Connect with us

The Dictatorship

There are two kinds of attorneys. Trump’s preference is painstakingly clear.

Published

on

There are two kinds of attorneys. Trump’s preference is painstakingly clear.

Since Watergate, Americans have expected presidents to steer clear of criminal prosecutions. But under Donald Trump, presidential interference is happening in broad daylight — enabled by his replacement of seasoned, Senate-confirmed prosecutors with political loyalists devoted to him, not the law.

Trump has only 18 of 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys in place. (He had 46 confirmed during the first year of his first term). But a lack of Senate-confirmed prosecutors hasn’t stopped Trump. To the contrary, he has a network of acting prosecutors who do what Trump wants — particularly prosecuting his critics — as quickly as he wants them, whether or not the law supports it.

Halligan’s decision to present those cases appears to violate Justice Department norms.

Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s hand-picked interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, has no prosecutorial experience, and she did what her predecessor and the nonpartisan line prosecutors in her office refused to do: She presented felony charges to a grand jury against two of Trump’s critics, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Because prosecutors aren’t supposed to bring charges unless the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, Halligan’s decision to present those cases appears to violate Justice Department norms.

The New York Times reported in August that in the Northern District of New York, John Sarcone III, another Trump pick with no prosecutorial experienceissued subpoenas to James’ office probing whether James (whose office won the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization and a high-profile corruption case against the National Rifle Association ) violated Trump’s rights or those of his businesses or the NRA. Sarcone hasn’t been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Attorney General Pam Bondi installed him “indefinitely” through an unusual maneuver after local federal judges declined to appoint him.

In New Jersey, Alina Habba, a former personal attorney of Trump’s who had no experience as a prosecutor, charged Newark’s Democratic Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., with crimes some time after she spoke to a right-wing podcaster about turning “New Jersey red.” Baraka was charged with misdemeanor trespassing outside an ICE detention facility in Newark and McIver with assaulting two law enforcement officers there.

Habba dropped the charge against barka, WHO”https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/nyregion/ras-baraka-alina-habba-lawsuit-ice.html”>now suing Habba, claiming malicious prosecution. At the court hearing where a federal judge approved the government’s request to drop the charge against Baraka, the judge had a scathing rebuke for Habba: “The apparent rush in this case, culminating today in the embarrassing retraction of charges, suggests a failure to adequately investigate.” The judge continued: “Your office must operate with a higher standard. … Your role is not to secure convictions at all costsnor to satisfy public clamor, nor to advance political agendas.”

Though the case against McIver continues, so do questions about the legitimacy of Habba’s appointment. A bipartisan group of 10 former U.S. attorneys from the Reagan era to the Biden administration filed an amicus brief with the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in which they agree with a federal court ruling that found that Habba was appointed improperly. The appellate court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in that case Monday.

A federal judge in Nevada recently ruled last month that the appointment of acting U.S. Attorney Sigal Chattah was invalid. This week in Los Angeles, another judge weighed whether the Central District of California’s top prosecutor ought to be in the position.

None of this is normal. The Senate is supposed to confirm U.S. attorneys — the nation’s top federal prosecutors — to help ensure independence and accountability. While presidents can make short-term appointments, those typically expire after 120 days. At that point, federal judges may appoint temporary replacements. Trump has upended that system, using extraordinary and untested legal maneuvers, such as naming Sarcone “special attorney to the attorney general,” to bypass Senate confirmation and keep loyalists in place.

Ed Martin, Trump’s nominee for U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who failed to win confirmation even in a Republican-controlled Senate, told reporters earlier this year, “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.”

None of this is normal. The Senate is supposed to confirm the nation’s top federal prosecutors to help ensure independence and accountability.

“In a culture that respects shame,” he added, “they should be people that are ashamed.”

Martin now leads the DOJ’s so-called “weaponization” working group, but in any previous, post-Watergate administration, his statement would have cost him his job. Federal prosecutors have been taught to bring cases only when there’s enough evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction in court; not to shame people in the court of public opinion.

Trump’s second term has laid bare his determination to replace independent thinkers and prosecutors with political enforcers. The Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section — once the moral center on matters of corruption — has been hollowed out. Most of its veteran lawyers have been fired or reassigned, and The Washington Post reported in May that Bondi was reportedly weighing a plan that would allow federal prosecutors to seek indictments of members of Congress without the customary review of the career prosecutors who remain in the section.

“The reason you have the section is exactly what this administration says they want, which is [to] stop politicization,” former public integrity attorney Dan Schwager, told The Washington Post in that May report. “That requires a respect and ability to understand how the laws have been applied in similar situations in the past. The only way to ensure that public officials on both sides of the aisle are treated similarly is to have as much institutional knowledge and experience as possible.”

