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

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

Published

22 hours ago

September 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

lead image

Politics

Trump wants the Postal Service to radically overhaul mail voting. But ballots are already going out.

Published

3 days ago

September 4, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s controversial demands for the Postal Service to overhaul and monitor millions of mail ballots hit another snag on Friday, when North Carolina became the first state in the nation to start sending out ballots for the November election.

In March, Trump signed the initial executive order, which aimed to crack down on mail-in voting — which he regularly alleges without evidence is a vector for widespread voter fraud — and assert an unprecedented amount of federal control over the upcoming elections.

Under this order and the subsequent rule drafted by the U.S. Postal Service, the USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to provide lists of eligible mail voters or did not adhere to an approved envelope design style.

Since then, the order has faced legal challenges, and it remains paused by a federal judge’s orders. But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the new rule to proceed — something current and former election officials from both parties say would be both a legal nightmare that oversteps the federal government’s traditional role in elections and a logistical one that is happening far too close to the November election to implement even if they agreed with it.

“Why the hell are you rocking the boat this late in the game?” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has clashed with Trump allies for defending the security of the 2020 election.

Still, election officials are trying to project a sense of normalcy for voters, particularly in North Carolina, which serves as a test of whether established local election systems can operate normally amid intensifying federal scrutiny.

“I want to emphasize this point because there has been a lot of outside noise: Our county workers are ready,” Sam Hayes, a longtime Republican lawyer in the state and now executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a Thursday afternoon press conference.

He added, “All we can do is what we’re doing. … It is business as usual as far as I’m concerned.”

Despite the legal challenges, the Trump administration has continued to press the courts to let it proceed. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift an order from a Massachusetts judge which temporarily prevents the USPS from enforcing their rule. It is the second time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, after winning an earlier victory in which the high court dismissed an earlier hold on the rule as premature.

“The uncertainty is coming from a single activist judge who continues to try and obstruct President Trump from implementing commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans vote in American elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “These safeguards for mail ballots were proposed months ago giving election officials ample time to prepare for the 2026 election.”

The USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Election officials said that if the rule goes into effect this close to November, it would cause chaos and place added strain on the USPS and election officials. And an anonymous federal whistleblower said in a report circulated earlier this week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that the USPS was moving forward in a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” to try to implement the new system ahead of the midterms.

In the coming weeks, states across the country will follow North Carolina’s lead. Nine other states will begin mailing ballots in the next two weeks, according to a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures — with the biggest day for mailing coming 45 days before the election in mid-September.

“It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It’s hard to even imagine,” said Ben Hovland, a senior fellow for democracy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission who was fired by Trump in July.

He added, “It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy.”

The rule would require meticulous changes to ballot handling and tracking practices that Hovland said are impossible to implement before Election Day in about two months, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.

“Ballots are printed. Envelopes are printed. You can go on and on with all the practical reasons that show that implementing something like this at this time is not feasible,” he said.

Richer said he doubted the new rules would bring about more security. Even if the USPS received lists from the states, according to the postal service’s final rule, it would not do any additional vetting of the list, Richer said.

“It’s just that the mail ballots have to be on that list, and I don’t see what added value for election integrity that does,” he said.

He added, “It creates a lot of administrative burden, and I think it creates a lot more opportunity for error.”

While a decision looms in the courts, election officials and experts cast doubt on the likelihood of the rules going into effect before November. A more pressing issue, they said, is the confusion and uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, which could subvert and change the behaviors of voters.

“It makes things seem messy or difficult, and it can dissuade people from participating or coming out to vote,” Hovland said. “It certainly also helps establish a pretext to make bad faith claims about election results.”

Hovland said that while none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts, they could cause Americans to lose faith in the voting process.

Still, some current officials contended they were well-prepared for whatever happens — and that they’d be able to communicate effectively with voters who have become increasingly buffeted by dramatic rhetoric about the once-unmentioned nuts and bolts of actually running an election.

“There’s always a lot of noise around elections, that’s not going to change, and it can be hard to differentiate that from what’s actually going on on the ground,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

As Election Day approaches, Tyson and election officials said they urge voters to check their registration status and make a plan to vote.

He added, “I think we’ve got a really well-trained, solid staff who are ready, and who have gone through all of the checks and balances and points of contact that we need to do to get to where we are.”

Politics

Missouri Supreme Court pauses GOP gerrymander, likely netting Democrats 1 House seat

Published

3 days ago

September 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Missouri’s Supreme Court suspended a congressional map that state Republicans drew last year that would have netted the GOP an additional House seat, likely keeping the seat in Democratic hands this November.

The court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a referendum petition organized by Democrats to put the new congressional maps to a vote was incorrectly deemed insufficient by Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, and ordered that the gerrymandered map be put to a vote in the fall.

Voters will ultimately decide the fate of the new lines in November. But in the meantime, it cannot be in place for the midterms, meaning Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s original Kansas City-based district will likely stay in Democrats’ hands this fall.