The Dictatorship
The DOJ’s investigation into N.Y. AG Letitia James is almost too on the nose
Donald Trump knows how to keep his word when he wants to. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised retribution and retaliation against his political opponents. He specifically called out New York Attorney General Letitia James, the trailblazing prosecutor who beat Trump and the Trump organization in court; a judge found that Trump and the organization improperly inflated assets in financial documents to get favorable loan terms. (Trump is appealing the civil penalty).
In November 2023, Trump made a post characterizing James’ prosecution against him as a “ridiculous Political Witch Hunt against me” and wrote, “She should be prosecuted!
In November 2023, as the trial was going on, Trump made a social media post characterizing James’ prosecution against him as a “ridiculous Political Witch Hunt against me” and wrote, “She should be prosecuted!” At a campaign rally in January 2024, he said the judge and James “should be arrested and punished accordingly.”
He appears to be actively making good on those vows to pay back the people he says wrong him even though the facts and evidence don’t appear to justify it.
NBC News reported Friday that Attorney General Pam Bondi has made MAGA activist Ed Martin a “special attorney” to probe mortgage fraud allegations against James made by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William J. Pulte, a Trump nominee who took office in March. At the same time, The New York Times reported Friday that the office of John Sarcone III, the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, sent James’ office two subpoenas last week that seek to discover if she violated the rights of Trump and his businesses, as well as the rights of the National Rifle Association. James’ office successfully won a corruption case against the NRA the week after she won the fraud case against Trump and the Trump organization. Sarcone’s office didn’t respond to the newspaper’s request for comment.
Martin and Sarcone are wholly unqualified for their roles. Before their interim appointments this year, neither had ever been a prosecutor. Sarcone, who hasn’t been confirmed by the Senate, wrongly said a panel of federal judges had voted to extend his interim appointment as a U.S. attorney. In fact, that panel refused to extend his appointment, and the DOJ got around that rejection with a maneuver that appears to have never been used for the appointment of a U.S. attorney. According to a letter the Times obtained from the Justice Department’s human resources division, Sarcone has been named “special attorney to the attorney general” indefinitely and is, bizarrely, serving as the acting U.S. attorney and as the office’s first assistant.
MAGA activist and election denier Ed Martin is so radical he couldn’t secure enough Republican senators to support his nomination to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Not even Trump phoning holdout Republican senators could get Martin over the finish line. His consolation prize was being made DOJ’s pardon attorney and director of DOJ’s “weaponization” working group, which Bondi established with the apparent mission to investigate public officials who — following the facts, law and court rules — secured indictments against Trump. Martin previously represented some Jan. 6, pro-MAGA rioters.
Martin and Sarcone fit the new mold of Trump’s DOJ appointees. Unbridled loyalty and fealty to Trump is more important than qualifications. Of the two, Martin is the bigger threat to the rule of law — that is, treating like cases alike — and the bigger threat to the DOJ’s post-Watergate norm of keeping partisan politics out of DOJ decision making.
“There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people. And if they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them,” he told reporters this spring. He said that “in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed.”
That appears to be what is happening in James’ case. They’ll charge her if they can and shame her if they can’t. Let’s be clear that charges do not appear to be justified.
They’ll charge her if they can and shame her if they can’t.
Regarding the mortgage fraud allegations, Trump administration officials say in notarized papers, James listed a Virginia home as her “principal residence” to get better loan terms. James’s lawyer told ABC News that the accusation was a “lie based on a purposeful misreading of documents in a lawful real estate transaction.”
In a letter to Bondi in April, that attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, wrote, “Director Pulte cherry-picked an August 17, 2023 power of attorney that mistakenly stated the property to be Ms. James’ principal residence and at the same time absolutely ignored her very clear and all caps statement two weeks earlier to the mortgage loan broker that “[t]his property WILL NOT be my primary residence.”
Lowell attached email messages that he said show that James was clear that the property would be her niece’s primary residence and that the “broker understood this” because he responded that James would be considered “a non-occupying co-borrower.”