And BLN reported Thursday that “Career federal prosecutors are navigating what colleagues describe as an intense White House pressure campaign to execute Donald Trump’s vows of vengeance against his political foes and critics.”

During Trump’s first term, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to shut down the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and eventually recused himself from it altogether. His successor, Bill Barr, rejected Trump’s lies about the 2020 election. In the Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman refused to bring baseless charges against former Secretary of State John Kerry. Even special counsel John Durham, who spent four years and $8 million investigating what Trump termed the “Russia hoax,” found no evidence of politically motivated misconduct on behalf of the FBI.

This is not merely a bureaucratic reshuffle.

In Trump 2.0, those kinds of officials are gone. In their place are people like Bondi, who peddled false claims of voter fraud in 2020, and who said nothing critical after a social media post in which Trump openly pushed for her to prosecute his perceived enemies.

This is not merely a bureaucratic reshuffle. It is a fundamental assault on the post-Watergate norms that have defined the Justice Department for half a century. And Trump’s sidestepping of the Senate and putting in power people whose chief qualifications appear to be a willingness to do what he says threatens not only defendants but public faith in the impartial administration of justice.

There are two kinds of federal prosecutors: those who follow the facts and the law and those who bend to political pressure. It’s clear which kind Trump prefers.

Anthony Coley

Anthony Coley is a political analyst for NBC and BLN. He was director of the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs in the Biden administration and a communications director for U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

No plan B: Trump is flailing to find an off-ramp for the Iran war

Published

on

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Donald Trump’s war on Iran is in its fourth week. Gas prices are up $1 a gallon in much of the country. Stocks continue to fall on fears of global supply shortages.

The death toll is growing. Thirteen American service members have lost their livesand more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed, along with upward of 1,000 people in Lebanonmore than 150 in the surrounding Gulf states and 17 Israelis. That’s not accounting for the millions who are displaced and the thousands who have been injured, including hundreds of U.S. troops.

But according to the president who launched the war, it’s all over.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win.

“We’ve won this. This war has been won,” he told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”

However, during those same remarks, Trump was all over the place — talking about an epic victory, ongoing peace negotiations and personal gifts.

It was all completely counter to his posture over the weekend, when he threatened to “obliterate” Iranian civilian power plants — essentially teasing a war crime — if Iran did not stop blocking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuzsomething Iran was not doing before Trump attacked them.

But now, he has supposedly pressed pause on that bombing plan for five days because, he said, the negotiations are going well.

When he first announced that in a social media post Monday, it sent oil prices down 10% and boosted stocks.

However, those markets reversed themselves Tuesday after the Iranians said they have not engaged in any serious high-level negotiations with the Americans, and they claimed Trump was making things up to help oil prices. The Israelis said the same thing. (That’s not to say you should take Iran’s word for it, or Israel’s, but you shouldn’t take the White House’s word, either.)

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win. He had no plan B, and now he is flailing to find some kind of fallback position.

On Monday, sources from the administration told Politico that they have their eyes on a future U.S.-backed leader of Iran: Mohammad ⁠Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.

“He’s a hot option,” one unnamed U.S. source — who seems to really wants a deal — told Blue Light News. “He’s one of the highest. … But we got to test them, and we can’t rush into it.”

But on Tuesday, that “hot option” trolled Trump for what he called a “jawboning campaign” to stabilize oil prices. In a social media postGhalibaf wrote: “[L]et’s see if they can turn that into ‘actual fuel’ at the pump — or maybe even print gas molecules!”

Call it the fog of Trumpian war: a million contradictory messages flying around, constantly wildly pinging bits of news that don’t make sense together.

Right now, we have reports that Trump’s negotiators, including his envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance, are traveling to Pakistan for informal talks with an Iranian official.

At the same time, unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times that the Saudi crown prince is pushing Trump to continue the war until Iran’s government collapses — something the Saudis publicly deny.

In fact, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Saudi officials are holding talks in Riyadh with their Arab counterparts to find a diplomatic off-ramp from the war.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials said the Pentagon was poised to deploy 3,000 troops of the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. That is in addition to two Marine expeditionary units on their way to the region and the 50,000 U.S. troops already stationed there.

Also on Tuesday, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are claiming that U.S. strikes there killed 30 of their members.

But, according to Trump, the peace talks are going great, right?

All eyes everywhere have been on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran responded to the U.S. attack by striking oil tankers and shutting down 20% of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas. It is now essentially running a toll operation in the strait.

Some countries, such as China, Japan and India, are negotiating deals with Iran to get its oil out. Which is to say, Iran is shipping more oil and making more money than it was under the U.S. sanctions in place before Trump attacked it.

It’s clear the president sees what’s happening, so now he is trying to share control of the strait with Iran. Trump told reporters the strait would be “jointly controlled” by “maybe” him and “the next ayatollah.”

