Back in 2020, James massively stretched consumer protection law to gin up a case surrounding the Trump Organization’s dealing years earlier with Deutsche Bank, alleging that optimistic valuations of Trump properties somehow deceived the bankers into giving Trump overly generous loan terms.

The ensuing investigation and trial made it plain that nobody was harmed — indeed, everyone on the non-Trump side of the table made money.

But that didn’t stop Engoron from issuing a host of dubious rulings, culminating in a finding of guilt and a preposterous $454 million penalty (including interest) in February 2024, a number that continues to grow each day it goes unpaid. //

And when a five-judge panel of the First Department heard the case in September, Justice Peter Moulton put it bluntly: “The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” because “the parties left these transactions happy.”

Justice David Friedman pointed out, “No one lost any money,” and consumer protection statutes don’t normally apply to “really sophisticated players” like one of the world’s largest banks.

It seems pretty obvious that Engoron’s penalties and verdict, indeed the entire case, should be tossed.

We have no independent sources to prove or disprove White House aides’ claims that Hochul told Trump, “I control the judges” in some veiled hint that he needed to back off on upending her “congestion” tolls, but something odd is going on here. //

The court can make some excuse for its delays so far, citing the presidential election, transition and so on, but this stall is now starting to reek.

The Appellate Division needs to do its job and rule; on the merits, it should be a reversal.

Shut down the left-leaning lawfare, and make it plain that in this country, we fight political battles at the ballot box, not in the courts.

Thousands of complicated legal cases go on every day, and many are resolved in ways that are deeply unsatisfying because complicated legal cases are rarely as cut and dried as they appear on TV. When you get into high-stakes, politically charged cases, they never are perfect.

This one, in an immigration case, should be a slam dunk.

To me, the interesting thing about this case is not how it is resolved--after all, if Garcia somehow is sprung from prison in El Salvador he is still deportable and will just wind up somewhere else. He will never return home as a "Maryland man" because he is an illegal alien who is set to be deported by court order. //

Still, in a world where Nigerian Christians are being massacred by the thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans are overdosing on fentanyl, children are being raped and murdered by illegal immigrants, and politicians are forcing women and girls to undress in front of men, the entire liberal establishment is in a tizzy over this one ever so barely ambiguous case. //

Why are they fighting so hard on this likely losing issue? Whatever they say, it isn't about what they claim. There are between 20-30 million illegal immigrants in the United States--Joe Biden let in over 10 million through illegal means--and Americans want them gone. Democrats do not. //

Winning Garcia's case is so important because they want to establish that every single deportation case should go to a trial, basically, where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." He appears to be an MS 13 gang member? Prove it in court! He is accused of beating his wife? Well, she never pressed charges!

As if these are the standards for deporting an illegal alien with a deportation order. //

Not only is that not the legal standard, but as a practical matter, they are demanding that once an illegal alien sets foot in the United States, they get what amounts to a trial before they get deported. That is, logistically, impossible. 30 million trials? Not going to happen. It is logistically impossible for it to happen. Nobody wants it to happen, not even Democrats.

What they want is as few deportations as humanly possible, so demanding an impossible standard is about stopping deportations. //

The passion isn't about justice. This case is just another tool to use to get ignorant people riled up against deportations. //

This is about thwarting Trump's policies, not due process or anything else.

what is particularly revealing is how some parts of the Department of Justice see themselves as an independent branch of government.

Traditionally, all of the lawyers in the office except two — the solicitor general and the principal deputy — are nonpartisan career employees who span administrations, rather than political appointees. When the office takes legal positions, it has historically taken a long view about what is best for the U.S. government.

The hubris in this statement is simply breathtaking. No one in the federal bureaucracy has the remit of taking "a long view about what is best for the U.S. government." That is a political, not a professional judgment. It implies that unelected bureaucrats are supposed to act as a brake, or even an anchor or land mine, to keep an administration from going in a direction it doesn't like. That is wrong, and it is the essence of the Third World style Deep State that President Trump railed against during his first term. //

Those people said the exodus raises questions about whether the department will be able to recruit attorneys from top law schools with clerkship experience and diverse backgrounds at a time when the administration is rapidly filing emergency requests at the high court.

