SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
lindsey halligan
Trump Sees Women as the Enemy
The president’s deep and abiding contempt for females has taken a giant leap forward (or do I mean backward?) in policy terms in the Trump 2.0 years.
Jan 08, 2026
“Quiet, Piggy.” The president was intent on silencing Catherine Lucey. The Bloomberg reporter had provoked him with a question about the release of the Epstein files. His insult caught the public’s attention. But Donald Trump’s tongue-lashing lexicon against women has a long history. Other female journalists have been dubbed “obnoxious,” “terrible,” “third-rate,” and “ugly.” Vice President Kamala Harris, opposing him in the 2024 presidential election, was labeled “retarded” and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “crazy as a bedbug.” The list goes on (and on and on). And who knows what was redacted from the Epstein files along those very lines?
Mind you, those Trumpian insults hurled at women (and regularly offered about them) are anything but performative throwaways. They reveal Donald Trump’s deep and abiding contempt for females, an attitude that has taken a giant leap forward (or do I mean backward?) in policy terms in the Trump 2.0 years. Well beyond a simple cascade of insulting words, the commander-in-chief and his allies have deemed women the enemy. And not surprisingly, under the circumstances, they are now distinctly under attack.
The Purges
From day one of his second term as president, Trump has made his intention to rid the government of women crystal clear—with some window-dressing exceptions. Without mentioning women per se, he nonetheless targeted them on his very first day in office. Executive Order 14151 vowed to end the “forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs” of the Biden era. (On his first day in office, Biden had issued an executive order opening the door for “underserved communities” via a “whole of government equity agenda.”). Trump’s EO, however, decreed an end to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and to any appointments that were meant to reflect diversity hiring, claiming that such policies “demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination.”
Immediately, women began to be flung from their government perches. Those holding high positions were the first to go. US Archivist Colleen Shogan was removed, as were the three top women at the National Labor Relations Board. Head of the Federal Trade Commission Rebecca Slaughter was promptly fired, a case still under review by the Supreme Court (though it’s hard to expect good news from SCOTUS these days). The Pentagon cleaned house early and fast, removing women from positions of leadership, including the head of the US Naval Academy in Annapolis; the commandant of the Coast Guard, the chief of naval operations, and the only woman flag officer on NATO’s Military Committee. All had been the first females to occupy those posts. Also sent packing was the woman serving as the senior military assistant to the secretary of defense.
Better, it seems, to overtax a man than allow a woman to lead anything whatsoever.
Black women in particular found themselves under attack. Early removals of Black women included Carla Hayden, the librarian of Congress; Gwynne Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the National Labor Relations Board; and Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the board of governors of the Federal Reserve Board. Meanwhile, Peggy Carr, the first Black person and the first woman to be commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, was cruelly and unexpectedly escorted out of the building in front of her staff.
The circumstances surrounding the ouster of the first female to lead the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), acting administrator Janet Petro, highlighted the conviction that emptying offices of women occupants took precedence over quality, efficiency, or overall professionalism. Petro was replaced by an interim appointee, Sean Duffy, who continued to serve in the demanding job of secretary of transportation even as he assumed the leadership of NASA. Better, it seems, to overtax a man than allow a woman to lead anything whatsoever.
The Pentagon
The Pentagon took an early lead in the crusade against women. Even before he was confirmed as secretary of defense (now the Department of War), nominee Pete Hegseth signaled the changes to come under his leadership. Former President Barack Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had opened up combat roles to women in 2015. Hegseth promised to change that. “I’m straight up just saying that we should not have women in combat roles,” he told podcaster Shawn Ryan. “It hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.” The Hill summed it up well in late July this way: “All women have now been purged from the military’s top jobs, with no female four-star officers on active duty and none in pending appointments for four- or three-star roles.”
Hegseth’s anti-female campaign focused on substance as well as numbers. Women, he suggested, just didn’t have the skills to conduct business with sufficient lethality. According to him, the Pentagon’s Women, Peace, and Security program, signed into law during Trump’s first term in office, only served to weaken the Pentagon. Women would merely distract the department from its “core task—FIGHTING,” he tweeted (as Politico reported). Hegseth summarily ended the program. As a United Nations spokeswoman suggested, the removal of women’s voices from the realm of peacekeeping would impede the protection of women and children worldwide.
