Politics

The DOJ has a very long memory. Hamas leaders may not want to call that bluff.

Published

2 years ago

November 12, 2024

The DOJ has a very long memory. Hamas leaders may not want to call that bluff.

Why? And why now?

Those were the first questions that sprang to mind Tuesday, when the Justice Department unsealed a criminal complaint charging six leaders of Hamas for their roles in the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack in Israel that killed around 1,200 people, including 40 U.S. citizens. A DOJ press statement said the attack was the “culmination of Hamas’s decades-long campaign of terrorism and violence against Israel and its allies, including American citizens.”

According to the complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, Hamas was founded “to create an Islamic Palestinian state throughout Israel by eliminating the State of Israel through violent holy war.” The complaint further states that “Hamas has murdered and injured dozens of Americans as part of its campaign of violence and terror,” and has done so “in retaliation for and in an effort to weaken American support for Israel’s right to exist and defense of that right.” The 38-page document details decades of brutal attacks and atrocities going back to 1997 that were allegedly committed by a group the U.S. government has designated a foreign terrorist organization since.

The Justice Department has long been in the business of using criminal prosecution to hold terrorists who kill American citizens accountable.

Let’s start with the first question. Why would the DOJ file charges against Hamas leaders it is unlikely to ever arrest and bring to trial, particularly when three of those leaders have been already been killed?

First, the Justice Department has long been in the business of using criminal prosecution to hold terrorists who kill American citizens accountable, even when the conduct occurs overseas. For example, in 2002, the Justice Department announced charges against Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh for his role in the brutal killing of journalist Daniel Pearldespite the defendant’s pending charges in Pakistan. In 2017, Ahmed Abu Khatallah was convicted in a U.S. court for helping to plan and carry out the 2012 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans posted in Libya.

In some instances, it can take years or even decades to bring defendants to justice, but the DOJ has pursued terrorists relentlessly across administrations. In 2020, the Justice Department unsealed charges against the accused maker of the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 and killed 190 Americans over Lockerbie, Scotland, 34 years earlier. In 2021, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York announced charges against Taliban commander Haji Najibullah for his alleged role in the killing of three American service members in 2008. In 2011, prosecution of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania was completed with the life sentence of the fifth defendant, Ahmad Ghailani.

As Attorney General Merrick Garland noted in his press remarks this week, “the Justice Department has a long memory,” vowing to pursue terrorists responsible for murdering Americans “for the rest of their lives.”

The second reason to file criminal charges is to achieve what the DOJ and other experts sometimes refer to as “naming and shaming.” Even when charges do not result in a criminal conviction and penalty, they can serve as a sort of moral condemnation on the world stage, in this case forcing foreign governments to take note of Hamas’ record of terrorism.

To the extent Hamas portrays itself as a legitimate political entity or one engaged in humanitarian efforts, the indictment paints a starkly different picture of a group that engages in vicious violence. The complaint describes the October 7 attack as a “massacre,” detailing abductions, the burning of homes, shootings with machine guns at point-blank range and sexual violence against women, including rape and genital mutilation. It details brutality against grandparents and young children.

The complaint also calls out Iran for allegedly supporting, supplying and training Hamas to achieve its own objectives of “damaging, weakening, and ultimately destroying both the United States and Israel.” Hezbollah, another group the U.S. government designates a terrorist organization, is also named in the complaint as an ally of Hamas that assisted in the Oct. 7 attack. Calling Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas the “axis of resistance,” the complaint lays out a damning account of their conduct against the United States and its citizens.

A third reason to file a criminal complaint against Hamas may be to curtail its fundraising capabilities. The complaint specifies in great detail how the organization solicited and received $7.7 million in funds to promote terrorist activities through cryptocurrency payments, ostensibly to protect donor anonymity. By disclosing that the U.S. government is capable of tracking payments, prosecutors may hope to deter donors from contributing further.

The announcement of charges comes at a time when cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Gaza seem especially fragile.

But even if the reasons for filing the complaint may be compelling, the question remains as to why now. The announcement of charges comes at a time when cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Gaza seem especially fragile. During the weekend, Israeli authorities recovered in a tunnel beneath Gaza the bodies of six hostages who had recently been killed. On Monday, Benjamin Netanyahu responded to massive protests seemed to double down on his demands. His remarks made the odds of a resolution soon feel even less likely.

