Tag: doj
In Trump's Department Of Justice, Bootlicking Blanche Wields 'Weaponization'

In Trump's Department Of Justice, Bootlicking Blanche Wields 'Weaponization'

When then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton happened to meet on the tarmac in Phoenix, they said they exchanged pleasantries about life, family and Brexit. The June 2016 chat, which continued on her plane, lasted about half an hour.

Back then, it was long enough to create a scandal, an inappropriate breach, condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike.

There was the timing, in the middle of an FBI investigation of eventual Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails.

And there was the breaking of a post-Watergate tradition: keeping the Justice Department independent, free from influence and pressure from any official, past or present. That Lynch’s boss, President Barack Obama, didn’t weigh in was further proof of that practice.

The corruption that ran through Richard Nixon’s White House taught everyone a lesson, it was thought.

Think again.

The MAGA universe that railed against “weaponization” of the Justice Department during President Joe Biden’s time in office is now instilling it as policy.

Don’t believe me?

Just listen to Todd Blanche, President Trump’s former defense attorney, auditioning to replace ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi while, for now, he’s acting in her place. Bondi reportedly displeased her boss, who never hid his passion for revenge, by failing to successfully prosecute his enemies.

And in his first press conference in the new job, Blanche made it clear he’s fine with Trump continuing his vendettas.

“We have thousands of ongoing investigations and prosecutions going on in this country right now, and it is true that some of them involve men, women and entities that the president in the past has had issues with and that he believes should be investigated,” Blanche said, as reported in The Washington Post.

“That is his right, and indeed it is his duty to do that.”

Blanche also said that if he is not the president’s choice as attorney general and is asked to take another job, that’s fine with him. “I will say, ‘Thank you very much, I love you, sir.’”

Now that’s downright embarrassing.

The Justice Department has been transformed from a place where accomplished, well-educated lawyers vied to earn a coveted spot into a place where the best are purged and replaced by people willing to sign up for an agenda set by the guy at the top.

It apparently never occurred to the rubber stamps in the current Department of Justice that perhaps it wasn’t a failure of effort but the flimsiness of the charges — along with the resolve and good sense of judges and grand juries — that made the legal attacks on Trump’s self-proclaimed enemies a waste of time and taxpayers’ money.

There was collateral damage, including the smearing of reputations and the need for high-profile targets, such as former FBI director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, to hire their own lawyers.

Paying a price were FBI agents, prosecutors and civil servants purged for duty-bound involvement — however tangential —in any investigation of Trump or for the “crime” of being too “woke,” the all-purpose word that’s come to mean anything or anyone the administration dislikes.

American citizens also lost, and will continue to lose, and not just in the amount of their hard-earned money squandered. Under Bondi, the Department of Justice shut down pending criminal cases and declined to prosecute many more, as reported in ProPublica.

“In total, the DOJ quietly closed more than 23,000 criminal cases in the first six months of President Donald Trump’s administration, abandoning hundreds of investigations into terrorism, white-collar crime, drugs and other offenses as it shifted resources to pursue immigration cases,” the analysis said.

One closed case, an investigation into a Virginia nursing home with a recent record of patient abuse, seems pretty important to me — and the patients, I would imagine.

It’s all about priorities.

This version of making America great or even safe may not make sense, but it will certainly continue as long as there is no accountability.

That’s something else that’s been lost.

In 2016, as has been debated since, Comey, who has never been accused of possessing modesty, humility or a small ego, took the lead, clearing Hillary Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in a press conference while nevertheless criticizing Clinton and her staff for being “extremely careless in handling very sensitive, highly classified information.”

And when, 11 days before the 2016 election between Clinton and Trump, he informed Congress that the FBI was again looking into “her emails” and use of a private email server, several experienced prosecutors and Clinton’s team cried foul.

But because of that day on the tarmac, Loretta Lynch felt she could not overrule the decision made by Comey, the man who worked for her, no matter how much she believed it violated Justice Department protocol.

“Discussions were had at the highest levels of the department. My views were made known, they were communicated to him,” Lynch told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “I think we’re all going to be looking at that for a long time.”

That was 2016.

Ten years later, things have changed.

There will be little reflection on decisions made, no pushback from the majority of congressional Republicans on the blatantly partisan words of Todd Blanche or criticism of the qualifications of the next candidate for attorney general.

And as for “weaponization,” there is no doubt whose thumb will be pressed on the scales held high by that lady with the blindfold.