Healthcare
Back at home, removing protections for females has amounted to a full-scale attack, consistent with warfare, on their bodies. A restructuring of the Department of Health and Human Services has crippled reproductive health programs. In April, HuffPost reported that “the majority” of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Division of Reproductive Health was laid off and two of the three main programs of the Maternal and Infant Health division were eradicated. While the Trump administration has consistently tried to hide data about such purges and policies, journalists have kept at it, unearthing some of the facts. Citing “piecemeal and crowd-sourced information,” the Guardian, for example, was able to report that “the entire staff of a gold-standard maternal mortality survey… was also put on leave.”
As it happens, the Republican Congress has joined the assault. Trump’s much-ballyhooed Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), which passed in July, included reductions in funding to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, programs that are projected to hit adult women the hardest. Of note, the BBB included a prohibition on federal Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood. Even before the passage of the bill, the administration had withheld Title X funding from 20 states and 144 Planned Parenthood clinics that, since 1970, had received grants for family planning and reproductive health services. Expectations are that more drastic cuts will follow. In May, the Commonwealth Fund summarized the devastating consequences of the president’s first 100 days in office for women’s reproductive health, detailing a drastic decline in access to medical abortions. And if such reproductive issues weren’t enough to alarm us, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has removed its recommendation for Covid-19 vaccines for pregnant women and children.
The Record
To add insult to injury, the administration has made it clear that it’s not just women’s positions in government or their healthcare that are subject to eradication. The historical record of women and their accomplishments is also under attack. Across government databases, museum displays, and archival holdings, information about women has been systematically deleted. As I wrote in an earlier TomDispatch post, the erasure of information, historical and statistical, has been a signature weapon of this administration. The websites of the Army and Navy have dutifully removed information about the history of women in the military, while Arlington Cemetery took down its webpage on women buried there, including First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. And in a similar fashion, NASA opted to remove any mention of women as part of the DEI purge of its website.
The Deception
No essay on the plight of women in the era of Trump 2.0 would be sufficient without commentary on the seeming contradiction between the multipronged attack on women and the presence of women in a striking number of cabinet roles. Seven of Trump’s cabinet appointments are held by women, and his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, is the first woman to hold that cabinet-level post.
And yet, that doesn’t seem to have changed the narrative of Trump 2.0 or the impulse to assault women’s rights nationwide. If anything, it has at times enabled it, only further amplifying the administration’s anti-female screed. At the Department of Justice, for instance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, who a decade earlier had voted against the Violence Against Women Act, has reportedly intervened in a number of asylum cases, banning entry to the US for women fleeing domestic violence. At the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the directorship of Secretary Kristi Noem, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has been shuttered, while “at least 25 sexual abuse complaints” have been dismissed. And when it comes to immigration detention, reports of the sexual and physical abuse of women abound. In the words of Human Rights Watch researcher Clara Long, the conditions are “jaw-dropping.” As Long puts it, “Grievous abuses—assaults, sexual abuse, and discriminatory treatment by US agents—are an open secret within DHS.”
For those who continue to embrace the exclusion of women from positions of power and consequence, what better proof do they need than Lindsey Halligan—or, for that matter, other women who are being patched into roles they can’t possibly fulfill at a high standard?
In short, the performances of the women in this administration have undermined the cause of women even more. Chosen for their loyalty to Trump rather than their expertise, their incompetence has been laid out for all to see, scoring high marks when it comes to furthering the perception of women as insufficient to the important tasks at hand. Exhibit One is certainly Lindsey Halligan. A former insurance lawyer who had previously been on Trump’s legal team, she was appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi to serve as the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan subsequently headed up the prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General of New York Letitia James, who had been at the helm of lawsuits against the president before he entered office a second time. Both of Halligan’s cases were thrown out after a federal judge ruled her appointment to be an unlawful use of the attorney general’s appointment power. The Department of Justice is appealing both cases.
But even before that judge had a chance to issue his ruling, Halligan had harmed the cause of women. Having never led a prosecution before, she faced the grand jury seeking an indictment of Comey without the presence of her own team at the Justice Department to back her up. (After all, her predecessor, Trump-nominated and Trump-fired Erik Siebert had resigned in part because he had determined that there were insufficient grounds for bringing just such a prosecution.) Due to her lack of expertise, she displayed a profound lack of knowledge about trial procedure and courtroom norms. As former prosecutor Elie Honig reported in New York Magazine’s Intelligencer, “the bumbling novice prosecutor” botched many things, including making incorrect statements to the jury and failing to present the final version of the indictment to jury members for their sign-off. Though the case was ultimately thrown out, criticism of Halligan has continued relentlessly.