Again, this is an example of the Deep State inadvertently revealing itself. If the Department of Justice values those things and thinks it will not be able to find them if it loyally serves the president, it is making a strong case that its offices are both partisan and elitist. //

Fortunately, the Trump administration is rising to the challenge of finding lawyers who are willing to work to further the Trump agenda.

The Justice Department is building a roster of lawyers willing to defend in court the most controversial parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda, firing career attorneys whom leaders view as standing in their way and hiring dozens of political appointees to carry out the president’s agenda.

The new hires are already appearing on behalf of the government to defend Trump’s efforts to remake immigration policy and the federal workforce and to expand the powers of the presidency. They sometimes sit in front of judges alone, without the cadre of veteran attorneys who typically show up for big cases.

Some have prestigious conservative credentials, clerking for Supreme Court justices and top federal judges, according to a review of the new hires’ professional bios posted on LinkedIn. Others are fresh out of law school, taking on influential positions. Many honed their legal skills working for conservative state attorneys general during the Biden administration. //

Battles like these are happening across the federal government: in the Department of Health and Human Services, at the Environmental Protection Agency, and even in the Armed Forces; see Top US Commander in Greenland Disavows Trump's Position to US and Danish Troops (Updated). The idea that only long-serving, ideologically driven elite law school graduates can adequately represent the United States in court is ridiculous, and you need only look at past performance for the proof. //

GBenton 2 hours ago

Unhappy with the limits our republic as founded placed on the left's demonic lust for power, they spent the last 100 years growing the administrative state outside the bounds and through lawfare and dumbing down the voters with public education, they tried to subjugate and enslave us from within without firing a shot.

Appeals to the norms are simply an attempt to get us to accept our serfdom and not ask of district judges can usurp Article II powers or of the IA can run color revolutions and even delete presidents like JFK or railroad them out like Nixon amd Trump.

its all smoke and mirrors. This extra constitutional adventure needs to come to an end or we lose the country.

McCarthy was right. The commies are burrowed in everywhere, playing the long game.

Time to tear out what they corrupted over the last century and reform education so they can't easily rebuild it.

One added note: The DOJ sought to have the case dismissed without prejudice — meaning it could be brought again at some later date. Ho declined to grant that request, opting instead to dismiss it with prejudice, and noting:

In light of DOJ’s rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents. That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice. //

raswhiting Random US Citizen
an hour ago
Yes, it seems the corruption encouraged and allowed by the leftist Democrats is a feature, not a bug in the system, with one reason being it gives the top Democrats leverage over the lower, corrupt Democrats, i.e., the threat of prosecution.

WascallyWabbit
2 days ago
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

-- Atlas Shrugged //

Oyarsu
2 days ago
Israel, Romania, Brazil, England, And now France. These judges are creating a lawless world while insisting they aren’t. Its all insane. //

Buckeye28
2 days ago edited
For all the shrieking about Trump being a threat to democracy, these anti-democratic moves throughout Europe are becoming more and more troubling: machinations in France and Germany to prevent conservative parties from winning parliamentary elections; the popular conservative candidates in Romania and France being removed from the ballot by courts; conservative protest being criminalized in the U.K. and Ireland. European governments are undermining democracy, and that’s a point I hope our side really starts making to justify us distancing ourselves from Europe.

Having said that, I have to ask: did La Pen actually do something illegal under French law? It’s one thing if this is a rigged prosecution, like what happened to Trump in NYS. It’s another if she actually is guilty. (And selective prosecution arguments—“the other guy did it too but didn’t get charged”—are usually losers. If A and B both drive 40mph in a 25mph zone, and A gets a ticket and B doesn’t, doesn’t mean the speed limit isn’t a law.)

GBenton
an hour ago
"They're doing it again because you didn't hang them last time" - meme on X. Author unknown.

Unlike the months and years handed down in sentences to people who merely entered the Capitol, I'd be shocked if any of this results in more than a stern talking to by some Obama or Biden appointee on the DC bench. Nevertheless, the proceedings will probably provide sufficient cause to terminate the whole lot, and that counts for something.

The Republicans may have complete control of Congress, but President Trump still has a major roadblock to carrying out his agenda — the courts.

The lower courts blocked more of Trump’s executive orders in his first two months of office than they did for other recent commanders in chief during their entire terms.

The lower courts have slapped at least 15 national injunctions against Trump so far this year.

That drastically outpaces the six against former President George W. Bush during his entire presidency and the 12 against former President Barack Obama and the 14 against former President Joe Biden for their whole time in office, too, according to a tally from Harvard Law Review.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/23/us-news/lower-courts-blocking-trumps-executive-orders-at-much-higher-rate-than-predecessors/. //

Stephen Miller @StephenM
·
It takes 5 Supreme Court justices to issue a ruling that affects the whole nation. Yet lone District Court judges assume the authority to unilaterally dictate the policies of the entire executive branch of government.

Benjamin Weingarten @bhweingarten
Replying to @EricTeetsel
There’s a credible case to be made that any one of around 700 district court judges possesses more power than any one Supreme Court justice, given the unilateral power to issue a universal injunction
8:34 AM · Mar 20, 2025. //

How it works: Lawsuits against the federal government start in a district court — there are more than 600 district-court judges — then can move to an appeals court, then the Supreme Court.

In the old days, district courts' rulings only applied to the parties before them. But since the beginning of the Obama administration, those judges have become increasingly willing to say their rulings apply nationwide — the same scope a Supreme Court decision has. //

I’m open-minded enough to consider that some of these rulings are in fact fair, but the sheer number of them—especially compared with historical precedent—is simply impossible to ignore.

And deeply troubling.

The Supreme Court has become a paper tiger, failing to hold defiant lower courts accountable when they make rogue decisions. //

Lower court federal judges across the country are standing athwart the American people’s will to allow the Trump administration to cut government programs and deport violent gang members from the country. But these unelected judges have a long-running pattern of clinging to their status quo, even in defiance of the Supreme Court, because the high court refuses to rein them in.

The Supreme Court has the responsibility to make sure its subsidiary courts follow its directives — often by taking more cases, and making their precedent unambiguous. Arrogant, active, and open defiance on some of the most important issues, however, has been the norm from these lower courts for years, and a majority on the high court has persistently refused to stop them. //

The Court’s majority again refused to take a case wrongly decided by lower courts, when the Biden administration attempted to fine a Medicare-funded work-around for Dobbs, forcing hospitals in Idaho, which had outlawed almost all abortions, to perform them anyway.

“Shortly before Idaho’s law took effect, President Biden instructed members of his administration to find ways to limit Dobbs’s reach,” Alito wrote in a dissent for Moyle v. United States. “Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable.”

It’s not just abortion, it’s Second Amendment rights as well. Lower courts repeatedly waged war against DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court precedent that struck down a law that banned handgun ownership in Washington, D.C., and clarified that the Second Amendment does not just protect a right to self defense for militia purposes.

In a 2018 case that would have allowed the Court to enforce its own precedent, the Court ran away, and had done so for years, Thomas wrote in yet another dissent slamming lower courts for defying the high court.

“Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance. We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years … If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari,” Thomas said before listing other rights that the Court would have taken cases on. “The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.” //

The Court used to enforce its precedent, like when lower courts attempted to defy Brown v. Board of Education and its mandate to racially integrate schools. It used to do it because it has always been part of the job — precedential decisions are not ‘one-and-done’ adventures. They will need clarification, parameters set, or clarity for lower courts to tell them the high court meant what it said.

At least one federal judge, James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, has publicly diagnosed at least part of the problem with the court refusing to take cases: A debilitating lack of fortitude among a vast array of federal judges.

In a 2023 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Ho said many federal judges are afraid to make tough decisions, or take tough cases, because they are afraid of public backlash for making the right decision:

If you plan to be faithful to the Constitution in every case, no matter how unpopular that may be, gold stars are not in the cards for you. But that’s the job. Judges don’t swear an oath to uphold the Constitution part of the time: We swear an oath to uphold the Constitution all of the time.

If you’re an originalist only when elites won’t be upset with you—if you’re an originalist only when it’s easy — that’s not principled judging. That’s fair-weather originalism. We’re not binding ourselves to the text if we only follow it when people like the result.

“When you look at the résumé of a typical federal judge, you often see a bunch of fancy credentials,” Ho added to the argument in a 2024 piece for the National Review. “People who have devoted their whole lives to collecting gold stars tend to be motivated by one overarching objective: getting more gold stars. If that’s what drives you, then the threat of public scolding can be a powerful motivator.”

The “booing of the crowd,” Ho said, “is not going away anytime soon,” and if judges cannot handle it, they should probably find other work.

At what point does judicial review turn into judicial rule?

This problem isn’t just about these issues or executive power — it’s about the broader politicization of the judiciary. When a judge blocks a policy because he personally opposes it, rather than because it violates the Constitution, he is no longer functioning as a neutral arbiter. //

Even the Supreme Court has recognized the dangers of this judicial overreach. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), Chief Justice John Roberts warned lower courts that they do not have the authority to micromanage national security decisions made by the executive. Yet lower courts continue to ignore that warning, issuing nationwide injunctions based on political discomfort rather than constitutional law.

The media will cast Trump’s decision to ignore Boasberg’s ruling as reckless, lawless, or authoritarian. But what’s truly reckless is allowing the judiciary to continue seizing power it does not have. There is precedent for presidents pushing back against judicial overreach. Abraham Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court ruling in 1861 when Chief Justice Roger Taney attempted to block his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Andrew Jackson famously refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia, arguing that the executive branch — not the judiciary — was responsible for enforcement. Both of those decisions were controversial. Both were necessary.

The ACLU is seeking to stop the executive branch from removing five plaintiffs. D.C. District Judge James Boasberg hastily took command and control over the latest iteration of lawfare, emergently agreeing to consider the case and issuing orders camouflaged in legitimacy. Judge Boasberg’s orders, actions, and reactions are laden with plain error.

From the onset, Boasberg failed to recognize his court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this case. Why? The ACLU filed this case in the District of Columbia. The five Venezuelan plaintiffs represented by the ACLU are not detained in D.C., but in New York and Texas. The Supreme Court ruled in Rumsfeld v. Padilla that no court has jurisdiction over a habeas petition unless those filing the petition are detained in the district in which it was filed.

Boasberg was also quick to accept the plaintiffs’ premise that the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) is a power properly exercised only during a time of war. This is patently false. Any plain reading of the law makes it clear that the AEA is an appropriate power to invoke not only during a time of war, but when the president determines there has been an invasion or predatory incursion. Even more persuasive is the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ludecke v. Watkins that the AEA extends beyond wartime. And without a statutory definition of “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” it is the judgment of the president alone to determine if such has occurred. This national security determination is a non-justiciable political question and the Supreme Court has repeatedly informed the intellectually curious that political questions are not reviewable by a court. //

Boasberg has gone too far and too fast to retreat, so this skirmish will continue until the Supreme Court loads up the Article II canons on his position (see what I did there). Through his orders and admonitions, Boasberg has tactlessly given imprimatur to the “legal strategy” of disrupting the Trump presidency at all costs. Boasberg has called DOJ’s response to brash authority as “woefully insufficient,” but, candidly, his stewardship of this case thus far has been nothing more than woeful.

President Trump’s adversaries were determined to take his freedom, his fortune, and even his life. Those efforts thankfully failed. But his enemies remain undeterred.

This is just lawfare by other means.

Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge — one of nearly 700 — in a courthouse anywhere in the nation?

The answer is obvious, and pure common sense.

The president is elected by millions, empowered by the US Constitution to ensure “the laws be faithfully executed,” conduct foreign policy and command the nation’s armed forces. //

Yet across the country, highly partisan district judges are using legal ploys to bulldoze Trump, stymie his agenda — and set national, even international policy.

In dozens of cases since Jan. 20, federal district judges — the lowest on the ladder — have issued nationwide injunctions halting Trump’s suspension of foreign aid, his deportation of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members, his layoffs and spending cuts in federal departments and agencies, his prohibitions on discriminatory diversity programs in higher education and government hiring, and more.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, DC, issued a nationwide injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order excluding transgender individuals from the military. Reyes said she foresees a “heated public debate” and appeals.

But Emperor Reyes is taking it upon herself to decide the issue for the entire nation, in defiance of the commander-in-chief who actually heads the military — before any evidence is heard.

