superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Now that the AG is in, she appears to be ready to do Trump’s bidding.
Trump’s DOJ ready to hit the war path (1 Viewer)
- Thread startersuperchuck500
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
- Thread starter
- #145
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
efil4
Well-known member
Online
we are teetering. Dont know how we avoid falling into the abyss at this point.
DJ1BigTymer
They tried to rig the game...
Online
Both Habba & Bondi are not even pretending to honor their Oaths of Office and I can't wait for them to cross that line and lose their license!
NEWARK, New Jersey — The “hasty arrest” and swift dismissal of a trespassing charge against Mayor Ras Baraka “suggests a worrisome misstep” by interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba, a federal judge said Wednesday afternoon.
U.S. Magistrate Judge André M. Espinosa granted what he called the “embarrassing retraction” of the misdemeanor charge following a May 9 incident at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark that unfolded in a tussle between federal authorities and three members of Congress and resulted in the arrest of the city’s Democratic mayor, who is also running for governor.
Mayor Ras Baraka, right, arrives to speak to supporters and media after a court appearance May 15, 2025, in Newark, New Jersey. | Seth Wenig/AP
By Ry Rivard
05/21/2025 02:10 PM EDT
U.S. Magistrate Judge André M. Espinosa granted what he called the “embarrassing retraction” of the misdemeanor charge following a May 9 incident at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark that unfolded in a tussle between federal authorities and three members of Congress and resulted in the arrest of the city’s Democratic mayor, who is also running for governor.
Espinosa said an arrest is a “severe” step, not part of an investigation, and he said prosecutors must not try to secure convictions at all cost, satisfy public clamor or advance political agendas.
“Your office must operate with a higher standard than that,” he said.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
I guess this can go here
Truly amazing and unbelievable
A. That’s it’s happening
B. That’s it’s lost in the storm of all the unbelievable things going on
=============
Federal judges are discussing a proposal that would shift the armed security personnel responsible for their safety away from the Department of Justice (DoJ) and under their own control, as fears mount that the Trump administration is failing to protect them from a rising tide of hostility.
The Wall Street Journal revealed on Sunday that the idea of creating their own armed security detail emerged at a meeting of about 50 federal judges two months ago.
A security committee at the twice-yearly judicial conference, a policymaking body for federal judges, raised concerns about the increasing number of threats against judges following Trump’s relentless criticism of court rulings against his policies.
Under the current system, federal judges are protected by the US marshals service, which is managed by the justice department. According to Wall Street Journal, those participating at the March conference expressed worries that Trump might instruct the marshals to withdraw security protection from a judge who ruled against him.
Amid those anxieties, the idea surfaced that federal judges should form their own armed security force. That would involve bringing the US marshals service under the direct control of the head of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts.
At present, marshals fall under the remit of Pam Bondi, the US attorney general. Bondi was appointed by the president and is a Trump loyalist.
She has made clear she will be guided by him – breaking a decades-long norm that kept the White House at arm’s length from the DoJ to ensure law enforcement and prosecutorial independence.
John Coughenour, a federal judge in the western district of Washington, told the Journal that he thought the transfer of the marshals out of Trump’s and into judicial control was a “wonderful idea”. He added: “There’s never been any reason in the 43 years that I’ve been on the bench to worry that the marshals service would do whatever was appropriate – until recent years.”
Coughenour is one of a growing number of judges who have faced security threats in the wake of Trump’s deluge of invective. In February the judge issued an order blocking Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born on US soil to parents lacking legal status in the country.
The judge was then targeted by a swatting attack, where a fake alarm is called into police and a Swat team sent out to the individual’s home.
Senior Democrats have demanded an investigation into a spate of dozens of pizza deliveries to the homes of federal judges. The actions are seen as intimidatory, as it shows judges that their private addresses are known.
Federal judges have found themselves on the front lines of constitutional battles over Trump’s executive orders over such contentious issues as birthright citizenship, the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, and the dismissal of tens of thousands of federal employees. So far there have been 249 legal challenges to Trump administration actions, according to a Just Security tracker.…….
www.theguardian.com
Truly amazing and unbelievable
A. That’s it’s happening
B. That’s it’s lost in the storm of all the unbelievable things going on
=============
Federal judges are discussing a proposal that would shift the armed security personnel responsible for their safety away from the Department of Justice (DoJ) and under their own control, as fears mount that the Trump administration is failing to protect them from a rising tide of hostility.
The Wall Street Journal revealed on Sunday that the idea of creating their own armed security detail emerged at a meeting of about 50 federal judges two months ago.
A security committee at the twice-yearly judicial conference, a policymaking body for federal judges, raised concerns about the increasing number of threats against judges following Trump’s relentless criticism of court rulings against his policies.
Under the current system, federal judges are protected by the US marshals service, which is managed by the justice department. According to Wall Street Journal, those participating at the March conference expressed worries that Trump might instruct the marshals to withdraw security protection from a judge who ruled against him.
Amid those anxieties, the idea surfaced that federal judges should form their own armed security force. That would involve bringing the US marshals service under the direct control of the head of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts.
At present, marshals fall under the remit of Pam Bondi, the US attorney general. Bondi was appointed by the president and is a Trump loyalist.
She has made clear she will be guided by him – breaking a decades-long norm that kept the White House at arm’s length from the DoJ to ensure law enforcement and prosecutorial independence.
John Coughenour, a federal judge in the western district of Washington, told the Journal that he thought the transfer of the marshals out of Trump’s and into judicial control was a “wonderful idea”. He added: “There’s never been any reason in the 43 years that I’ve been on the bench to worry that the marshals service would do whatever was appropriate – until recent years.”