For those who continue to embrace the exclusion of women from positions of power and consequence, what better proof do they need than Lindsey Halligan—or, for that matter, other women who are being patched into roles they can’t possibly fulfill at a high standard? As French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir long ago commented when it came to women seeking to advance in the world, “Her wings are cut and then she is blamed for not knowing how to fly.”
In sum, women are in trouble in Donald Trump’s second presidency. And yet, there are signs of hope, promising both sustenance and strength for women in the days to come. While the Center for American Women and Politics reports that the number of women in elected office is down overall for 2025, 26 of the 100 senators are now women, the highest percentage ever. (And who knows what the congressional elections in 2026 are likely to bring, given the strong showing of Democrats in elections in 2025?)
Moreover, outside of government, women are far from absent. They currently sit atop the country’s largest philanthropic foundations—Heather Gerken at the Ford Foundation, Amber Miller at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Louise Richardson at the Carnegie Corporation of New York. They are presidents of some of the country’s most prestigious universities, including Brown, Columbia, New York University, and Yale. At Microsoft, Google, Anthropic, and other tech companies, women are distinctly on the rise, offering expertise, guidance, and leadership, while undoubtedly preparing for a future in which their expertise will be sought.
About-Face?
In recent weeks, inside the Trump administration, there have been signs, however minor, that some of the president’s most devout female allies are starting to dissent. Congressional Rep. and Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has taken the lead in that female about-face, announcing that she is going to leave Congress before her term is up and going so far as to suggest that she is more in touch with the president’s MAGA base than he is. Like Greene, longtime Trump ally Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) has chosen to “call it quits” and leave public office behind. Trump had failed to support her bid to run for governor of New York, just as he had pulled her nomination to the UN earlier in the year. And then there’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles who, however much she subsequently reneged on remarks she made over the course of 11 interviews with Vanity Fair’s Chris Whipple, clearly indicated that she had moved away from the president’s stances on Venezuela, the January 6th pardons, and the Epstein files.
Maybe, just maybe, the undermining of decades of progress stands a chance of reversal.
No wonder he’s so afraid of women!
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Tosses Comey, James Cases Over 'Unlawful' Appointment of Trump Prosecutor
"This case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged," said Letitia James' lawyer.
Nov 24, 2025
A federal judge on Monday threw out criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that President Donald Trump's handpicked prosecutor was illegally installed.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, wrote in her Monday orders that former White House official Lindsey Halligan "has been unlawfully serving" as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and that "all actions flowing" from her appointment "constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside."
Halligan is a Trump loyalist with no prior experience as a prosecutor—something that quickly became apparent as she made glaring mistakes in pursuit of charges against Comey and James, frequent targets of the president's ire. The charges against Comey and James were widely seen as flimsy and politically motivated.
Halligan was installed in late September, just two days after Trump fired off a since-deleted social media post complaining about the lack of action against Comey and James. Currie highlighted the post in her order.
"Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot," Trump wrote, directing his message at Attorney General Pam Bondi. "We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility."
Halligan's predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned under pressure from the Trump administration for declining to seek indictments against Comey and James. Siebert privately voiced concern that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges.
Currie ruled that Halligan's Trump-directed appointment violated 28 US Code § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The Comey and James cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the Trump administration could try to install a new prosecutor to revive the charges—though the statute of limitations in Comey's case expired at the end of September.
Democracy Docket notes that Halligan "is the fourth Trump-appointed acting US attorney deemed to be serving unlawfully."
James, who brought a civil suit against Trump in 2022 for "fraudulent and misleading asset valuations," said Monday that she was "heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country."
"I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day," James added.
Abbe David Lowell, James' attorney, said Monday that "this case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged."
"We will continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available," said Lowell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Should Be Immediately Disbarred': Trump-Picked Prosecutor's Blunder in Comey Case Leaves Experts Stunned
"I honestly didn't even know this was a mistake you could make," said one observer.
Nov 19, 2025
Legal experts and reporters reacted with shock on Wednesday after Trump-appointed interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan acknowledged that a grand jury never voted on the operative indictment filed against former FBI Director James Comey.
Politico reports that the admission appears to have put the Comey prosecution "in serious jeopardy," as Halligan told US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff the grand jury never saw the final indictment that was handed down in September that charged Comey with one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding.
The final indictment was a revised version of an originally proposed three-count indictment that needed to be changed after the grand jury rejected one of the proposed charges against Comey.
Former federal prosecutor Ken White attempted to piece together exactly what Halligan did in a post on Bluesky.