Another allegation from Trump’s FHFA says James wrongly claimed that a five-unit dwelling she bought in Brooklyn in 2001 only had four units — as the Times explains “possibly in order to receive better interest rates.” But in the letter Lowell sent Bondi in April, the attorney writes, “The co-occupancy dwelling has four floors and, for as long as Ms. James has lived there, the property has always functioned as a four-person residence.” Lowell said that a 24-year-old certificate of occupancy mistakenly says it’s a 5-unit property, but he attached copies of multiple public documents that he say prove it’s a 4-unit property.
Of course, if this were a legitimate investigation, the public would likely not even know about it. The DOJ manual prohibits disclosure of its ongoing investigations with exceptions only in limited circumstances. DOJ officials know this but don’t seem to care.
News of a federal criminal referral first appeared in the conservative tabloid New York Post in April. That news dominated the conservative media ecosystem that weekend. Ditto this past weekend, when the appointments and grand jury probes became public.
If this were a legitimate investigation, the public would likely not even know about it.
What Trump’s DOJ is doing now appears to have been pulled from the same playbook his DOJ used against Democratic governors in New York and New Jersey during his first term. In December 2024, the DOJ’s inspector general found clear signs that politics drove the department’s investigation of pandemic-era nursing home deaths. According to that report, in 2020, most of the nursing homes with the lowest quality of care during the Covid pandemic were in the Republican-governed states of Texas and Indiana. None of the 30 worst-ranked facilities were in New York or New Jersey, states controlled by Democrats.
However, the report mentions an alarming text message a senior official with the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs sent to at least one colleague Oct. 17, 2020, weeks before the presidential election. Using DOJ shorthand for the civil rights division and the civil division respectively the text, according to the IG report, said, “I’m trying to get [CRT] and CIV to do letters to [New York/New Jersey] respectively on nursing homes. Would like to package them together and let[the[theNew York Post]break it. Will be our last play on them before election but it’s a big one.”
“Our last play on them before the election.”
Put plainly, DOJ officials were weaponizing the department’s vast powers to attack the president’s political opponents for partisan purposes. That’s exactly what Justice Department appointees appear to be doing now.
Anthony Coley is a legal analyst for NBC News, BLN and CNBC. He was director of the Justice Department’s office of public affairs from February 2021 until January 2023.
The Dictatorship
Judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS
WASHINGTON (AP) — Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.
The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.
Moss ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”
“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Moss’ decision is “a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law.”
“NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them. The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Jackson said in a statement.
PBS, with programming ranging from “Sesame Street” and “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” to Ken Burns’ documentaries, has been operating for more than half a century. NPR has news programming from “All Things Considered” and cultural shows like the “Tiny Desk” concerts. For decades, the fates of both systems have been part of a philosophical debate over whether government should help fund their operations.
Punishment for ‘past speech’ cited in decision
The judge noted that Trump’s executive order simply directs that all federal agencies “cut off any and all funding” to NPR, which is based in Washington, and PBS, based in Arlington, Virginia.
“The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote.
Last year, Trump, a Republican, said at a news conference he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they’re biased in favor of Democrats.
“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote.
NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.
“Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official,” said Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO. She called the decision a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.
PBS chief Paula Kerger said she was thrilled with the decision. The executive order, she said, is “textbook” unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”
Last August, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.
A victory, though incremental, for press freedom
Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous said Tuesday’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”
“As the Court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The Executive Order crossed that line.”
The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.
“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”
NPR and three public radio stations sued administration officials last May. While Trump was named as a defendant, the case did not include Congress — and the legislative body has played a large role in the public-broadcasting saga in the past year.
Trump’s executive order immediately cut millions of dollars in funding from the Education Department to PBS for its children’s programming, forcing the system to lay off one-third of the PBS Kids staff. The Trump order didn’t impact Congress’ vote to eliminate the overall federal appropriations for PBS and NPR, which forced the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that funneled that money to the TV and radio networks.
___
AP Media Writer David Bauder and AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile
More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”
The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:
Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that.’
‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon now.
The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.
If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.
But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.
A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.
Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.
Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.
And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.
Mission accomplished, I guess?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal
Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.
Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.
“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.

The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.
Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.
Lawmakers were back to square one.
But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.
Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.
Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.
“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.
Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.
Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.
“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”
“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics12 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’