Mary C. Curtis has worked at The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, The Charlotte Observer, as national correspondent for Politics Daily, and is a senior facilitator with The OpEd Project. She is host of the CQ Roll Call “Equal Time with Mary C. Curtis” podcast. Follow her on X @mcurtisnc3.

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call

Sex Trysts In SUV? New Details Of Epstein's Sweetheart Plea Deal In DOJ Papers

Sex Trysts In SUV? New Details Of Epstein's Sweetheart Plea Deal In DOJ Papers

While many aspects of the Jeffrey Epstein case have been scrutinized over the years, one sticking point that many keep returning to involves the notorious criminal’s 2008 plea agreement, which has been criticized as an overly “sweetheart deal” considering the severity of his crimes.

Facing dozens of accusations of underage sex trafficking that should have been prosecuted on a federal level, Epstein instead had the most egregious charges shelved in favor of lesser state charges in exchange for pleading guilty. As a result, Epstein served fewer than four months in jail before he was given a unique arrangement in which he was allowed to leave prison for 16 hours a day, six days a week under a work release program.

Now thanks to documents released by the Department of Justice, new details have been revealed about the privileges Epstein was granted, including an SUV that was specially outfitted for sex.

For his work release, Epstein was transported daily between jail and his downtown office in an SUV that had been equipped with a bed. Along the way, said a woman interviewed by the FBI, the SUV would park in the prison parking lot where she and Epstein would have sex.

According to the woman, she was a former model from Slovakia whom Epstein had begun grooming when she was in high school, and by the time he was arrested, they’d been sexually involved for several years. While some have suggested that the woman was responsible for recruiting Epstein’s victims, she was one of four “assistants” given immunity in exchange for his “sweetheart deal.” The two then, she asserted, maintained their sexual liaison while he was technically imprisoned — a situation allowed by members of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, who she said were on friendly terms with Epstein.

"A number of survivors have made clear that Epstein's exploitation did not stop during his incarceration,” said Lauren Hersh, director of the anti-trafficking group World Without Exploitation. "At best, Epstein's highly unusual arrangement demonstrates law enforcement's negligence. More likely, this is symptomatic of a system that prioritized accommodating a predator over delivering justice for survivors and protecting vulnerable girls and women."

"If all of this is true,” said Spencer Kuvin, a Florida attorney who represented many of Epstein's accusers, “they allow a sexual predator to continue his activities even while he was supposed to be in custody, and it just highlights the nature of the sweetheart deal that he got and the preferential treatment he received because of his wealth.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Continuing Under Bondi And Patel, The Epstein Coverup Is The Crime

Continuing Under Bondi And Patel, The Epstein Coverup Is The Crime

Last week, independent journalist Jacqueline Sweet penned an “exclusive” report in the New York Post on the 37 missing pages tied to a woman making serious allegations against Donald Trump. Sweet is a solid reporter, with works published in Rolling Stone and The Guardian, and has consistently expressed skepticism – both online and personally to us – about the validity of the woman’s claims.

She has been getting access to material that is not public. In an earlier piece for the Guardian, based on information leaked to her, she revealed that the accuser had a criminal record – which the Department of Justice (DOJ) eventually confirmed by releasing the pages.

Now, someone with access to the full Epstein files has leaked again… but only Sweet and the Murdoch tabloid have gotten a look at the pages. As she wrote: “The 37 pages, which aren’t public but have been reviewed by The Post, include sickening claims that Epstein began abusing the woman during a visit to Hilton Head Island when the accuser was just 13 and forced her to perform oral sex on Trump.”

In her Guardian article, Sweet called the claims “outlandish.” Clearly she finds the witness not at all credible. And that’s fine.

But the decision to share “documents that are not public” with a Murdoch tabloid is curious. Maybe other editors weren’t interested? Or maybe the source doesn’t want them widely read quite yet?

We reported on some of these missing pages early – first, in fact – in a post titled “Protect Source,” the tag attached to the unnamed woman’s claims in the available files. We noticed gaps in the DOJ’s numbering system that indicated they were covering up some missing interviews. We reported the lurid allegations with caveats because the Epstein files contain many unproven claims and we resist the Pizzagate, Satanic-panic theorizing that has been re-emerging amidst the online DIY investigation frenzy.