"So here’s what apparently happened: they tried to indict Comey on the last day of the statute with a three-count indictment," he explained. "The grand jury rejected one. Rather than cross it out or indicate on the indictment that only two of the three counts were voted upon, Halligan creates a new indictment, which shows only the two counts they true billed, and has the foreperson sign it without presenting it to the grand jury."
Assistant US Attorney Tyler Lemons told Nachmanoff that it was necessary to revise the indictment on short notice after grand jurors no-billed one of the charges since the statute of limitations for Comey's alleged crimes was set to expire within mere hours.
"They really had no other way to return it," he told the court.
Nonetheless, many observers expressed shock that Halligan could make such an elementary error that could singlehandedly get the entire case against Comey dismissed.
"Lindsey Halligan should be immediately disbarred," wrote Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at the Georgia State College School of Law, in a post on X.
Political and leadership consultant Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin, a former human rights attorney, also believed that Hallingan should face severe consequences for pushing forward with an indictment that had not been voted on by a full grand jury.
"This should result in the interim US Attorney losing her bar license," she wrote on Bluesky. "Never, in almost 30 years as an attorney, have I heard of this big of an intentional fuck up before a grand jury."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that Halligan's actions were enough to justify her termination as interim US attorney.
"In a normal Department of Justice not run by hacks and sycophants and malicious clowns," he wrote, "Lindsey Halligan would resign and the indictment against James Comey would be dismissed."
Quinta Jurecic, a longtime legal journalist who writes for The Atlantic, said that she found Halligan's error to be "impressive" because "I honestly didn't even know this was a mistake you could make."
Anti-Trump attorney George Conway, meanwhile, encouraged his followers on X to "please remember to give thanks to the Lord that Trump and his people are so unbelievably incompetent."
Maya Sen, a political scientist at the Harvard Kennedy School, drew a line between the quality of legal competence in the Comey case and a three-judge panel in Texas shooting down the administration's efforts to redraw Texas' congressional map as part of a mid-decade gerrymandering scheme.
"High levels of incompetence between this and the DOJ-TX gerrymandering situation," she wrote on X. "It's hard to find people with high levels of competence and expertise when maximizing on ideological and personal loyalty, and this is a problem for [Republicans] in the age of educational polarization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Says Trump's Handpicked Attorney May Have 'Tainted' Case Against Comey With False Statements
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said one legal reporter.
Nov 17, 2025
The attorney handpicked to prosecute President Donald Trump's enemies may have "tainted the grand jury proceedings" against former FBI Director James Comey by making multiple false statements, said a federal judge Monday.
In a 24-page ruling, Federal Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” when moving to secure the indictment of the former FBI director in September, following a direct order from Trump to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
As a result, Fitzpatrick granted what he called an "extraordinary remedy," requiring all grand jury materials in the case, including audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings, to be made available to the defense. Typically, information from a grand jury indictment is kept secret until it is revealed at trial. But Fitzpatrick said the "unique circumstances" made it necessary to release it "to fully protect the rights of the accused."
The most glaring of these missteps were made by Lindsey Halligan, the interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Despite being a former insurance lawyer who'd never prosecuted a criminal case, she singlehandedly brought the indictment before the grand jury, which accused Comey of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020 about whether he authorized someone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding the bureau's investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Despite her lack of experience, Halligan—a former contestant in one of Trump's beauty pageants—was plucked from obscurity to serve as the interim US attorney for Comey's home district after Trump pushed out her predecessor, who refused to bring charges against Comey due to lack of evidence.
Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, another of Trump's enemies who Halligan has brought charges against, last week successfully got a different judge to hear their argument that Halligan was unlawfully appointed to her position.
Fitzpatrick said his decision to open up grand jury materials in the Comey case came in part because of two "fundamental misstatements of the law" made by Halligan, that he said "could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process" and potentially rise to the level of "misconduct."
Halligan asserted that Comey did not have the Fifth Amendment right not to testify, which Fitzpatrick wrote “ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not to testify, the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision."
He also said that a separate statement made by Halligan, which remains redacted, "may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jurors that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government's evidence."
Fitzpatrick said the prosecutor also made the highly unusual argument that the grand jury did not have to rely solely on evidence presented in the government's indictment—which was a measly page-and-a-half long—to determine probable cause. Instead, Fitzpatrick said, Halligan suggested the jury "could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial."
That interpretation aligns with the criticism Fitzpatrick voiced at a hearing earlier this month, calling out the Trump DOJ's “indict first, investigate later” approach to these political prosecutions.