The complaint offers some tells about its timing. The last page of the complaint asks the court to seal the document except as needed “to secure the defendants’ arrest, extradition, or expulsion, or as otherwise required for purposes of national security.” That page also indicates that the complaint was filed in February, before the three deceased defendants were killed. To the extent authorities had hoped to find and arrest them in a country that permits extradition, their deaths reduce the complaint’s need for secrecy.

This is not the DOJ going rogue. I know from my own experience as a federal prosecutor that policy prohibits charging decisions on the basis of politics. When a case may affect national security or foreign policy, it always involves interagency coordination. The White House and the State Department most certainly would have been briefed and asked to assess this case in light of the United States’ objectives in the Middle East. Garland himself hinted at this coordination when he referred to “the whole-of-government effort to bring the Americans still being held hostage home.” Similarly, State Department spokesman Matt Miller said Tuesday, “when it comes to U.S. policy, we have long made clear that our first priority when it comes to terrorists is to see terrorists apprehended and brought the United States to stand trial for their crimes.”

It’s also possible recent events actually prompted the DOJ’s decision to unseal the complaint. Hamas’ refusal to release hostages will remain a sticking point to any cease-fire resolution. This may be DOJ’s way of reminding Hamas that the U.S. is in the fight for the long haul.

As Miller said Tuesday, “It is time to finalize that deal. The people of Israel cannot afford to wait any longer. The Palestinian people, who are also suffering the terrible effects of this war, cannot afford to wait any longer. The world cannot afford to wait any longer.”

Barbara McQuade

Barbara McQuade is an BLN columnist and NBC News and BLN legal analyst. She is the author of “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America,”as well as a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Politics

Poll: Republicans’ gas price problem is even worse than it seems

Published

4 hours ago

July 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Gas prices are high. Americans think they’re even higher.

Three in five Americans believe gas prices in their area have risen by more than they actually have, according to an analysis of new results from The Blue Light News Poll. It’s those perceptions that candidates will be running against this fall.

Voters’ anxieties about fuel prices could give Democrats a boost ahead of the midterms, further strengthening the Democratic voting base and putting strains on the MAGA coalition as the increasingly unpopular war in Iran drags on. A plurality of Americans — 46 percent — say the change in gas prices will impact how they plan to vote come November.

Most voters overestimated the change in gas prices in their area, according to the analysis of polling and granular pricing data provided by OPIS, a Dow Jones company that tracks gas prices. That includes majorities of voters who supported President Donald Trump and also those who supported former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Roughly one in four Americans say gas in their local area has risen by $3.00 or more. But no zip code has actually seen that degree of change on average in the year and a half since Trump took office, as of early July.

Frustrations over cost of living could be reinforcing existing negative views of the Trump administration: Harris voters are far more likely to overshoot the cost jumps than Trump voters, making it harder for Republicans to peel off Democratic voters.

And the analysis shows a fracture among Trump voters. Self-identified MAGA Republicans were more likely to underestimate cost increases than non-MAGA Republicans — another crack in the president’s winning coalition as Republicans scramble to hold it together for the midterms.

“It is a particularly tough dance that many Republican candidates will have to endure for the next three months,” said Arizona GOP strategist Barrett Marson. “How do you feel the pain of your voters without feeling the wrath of Donald Trump?”

What’s more, American’s perceptions do not quickly change even when prices do. The Blue Light News Poll asked about gas prices in both May, when they were near their peak, and July, when they had dipped.

The results were the same in both.

“President Trump and his energy team anticipated these temporary market disruptions, communicated them openly to the American people, and implemented an aggressive plan to mitigate any impacts,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers. “As the U.S. military degrades the terrorist Iranian regime’s ability to attack commercial vessels and disrupt the free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, oil and gas prices will plummet back to pre-conflict levels.”

Gas prices could swing votes

Americans’ frustrations with prices and the economy overall are changing how they say they will vote in the fall.

Of the 46 percent of Americans who said gas prices will have an impact on their vote, just under 40 percent said they are considering voting for a different party than they normally would, including 49 percent of MAGA Republicans and 57 percent of non-MAGA Republicans.