Coughenour is one of a growing number of judges who have faced security threats in the wake of Trump’s deluge of invective. In February the judge issued an order blocking Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born on US soil to parents lacking legal status in the country.
The judge was then targeted by a swatting attack, where a fake alarm is called into police and a Swat team sent out to the individual’s home.
Senior Democrats have demanded an investigation into a spate of dozens of pizza deliveries to the homes of federal judges. The actions are seen as intimidatory, as it shows judges that their private addresses are known.
Federal judges have found themselves on the front lines of constitutional battles over Trump’s executive orders over such contentious issues as birthright citizenship, the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, and the dismissal of tens of thousands of federal employees. So far there have been 249 legal challenges to Trump administration actions, according to a Just Security tracker.…….
US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount
Proposal would move security under judges’ control as justice department has vowed loyalty to president
Last edited:
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Donald Trump campaigned on ending “weaponization” in government after accusing his political enemies of launching a legal war to derail his chances of winning the presidency a second time.
But the president, with an emboldened Department of Justice, led by staunch ally Pam Bondi, has launched apparent partisan lawfare of his own, with investigations underway against prominent Democratic officials and left-leaning pop superstars, dozens of legal threatsaimed at his ideological opponents — and even the law firms representing them.
Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office accusing Joe Biden’s administration of a “systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents” that is designed “more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”
But the order seemingly does what it condemns — “ending the weaponization of government” by turning the government against his enemies.
The president promised “retribution” for his supporters during his first campaign speech in 2023, and critics say his administration has wielded the executive branch and leveraged the Justice Department to settle personal and political vendettas.
“We are witnessing a huge attack on the rule of law, and direct assault on the Constitution,” Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen told reporters May 20, listing off Trump’s “tyranny and political blackmail” and threats to federal funding, arrests of student protesters and his “weaponizing” of the Justice Department.
In her confirmation hearing, Attorney General Bondi promised to lawmakers that “the partisanship, the weaponization will be gone” from the Justice Department. “America will have one tier of justice for all,” she said.……
www.independent.co.uk
But the president, with an emboldened Department of Justice, led by staunch ally Pam Bondi, has launched apparent partisan lawfare of his own, with investigations underway against prominent Democratic officials and left-leaning pop superstars, dozens of legal threatsaimed at his ideological opponents — and even the law firms representing them.
Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office accusing Joe Biden’s administration of a “systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents” that is designed “more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”
But the order seemingly does what it condemns — “ending the weaponization of government” by turning the government against his enemies.
The president promised “retribution” for his supporters during his first campaign speech in 2023, and critics say his administration has wielded the executive branch and leveraged the Justice Department to settle personal and political vendettas.
“We are witnessing a huge attack on the rule of law, and direct assault on the Constitution,” Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen told reporters May 20, listing off Trump’s “tyranny and political blackmail” and threats to federal funding, arrests of student protesters and his “weaponizing” of the Justice Department.
In her confirmation hearing, Attorney General Bondi promised to lawmakers that “the partisanship, the weaponization will be gone” from the Justice Department. “America will have one tier of justice for all,” she said.……
Inside Trump and Bondi’s enemies list: Beyonce and Bruce to Cuomo and Chicago’s mayor
Trump promised an end to ‘weaponization’ in government. Now he has a Justice Department at his disposal to commit ‘lawfare’ of his own, critics say
www.independent.co.uk
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Attorney General Pam Bondi told the American Bar Association (ABA) Thursday that the Trump administration would no longer cooperate as the organization vets its judicial nominees.
In a letter, the Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses the bar association of failing to “fix the bias in its rating process,” a claim that follows the organization labeling some of President Trump’s nominees as unqualified for the bench.
“Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations,” Bondi wrote in the letter to ABA President William Bay.
“Accordingly, while the ABA is free to comment on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations, there is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and the Department of Justice will not do so. Specifically, the Office of Legal Policy will no longer direct nominees to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to non-public information, including bar records. Nominees will also not respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not sit for interviews with the ABA,” she added.
The ABA did not respond to a request for comment.
The White House took a similar stance during Trump’s first term in office.
According to Ballotpedia, the ABA rated 264 of Trump’s nominees: 187 were rated “well-qualified,” 67 were rated “qualified,” and 10 were rated “not qualified.”
Though a small figure, that stands in contrast with other recent administrations, which had at most three unqualified picks during their time in office.…….
In a letter, the Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses the bar association of failing to “fix the bias in its rating process,” a claim that follows the organization labeling some of President Trump’s nominees as unqualified for the bench.
“Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations,” Bondi wrote in the letter to ABA President William Bay.
“Accordingly, while the ABA is free to comment on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations, there is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and the Department of Justice will not do so. Specifically, the Office of Legal Policy will no longer direct nominees to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to non-public information, including bar records. Nominees will also not respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not sit for interviews with the ABA,” she added.
The ABA did not respond to a request for comment.
The White House took a similar stance during Trump’s first term in office.
According to Ballotpedia, the ABA rated 264 of Trump’s nominees: 187 were rated “well-qualified,” 67 were rated “qualified,” and 10 were rated “not qualified.”
Though a small figure, that stands in contrast with other recent administrations, which had at most three unqualified picks during their time in office.…….
DJ1BigTymer
They tried to rig the game...
Online
Bondi acts as if she will never be at the mercy of the Bar. She better ask some of trump's former lawyers. She may want to take a couple of weeks off, that list is quite long!
fooferdoggie
Well-known member
Offline
hell even if she got disbarred, it would not change her position. its not like she is holding up the law.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.