This particular accusation, however, seemed to warrant closer scrutiny from members of Congress, primarily, we thought, because of the unusual “Protect Source” designation. The story of the missing pages drew mainstream attention from NPR to the New York Times. More than a month later, professional Never Trumpers and Epstein-ologists are still devoting tens of thousands of written and spoken words to the topic.

The impetus for this obsession is the belief that the files hold a silver bullet against Donald Trump: Somewhere, a grown woman who, as a teenager, was preyed upon by a younger Trump, will emerge and finally take him down.

I have some doubts about the woman’s Trump story myself, but the behavior of the DOJ is even more suspicious. First they withheld pages. Then they claimed they were duplicative – which they are not. Then someone leaked a few to Sweet and right-wing news site Breitbart.

The DOJ continues to withhold additional pages. Now they appear to be selectively dropping them to a single journalist and two Trump-friendly outlets.

The accuser’s description of Epstein’s MO certainly sounds familiar: lured to a vacation home, plied with booze, talked into bringing other 13-year-olds around. Plus she described Jeff’s snaggletooth, which he hides in most photographs. Sweet has insisted that there is no evidence Epstein was ever in South Carolina in the ‘80s, but of course the absence of a travel record means nothing. We have already uncovered evidence that he was in unexpected places in the ‘80s, like Kuala Lumpur.

He was still just a Coney Island thug then, on his way to becoming James Bondstein.

But let’s be real about our expectations.

First: Trump’s predatory inclinations are baked into his appeal. He survived E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit as well as dozens of women alleging that he was, at best, a sex pest and at worst, a sexual assaulter. Will a woman now in her late 50s or 60s with decades-old memories be the person who finally takes down the nearly 80-year-old Leader of the Free World? To paraphrase his infamous 2015 boast: he could probably live down an alleged rape on Fifth Avenue.

Second: Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director "K$H" Patel had their hands deep in the Epstein files early on. In March 2025, FBI agents were pulled away from crime-fighting to scour the files, ostensibly for the mythical “client list” that so obsessed the MAGAs (which in fact already existed publicly in Epstein’s black book), but additionally to “flag” mentions of Donald Trump. An FBI whistleblower told Sen. Dick Durbin, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that agents were working 48-hour shifts and given spreadsheets to fill out.

But the coverup started long before that – in Palm Beach, where prosecutors allowed Epstein’s white shoe powerhouse attorneys to send their own investigators into his mansion to remove evidence, including computers, never to be seen again.

It continued in 2019, when FBI agents inside Epstein’s New York mansion – apparently without the proper warrants – let longtime accountant Richard Kahn remove items from a safe, only to return later with a curated selection of whatever had been in it. FBI records of this are murky and deserve congressional attention. This episode is so suspicious and strange that we will devote an entire newsletter to it next week so stay tuned.

The coverup continues to this minute, with the Bondi DOJ still redacting the names of Epstein’s rich and powerful johns.

So: Eyes on the prize. The Epstein coverup IS the crime. And the closest thing we have to a silver bullet.

Nina Burleigh is a journalist, author, documentary producer, and adjunct professor at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She has written eight books including her recently published novel, Zero Visibility Possible.

Katie Chenoweth is associate professor of French at Princeton University and an investigative researcher.

Reprinted with permission from American Freakshow

'Keeps Getting Crazier': Joe Rogan Says Epstein Scandal 'Looks Terrible' For Trump

Prominent podcaster Joe Rogan warned that the handling of the Epstein files “looks terrible” for President Donald Trump and his administration.

“During Tuesday and Thursday’s episodes, Rogan criticized redactions the Department of Justice made from the files,” The Hill reported.“Who knows what f — — happens with all this Epstein files s — —,” he said, according to video of his streaming show. “It just keeps getting crazier and crazier and crazier and deeper and deeper.”

“Why would your name be redacted if you’re not a victim?” Rogan also asked. “Like, this is what’s crazy about all this. Like, how come you redact some people and you don’t redact other people?”

"Like, what is this?" the podcaster continued. "This is not good. None of this is good for this administration. It looks f — — terrible. It looks terrible. It looks terrible for Trump when he was saying that none of this was real. This is all a hoax. This is not a hoax. Like, did you not know?""Maybe he didn't know if you want to be charitable? But this is definitely not a hoax. And if you've got redacted people's names, and these people aren't victims, you're not protecting the victim. So what are you doing?"

"And how come all this s — — is not released?" Rogan asked.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World