The administration really thought this was going to be another Venezuela. They told themselves that, and they were egged on to believe it by the staunchest advocates of the war, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-S.C.

But in Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact, even if militarily degraded, and they now have explicit control of the Strait of Hormuz — a huge pressure point.

It really looks like the U.S. is backed into a corner: It can sue for peace because of the oil tanker situation, but they do not have much leverage, or it can escalate the war. That may be why we’re seeing all these contradictory developments.

In Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact.

Trump issued an ultimatum he had to walk back from because he said there were deep peace negotiations, which then later proved to be completely fabricated.

Now, more U.S. troops are set to be deployed for a possible ground invasion in the Middle East, despite reports that the U.S. has supposedly sent a 15-point plan to Iran through Pakistan to end the war.

It almost looks as if Trump is trying to wave the peace card to keep a lid on oil futures and financial marketsjust long enough to have ground troops in position — and just in time for the markets to close for the weekend on Friday, when Trump’s “pause” on bombing Iranian power plants is set to end.

That could be the plan Trump now settles on, weeks into a deadly war where there was obviously, very clearly, no real plan at all.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday on MS NOW. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is “The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource” (Penguin Press).

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

Published

on

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

A California state jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media case on Wednesday, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who brought the case and putting the Instagram maker’s liability at 70% and the Google company’s at 30%.

The jurors later decided to award a total of $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. The verdict was reached on the jury’s ninth day of deliberation.

A 2023 complaint accused social media companies of fueling an unprecedented mental health crisis for American children through “addictive and dangerous” products. Plaintiffs accused the companies of deliberately tweaking their products to exploit kids’ undeveloped brains to “create compulsive use of their apps.”

The civil case was brought by several plaintiffs against several companies, but this state court trial, which featured testimonyfrom Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, involved a plaintiff described by her initials as “K.G.M.” in court papers against Instagram and YouTube.

In the 2023 complaint, K.G.M. said she was a 17-year-old in California who started using social media at a much younger age, though her mother told her not to and used third-party software to try to prevent the daughter’s social media use. The complaint alleged that the corporate defendants designed their products in ways that let kids evade parental controls and that the companies knew, or should’ve known, that K.G.M. was a minor.

The plaintiff alleged that Instagram’s and other companies’ addictive designs led her to develop “a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop” and to see “harmful and depressive content, urging K.G.M. to commit acts of self-harm, as well as harmful social comparison and body image.”

She alleged that she suffered bullying, depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia through Instagram and that Meta did nothing in response to a report about it. “Meta allowed the predatory user to continue harming minor Plaintiff K.G.M., including through the use of explicit images of a minor child,” the complaint said, adding that the company’s “defective reporting mechanisms and/or deliberate failure to act caused emotional and mental health harms to K.G.M. in addition to and separate from any third-party conduct.”

The companies, which have denied wrongdoingsaid Wednesday that they plan to appeal.

Jillian Frankel contributed from Los Angeles.

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

Published

on

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released hours of deposition footage from its interviews with two former close associates of Jeffrey Epsteinattorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., a member of the committee, joined “The Weeknight” to discuss the interviews and the efforts to hold any accomplices of the late sex offender accountable.

“What is remarkable is that even in death, his closest associates and co-conspirators are still covering for him,” Stansbury said.

During their depositions, both Indyke and Kahn insisted they had no knowledge of Epstein’s illegal behavior. The New Mexico Democrat cast doubt on those claims, taking particular issue with Indyke’s testimony, during which she said it was possible that Epstein’s former attorney may have “perjured himself.”

“He claimed that he had no knowledge of all of these nefarious activities, and yet he literally has spent decades of his life at the center of this controversy,” she said. “I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.”

Stansbury told MS NOW she believed it was important for the public to understand that both Indyke and Kahn “stand to make tens of millions of dollars off of their execution” of Epstein’s will. She added that “the way the will is structured, there is a survivor fund, and at the end of that, they get to basically keep whatever is left over.”

“We don’t know what was written into whatever contracts, but it’s clear that they have a financial interest,” she said.

Stansbury said the pair’s depositions should be part of a greater effort from lawmakers and law enforcement across the country to pursue accountability for Epstein’s victims, even after his death. She highlighted how her home state, New Mexico, was doing just that.

“That is why we are going to continue to seek justice in this case, and it’s why in New Mexico, not only did we pass a truth commission, but one of the updates that we want to tell people about is that we plan to pursue convictions against individuals who were implicated in these crimes who were not prosecuted by the federal government,” she said. “We want to turn these Epstein files into Epstein trials — and that’s exactly what we plan to do.”

You can watch Stansbury’s full interview in the clip at the top of the page.

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending