Trump DOJ's Voting Section Chief Eric Neff, a key player in the voter-data grab campaign, used to work as an LA prosecutor, where he built a case off an 2020 election denier's tip.
It collapsed, costing the county $5M.
But DOJ scooped him up, @beckerdavidj.bsky.social explains. buff.ly/5QAew9F
The Harmeet Dhillon scorecard:
* 30 voter data-grab lawsuits filed (29 states + D.C.)
* 0-4 as of today
She's "racking up losses at a pretty impressive rate," says @beckerdavidj.bsky.social.
Full story, plus an interview about Dhillion's Voting Section chief misleading the court buff.ly/5QAew9F
“Suppression of political speech is the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy—as the Framers recognized when they drafted the First Amendment.”
A federal judge spits fire into a ruling protecting the Pentagon press corps from SecDef’s censorship.
Full ruling ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show...
This authoritarian threat will be treated with the scorn and derision it deserves.
The main question is: Which Trump DOJ functionaries are foolish enough to bring on the humiliation, make-work, and possible professional discipline to humor him before it fails?
I have my guesses.
I see my mistake now. Deleted and corrected in a separate post
Correction:
The sentence construction seemed confusing, but this docket entry appears to suggest that Bondi repped the US in one appeal and Zeldin in a separate one, not that both were terminated from their respective cases.
Here’s the deleted post for transparency
Bondi “for Zeldin and EPA.” Got it
I don’t follow. Yes, it’s a separate appeal, but why would Zeldin be terminated from that separate case?
The entry seems to suggest that Zeldin is terminated from the case for the same cited reason Bondi has been.
The sentence construction and syntax doesn’t suggest that only Bondi was terminated from the case.
Agreed that I doubt Zeldin acted as a lawyer in the EPA case.
If you are a United States servicemember and you are concerned about illegal or immoral orders, or you simply need clarity on your rights and duties, a counselor at the GI Rights Network can help. 877-447-4487 girightshotline.org/en/military-...
U.S. Attorney is pretty senior, and that's fairly uncommon. But it's not like the No. 3 at Main Justice.
Flynn case. When else?
On Monday, SCOTUS slated Steve Bannon's Jan. 6-related convictions for erasure, and Judge Hannah Dugan lost her first attempt for a new trial.
I unpacked the significance of the remarkable split-screen in my All Rise News dispatch last night.
Read and subscribe www.allrisenews.com/p/tonight-in...
For context, Woodward repped Trump's co-defendants in the Espionage Act case over the retention of highly classified national defense information.
To be clear, it was practically unheard of for the DOJ's top political leadership to insert themselves into individual criminal cases before Trump 2.0.
Read Mr. Woodward's legal brief for Trump's DOJ here. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Read Abrego's defense brief here. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
But one high-level DOJ official was present, not as a witness but as counsel for the government: Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, the number three official at the Department of Justice who oversees civil matters. Mr. Woodward appeared in this case after the Court granted discovery on Mr. Abrego’s vindictive prosecution claim (Dkt. 199, 215), making plain that senior DOJ officials remain in charge of this prosecution
Stan Woodward, the Trump DOJ's No. 3 figure, wrote the legal brief defending the case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia against vindictive prosecution claims.
That in itself, Abrego's team says, is evidence of vindictive prosecution. #AlwaysReadtheFootnotes
Background buff.ly/C6Tkv0C
That former criminal division chief, Ben Schrader, resigned the day Abrego was indicted.
I have attached to this email a memorandum recommending against charging Kilmar ABREGO-GARCIA in the Middle District of Tennessee at the present time with offenses stemming from allegations that he conspired to transport, and transported, illegal aliens from Texas to Maryland from approximately 2016 to 2025. Please pass it along to relevant parties in D.C. as well.”
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyers reveal a glimpse the former criminal division chief's advice AGAINST prosecution in a new legal brief.
Background from February buff.ly/C6Tkv0C
A jury convicted defendant Hannah Dugan, a state court judge, of obstructing a proceeding before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Defendant moves for judgment of acquittal, Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, and/or for a new trial, Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. For the reasons that follow, her motions will be denied
BREAKING
A federal judge has DENIED Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan’s motion for a new trial or an acquittal following her conviction late last year for obstructing an ICE arrest in her courthouse.
Background here. buff.ly/x3iPGBt
The "Trump's brain is stuck in 1989" theory remains undefeated.
The Trump Administration's efforts to undermine Colorado's gold standard of elections won't succeed. I discussed the Trump Administration's illegal attacks on our election system--and the Tina Peters case--with @klasfeldreports.com recently.
www.allrisenews.com/p/trump-voti...
Trump's DOJ just ended its prosecution of the bank that helped Iran dodge U.S. sanctions, as what looks like a favor to his dictator buddy Erdogan. Trump sacrificed U.S. servicemembers' lives and spiked gas prices to attack Iran, but he lets Iran's bankers off scot-free. It's all a grift.
NEWS
Trump’s DOJ appeals a federal judge’s ruling protecting Anthropic to the Ninth Circuit. buff.ly/Q0BuVHT
Background buff.ly/3Qo1ZMc
SCOOP: Senator probes DOJ's deal to end historic Iran sanctions case
Giving a pass to a record-breaking Iran sanctions-busting scheme during the war smacks of "rank incompetence" — or worse, Sen. Wyden told Scott Bessent. buff.ly/NAswRNO
I wonder how many people are aware that this is the message of one of our country's most famous poems. It's not just about immigration.
Just so you understand, this is as if you prepared for argument in front of a panel that included Cookie Monster, and Cookie Monster asked you a question about cookies, and you had not thought about cookies in advance.
Good question from Kavanaugh: Didn't Congress enshrine Wong Kim Ark's broad understanding of the 14th Amendment when it codified birthright citizenship in 1940 and 1952?
"If you're in Congress in 1940 and 1952 and you want to limit the scope of Wong Kim Ark ... why do you repeat the same language?"
Kav:
“I get the point thinking about, ‘Gee, European countries don't have [birthright citizenship], or most other countries — many other countries in the world — don't have this.’”
But he adds he’s “not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter.”
Concur.