She is freezing in place a policy the president opposes, for all the months and years it may take for the lawsuit to be decided and for appeals to be made, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. //

But lefty district court judges are still waging lawfare against Trump — and the high court isn’t doing its job.

On March 5, a divided Supreme Court turned down Trump’s request to lift a district court order compelling the State Department and the US Agency for International Development to pay $2 billion in foreign aid, in defiance of the president’s policies.

Justice Samuel Alito issued a blistering dissent.

“Does a single district-court judge … have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” he thundered.

“The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No’.”

Trump’s Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris is undeterred.

The solution is clear: either the Supreme Court needs to step in and reassert its unique authority to issue nationwide rulings, or Congress must pass legislation limiting district courts' ability to issue sweeping national injunctions. The current system, where any district judge can effectively veto presidential actions, is unsustainable and undermines our constitutional order.

Trump's administration continues to fight these battles in court, often successfully on appeal. But the time has come to address this abuse of judicial power head-on.

INGRAHAM: But going forward...would you defy a court order? Because...we all know that was out —

TRUMP: No, I never did defy a court order.

INGRAHAM: And you wouldn't in the future?

TRUMP: No. You can't do that. However, we have bad judges. We have very bad judges. And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed...I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at: What do you do when you have a rogue judge? //

Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
·
From a friend: "It’s hard to tell whether the principal purpose of Lawfare 2.0 is (1) to stop Trump from doing stuff or (2) to goad him into saying he won’t follow court orders (so that they can say he’s a dictator, and potentially turn the Congress and the Supreme Court against him; so far, Congress has been helpful by the narrowest of margins and the Supreme Court has been slow but not hostile). Conservatives need to realize that Trump is playing it smart by avoiding direct confrontation. By the end of the year, he’ll get 90% of what he wants through the budgetary or appellate process."
10:49 AM · Mar 19, 2025. //

anon-89ic
3 hours ago
You can't ignore the corruption of the federal bench. Federal judges are now generally picked by the senior Senator of each state, so Liz Warren picks the federal judges for all the Bray State and it was obvious during the covid hoax that all of these judges she has picked for so many years are partisan hacks, and the same is true in New York, California and elsewhere, so the problem is not judicial v. executive, but also legislative v. executive in which the courts are a tool of select members of the Senate. this is a real constitutional crisis because it is clear that 28 years of bench packing has created a constitutional crisis from a discredited and politicized judiciary. No, you cannot ignore a court order from a legitimate and non partisan court, but that isn't what we have now, and that is a huge problem.

the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua which has been terrorizing cities across the country—and then the administration sent at least one planeload of members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” back to their country of origin.

It didn’t take long for Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to kneecap the effort. Not only did he issue a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of any Venezuelans, but he also ordered that the plane (or planes; it’s unclear) return the gangsters to the U.S.

The actions against the president began even before he signed the order. Mind-boggling:

Hours before the proclamation was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, claiming it could be used to deport any Venezuelan in the country, regardless of whether they are a member of TdA.

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so.

the Trump administration totally expects they are going to lose in court a lot. Do you know what it costs to do an executive order? A piece of paper and a Sharpie. That’s it. And they can go right back to the drawing board. One of these courts said, hey, the language was too vague. You know what that tells them? Just go draft another one. It's not like legislation where you need a bunch of people to agree on something.

[...]

They’re going to fight at every single turn. And that means appealing absolutely everything with the knowledge that they’re going to lose some of them because it costs them nothing. Executive Orders are the easiest thing to issue.

I do not see this as Trump losing over and over and over again. I think the more important bigger story is that they’re not going to stop and they’re going to keep fighting it every time, and they are going to win some of these. //

Political-Paige
4 hours ago
SCOTUS could end all this tomorrow with a sweeping (and utterly unassailable) order that these District Courts lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions against the Executive.
But the Roberts Court is so timid that it's allowing unprecedented chaos to reign across the country as activist inferior court judges strut their unearned power games.
It's appalling.