Fitzpatrick further suggested that Halligan and the DOJ violated the Fourth Amendment by relying on evidence sourced from FBI search warrants executed in 2019 and 2020 during a separate case against one of Comey's former attorneys, Daniel Richman, whom the indictment alleged was the source Comey authorized to speak to the media.
"Under long-standing Fourth Amendment precedent," Fitzpatrick wrote, "the government may search for and seize only those materials expressly authorized by the terms of a search warrant issued in connection with specific predicate offenses."
Fitzpatrick also wrote that an FBI agent called to testify before the grand jury may have exposed information subject to attorney-client privilege between Comey and Richman, which he called a "highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice."
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said Sarah Lynch, who covers the DOJ for Reuters.
The order may result in the case being thrown out of court entirely before even getting to trial, and the DOJ would be unable to bring it again, with or without prejudice, as the statute of limitations has expired.
If it is found that Halligan was improperly appointed to her position, the case would also fall apart since she was the only attorney who signed the indictment, though Bondi has retroactively claimed she reviewed the document even though she never signed it. It would also potentially derail the case against James.
MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said that "given today’s ruling... it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see how the indictment does not get dismissed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ethics Officials Ousted Amid Probe of Trump Ally's Access to Mortgage Files
The fired members of the Federal Housing Finance Agency's internal watchdog were looking into complaints that Director Bill Pulte and his team improperly pulled records of Democratic officials.
Nov 12, 2025
Watchdogs at the government-sponsored home loan company popularly known as Fannie Mae were fired as they investigated whether a close ally of President Donald Trump improperly accessed mortgage files of Democratic officials targeted for political retribution by the president, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
People familiar with the matter told the Journal that the fired ethics team members were looking into complaints that Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte and his team improperly directed staff to access mortgage records of New York Attorney General Letitia James and other Democratic officials.
The anonymous officials said that ethics team leader Suzanne Libby and her staffers were fired shortly after Fannie Mae management ordered them to stop investigating a company executive close to Pulte, effectively clearing out the company's internal watchdogs.
This, days after Reuters reported that Joe Allen, the FHFA's acting inspector-general, was being removed from his position. Three unnamed sources told Reuters that Allen's removal came as he was preparing to notify congressional lawmakers that the FHFA was not cooperating with his office.
Pulte has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to a pro-Trump super political action committee and has been described as the president's "attack dog" after his team pulled property records of Democrats including James, Sen. Adam Schiff of California, and Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook.
James successfully sued Trump and his business organization for fraud. Schiff was the lead manager in the first of the president's two House impeachments.
Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan—who was hand-picked by Trump—indicted James after her predecessor, Erik Seibert, refused to do so, citing a lack of evidence. On Tuesday, the Campaign for Accountability, a watchdog group, filed a complaint with the bar associations of Florida and Virginia accusing Halligan of possible ethics violations in connection with the charges against James and former FBI Director James Comey, who oversaw a probe into alleged pro-Trump interference in the 2016 presidential election by Russia.
Pulte said last month that he fired dozens of Fannie Mae staffers as part of the Trump administration's attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. On Monday, the company fired at least 200 additional employees, according to the Washington Post.
As the Post noted:
Pulte’s actions and unpredictable policymaking style have also sown uncertainty and undermined confidence in him from those across the housing finance industry at a crucial moment. The Trump administration is looking to take Fannie and Freddie [Mac]—under government control since the 2008 housing crisis—public through what it says would be the largest public offering in history. Pulling that off would require a full-throated endorsement from major banks, investors, lenders, and the financial markets. But multiple industry figures and housing finance experts say Pulte’s time in office, and the recent firings of top Fannie officials, is eroding their faith in the firms’ futures.
If Pulte or others are found to have improperly accessed mortgage records, they could possibly face charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which prohibits intentionally accessing electronic files without authorization or exceeding authorized access, especially for protected computers including those handling financial data at Fannie Mae.
News of the ethics team firings came as Fannie Mae is under scrutiny for announcing its lifting of the 620 minimum credit score requirement for borrowers seeking loans that will be sold to the company, and as Trump and Pulte float the possibility of 50-year residential mortgages. Critics point to the 2008-09 financial crash—caused largely by a real estate bubble fueled by risky lending practices—and the possibility of lifelong indebtedness resulting from such lengthy loans as cause for alarm.
