masked men ran at her and one shoved her to the ground, Bass said. Velez, fearing she was being abducted, held up her work bag to shield herself.

Bass requested body-worn camera video and witness statements cited in the complaint. Soon after, she said, the prosecutor dismissed the case.
….
One of the three officials, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said concerns are growing among prosecutors about the accuracy of statements by federal immigration agents that serve as the basis for criminal charges.

“There are a lot of hotheaded [Customs and Border Protection] officers who are kind of arresting first and asking questions later. We’re finding there’s not probable cause to support it,” said the prosecutor, who requested anonymity over concerns of repercussions.

Rouge LEOs who hate constitutional rights of the American need to meet the Tree of Liberty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans have no faith in DOJ because it's been hopelessly biased for years. Not sure what the point of this thread is, but it's not changing the pattern of DOJ's behavior.

If you'd like an example, DOJ asked for an 18-24 month sentence for terrorists who firebombed a police car and much longer sentences for protestors based on an incorrect reading of the law. Heck, DOJ even prosecuted an anon on the internet for a meme under a case so bad the DOJ literally lacked evidence that the anon participated in a conspiracy.

If you're referring to the J6ers, that wasn't bias. That was just the fact that we don't have harsh enough laws on the books for insurrection, since it is such a rare occurrence. The problem there wasn't with DOJ.

It was the J6ers.

You ignore the fact the DOJ misapplied the law. Of course, they did so against J6 because they were biased and did not feel compelled to follow the law. You're acknowledging the problem. Thanks.

That’s not really what happened. The DOJ used an expansive (and indeed, novel) reading of 18 U.S.C. 1512 to prosecute some J6ers. The lower courts approved that expansive reading. SCOTUS reversed in a 6-3 decision.

You seem to imply that DOJ knew its reading was wrong from the beginning. I’m not sure why you think that. The history in the lower courts (and at the Supreme Court where the decision was not along political lines) shows that reasonable minds could have differed about the applicability of the statute to the conduct at issue.

DOJ was still moving forward on new cases knowing the Supreme Court might overturn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans have no faith in DOJ because it's been hopelessly biased for years. Not sure what the point of this thread is, but it's not changing the pattern of DOJ's behavior.

If you'd like an example, DOJ asked for an 18-24 month sentence for terrorists who firebombed a police car and much longer sentences for protestors based on an incorrect reading of the law. Heck, DOJ even prosecuted an anon on the internet for a meme under a case so bad the DOJ literally lacked evidence that the anon participated in a conspiracy.

If you're referring to the J6ers, that wasn't bias. That was just the fact that we don't have harsh enough laws on the books for insurrection, since it is such a rare occurrence. The problem there wasn't with DOJ.

It was the J6ers.

You ignore the fact the DOJ misapplied the law. Of course, they did so against J6 because they were biased and did not feel compelled to follow the law. You're acknowledging the problem. Thanks.

That’s not really what happened. The DOJ used an expansive (and indeed, novel) reading of 18 U.S.C. 1512 to prosecute some J6ers. The lower courts approved that expansive reading. SCOTUS reversed in a 6-3 decision.

You seem to imply that DOJ knew its reading was wrong from the beginning. I’m not sure why you think that. The history in the lower courts (and at the Supreme Court where the decision was not along political lines) shows that reasonable minds could have differed about the applicability of the statute to the conduct at issue.

DOJ was still moving forward on new cases knowing the Supreme Court might overturn.

The Supreme Coury might do anything. You don't wait around for them, it can take a very long time. When they issue an opinion, then that is when you listen and obey.

[Anonymous]

This is worth a listen. DOJ attorneys being told to lie to Courts and disregard court orders. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/podcasts/the-daily/a-doj-whistleblower-speaks-out.html?rref=vanity

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The nominee for OSC is in the process of being Ed Martin'ed. There's that.

Now if only they would do the same to Emil Bove...