In Texas, a doctor and whistleblower at the Texas Children’s Hospital was persecuted by the Biden administration for going public with the reality of these treatments. Award-winning journalist Catherine Herridge interviewed Dr. Eithan Haim and his wife Andrea and released the full interview Monday on X. It is truly must-see TV. Dr. Haim was, of course, persecuted by the Biden Justice Department for blowing the whistle on this unethical and unnecessary care for minors. //

Not only does this case represent an unforgivable instance of lawfare by a presidential administration against a medical practitioner who has gone public with his concerns over what is arguably an unethical practice, but it also shows the depth to which the adherents to gender ideology will go to keep treating kids.

Some key segments follow. The title of the interview is telling as well: "Government Malpractice - vindicated Texas surgeon speaks out after exposing Biden era gender affirming treatments for minors."

During the hearing, Reyes ceased to act as an impartial factfinder and engaged in argumentation that made it very clear that she was dismissive of the idea that transgenders who are unable to deploy worldwide because of the absence of specialized medical treatment were a drag, so to speak, on readiness; //

The letter alleges many incidents but focuses on two. In one, she demanded to know the religious views of the DOJ attorney, Jason Lynch. Then, this incredible exchange happened.

"What do you think Jesus would say," Reyes proceeded to ask, about an action that revokes a transgender person's access to homeless shelters?

"Do you think he’d say ‘sounds right to me’ or ‘WTF, let them in?'"

Lynch extracted himself by saying, "The US government is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything."

Not only was the questioning wildly inappropriate, but it also forced the government attorney to reveal his own religion and wonder how that would affect Reyes's view of his answer. //

after this display of stupidity, it is hard to believe that Reyes will not face a "motion to disqualify." Even if that motion is rejected, it will be appealed. If Reyes stays on the case and inevitably rules that transgenders are allowed in the military, the government will appeal, and Reyes's misconduct and abusive behavior will be a factor.

Martin's inquiries to Garcia and Schumer are part of an initiative that he reportedly calls "Operation Whirlwind," which was no doubt inspired by Schumer's notorious call to action in front of pro-abortion activists, and which was designed to zero in on threats made against public officials.

The letters have already sparked accusations that Martin is trying to stifle free speech. But after Democrats used Trump's Ellipse speech where he called for his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" protest as an excuse to impeach and indict him as part of their lawfare campaign, few tears will be shed as the shoe transfers to the other foot.

When the charges against Adams were revealed, he was accused of big stuff...like taking airline upgrades and helping the Turkish embassy navigate NYC's byzantine building code system; see BREAKING: We Now Know the Charges Against New York Mayor Eric Adams – RedState. The charges were framed to look big time, but they were eerily reminiscent of the hit jobs done on Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, where normal activities were mutated into federal felonies by lawyers out to get a scalp.

A sea change happened when Adams defended Trump at a press conference in the last days of the election: NYC Mayor Eric Adams Breaks With Dems Over Despicable Rhetoric: Trump Not a 'Fascist,' 'This Is America' – RedState. //

There was some speculation that Trump might pardon Adams; that didn't happen, but Trump did order DOJ to dismiss the charges against him; New: Trump Justice Dept. Directs Prosecutors to Dismiss Federal Corruption Charges Against Eric Adams – RedState. That's when the fun started. //

This shootout is nowhere near over. Bondi and Bove are still surrounded by disloyal and hostile staff. The judge in NYC is bound to do something other than accept the filing; otherwise, he'll be a social pariah. Ultimately, a judge can't force the government to prosecute a case it wants to dismiss.

It is good that this first battle came this early and over a fairly trivial issue. A lot of unreliable staff have been identified and are no longer employed. The attorneys who came to work for DOJ as a government service and not as a political commissar should now feel more comfortable knowing they have the support of the DOJ leadership team.

Pam Bondi wrote to DOJ on her first day in office, “Any attorney who because of their personal political views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the department’s mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination, consistent with applicable law.” There is no doubt she is serious. //

Skibum
a day ago edited
If you want to know if the prosecution of Mayor Adams was political, ask yourself whether the DOJ would have prosecuted Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago under the same circumstances?

The answer is "NO"! Johnson just got caught with a closet full of bribes with more to come and DOJ prosecutors are nowhere in sight.

Adams went off the Democrat reservation when it came to illegal immigration and Johnson did not. Adams was prosecuted.