“Three quarters of the country is confronting higher gas prices and feeling it,” said longtime Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. “That leaves them … very vulnerable to the economic pain and very vulnerable to the economic argument the Democrats are going to make.”

To better understand public perception of gas prices, The Blue Light News Poll asked Americans how the price of gas in their area had changed since Trump took office. Respondents could choose between buckets like “$1 to $2 higher per gallon,” “$1 to $2 lower per gallon,” or say prices had stayed roughly the same.

More than three-fourths said gas prices in their area have gone up.

Using OPIS data, Blue Light News compared each respondent’s answer against the actual average cost of regular gas in their zip code during the first week Trump was in office and the week prior to the July poll, which was conducted by the independent polling organization Public First from July 12 to July 15.

That comparison revealed the difference between the pain the American public is feeling and where actual gas prices stand — and, in particular, how that pain is expressed differently among Democrats and Republicans. Roughly 70 percent of Harris voters and 54 percent of Trump voters overestimated the increase in gas prices in their area, according to Blue Light News’s analysis.

“Democrats are highly motivated,” as a voting base, Marson said. “The longer the war goes on, probably the less motivated Republicans will be.”

The perception of higher gas prices is linked to how people see the economy — and who they blame for it.

Across the country, 57 percent of Americans say the cost of living is worse than they “can ever remember it being.” Those who overestimate gas price increases had more than twice the odds of agreeing with that statement, even after controlling for demographics and their 2024 vote.

Similarly, a plurality of Americans — 43 percent — blame Trump more than former President Joe Biden for the state of the economy overall. Those who overestimated their local increase in gas prices had nearly twice the odds of saying the same, compared with those who perceived the change in gas prices correctly or who underestimated the change.

It’s already affecting the battlegrounds

In the country’s most competitive races, Republicans will have to answer for the perceived cost pressures of rising gas prices more often than Democrats.

Thirteen of the most competitive districts have experienced gas price increases higher than the national average, according to Blue Light News’s analysis. Of those, nine are currently represented by Republicans.

In California’s 22nd District, where Republican incumbent Rep. David Valadao will face off against progressive political newcomer Randy Villegas, average prices across the district had gone up $1.17 by early July — the third highest increase of any district, according to Blue Light News’s analysis.

Villegas said in an interview that he thought frustration over gas prices would mobilize turnout in the fall, driven by how the cost of gas is “tied to every other thing.”

“It’s the cost of gas when you’re driving to the grocery store, when you’re driving to, you know, see a doctor,” he said. Or, the cost of gas when driving 7 to 8 hours away to “go get cheaper health care.”

Valadao did not respond to requests for comment.

In Colorado’s 8th District, where gas prices have risen by $0.73 on average since Trump took office, Republican incumbent Rep. Gabe Evans blamed local Democratic policies for increased costs more than the Iran war.

While “what’s happening halfway around the globe has some impact on global energy prices,” Evans said, high gas prices in the district are “a direct result of the local economic policies — the anti-energy policies — of the state Democrats who run the state of Colorado.”

But The Blue Light News Poll results from this month show voters don’t necessarily feel the same. Roughly 63 percent of Americans selected “the war with Iran” as the primary reason why gas prices have increased since Trump took office, including 59 percent of Trump voters and 70 percent of Harris voters.

By the middle of May, the average price of gas across the country reached its highest point of the Trump administration to date: $4.50 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In July, average prices dipped to $3.78 per gallon, the lowest average price since March.

Still, in both months, more than 75 percent of Americans said gas prices had gone up, Blue Light News’s polls show. And in both months, roughly 23 percent said prices had gone up by $3.00 or more.

This week, Trump said the upcoming midterms would not impact how he goes about fighting the war with Iran. “I can’t think about that having to do with this,” he said, referring to the elections. “I think people are very impressed.”

Politics

Capitol agenda: House GOP budget faces Senate reality check

Published

11 hours ago

July 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Capitol agenda: House GOP budget faces Senate reality check

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has been frank about the rocky road the reconciliation effort faces and careful not to guarantee he’ll be successful…
Read More