Pulte is an heir to the fortune amassed by his grandfather, Pulte Homes founder William J. Pulte. The company, now known as PulteGroup, is currently the nation's third-largest homebuilder.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Files Bar Complaint Against Trump Prosecutor on Comey, James Cases
Along with "vindictively" harming the defendants, the group leader said, Lindsey Halligan "is singlehandedly undermining—maybe irrevocably—the public's confidence in the impartiality of the Department of Justice."
Nov 11, 2025
As former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James work to have the criminal charges against them dismissed, a watchdog group on Tuesday filed a bar complaint against Lindsey Halligan, who is spearheading the cases as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Campaign for Accountability (CfA) sent the complaint to the Florida Bar and the Virginia Bar, which both have jurisdiction because Halligan is a Florida-licensed lawyer practicing in Virginia. She previously served as a defense attorney for President Donald Trump, and before her current job, she had no prosecutorial experience.
In September, shortly after Halligan took over for Erik Siebert, who declined to bring charges against Comey or James, the ex-FBI director was charged with lying to Congress—and Trump vowed that "there'll be others." In early October, James—who successfully prosecuted Trump for financial crimes before his second term—was indicted for mortgage fraud. Critics argue both cases are part of the administration's broader effort to punish the president's "enemies."
The CfA complaint outlines how Halligan may have violated Virginia's rules for attorneys that require candor to the court and competence, and prohibit extrajudicial statements, the prosecution of a charge the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
"We are asking the Virginia and Florida bars to investigate, making clear that a government appointment is not a hall pass for unethical behavior."
In addition to violating the Virginia and Florida rules for lawyers, Halligan may have violated her oath to "support the Constitution of the United States" and to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law," the document explains. "More generally, Ms. Halligan's actions appear to constitute an abuse of power and serve to undermine the integrity of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and erode public confidence in the legal profession and the fair administration of justice."
Along with laying out Halligan's actions in the Comey and James cases, the complaint notes her related correspondence on the messaging application Signal with Lawfare's Anna Bower, which the journalist reported on in detail.
"Ms. Halligan's actions with respect to the prosecution of Mr. Comey and Ms. James, and her Signal exchange with Ms. Bower, appear to represent a serious breach of her ethical obligations," the complaint says. "Her conduct undermines the integrity of the DOJ, appears to have violated multiple provisions of the Virginia and Florida rules of professional conduct, and undoubtedly will erode public trust in the legal system if permitted without consequence."
"The committee has a responsibility to stop Ms. Halligan from abusing her position and her Florida bar license for improper purposes," the document stresses. "Failing to discipline Ms. Halligan under these egregious circumstances will embolden others who would use our system of justice for their own political ends."
"Campaign for Accountability respectfully requests that the Committees in both states conduct a thorough investigation into these allegations, determine if any violation occurred and, if so, impose appropriate disciplinary measures," the complaint concludes.
The group's executive director, Michelle Kuppersmith, said in a statement that "it is difficult to overstate the damage wrought by Ms. Halligan's actions. In addition to unjustly and vindictively inflicting direct personal harm on Mr. Comey and Ms. James, she is singlehandedly undermining—maybe irrevocably—the public's confidence in the impartiality of the Department of Justice."
"Ms. Halligan appears to have violated numerous rules of professional conduct for lawyers," she added. "We are asking the Virginia and Florida bars to investigate, making clear that a government appointment is not a hall pass for unethical behavior."
CBS News noted that while Halligan and the DOJ did not respond to requests for comment on the complaint, Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly praised her the week that Comey was indicted, writing on social media: "This was a big week at the Department of Justice. Our EDVA US Attorney Lindsey Halligan did an outstanding job. We will continue to fight for accountability, fairness, and the rule of law because the American people deserve nothing less."
Bondi, also of Florida, has faced her own bar complaint—filed in June by Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, Lawyers for the Rule of Law, and dozens of individual attorneys, law professors, and former judges, who collectively accused her of engaging in "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.”
In the wake of another prosecutor charging Trump’s ex-adviser John Bolton, Reuters/Ipsos polling published late last month showed that a majority of American adults think the Republican president is using US law enforcement "to go after his enemies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Prosecutor Handpicked to Go After Trump's Enemies Attacked Journalist in Bizarre Texts
Some observers speculated that US Attorney Lindsey Halligan may have violated federal law by sending "disappearing messages" about an ongoing case.
Oct 21, 2025
Lindsey Halligan, the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was hand-picked by President Donald Trump to bring criminal charges against his political rivals, left a legal journalist befuddled earlier this month when she sent unsolicited text messages containing sensitive details about one of her highest-profile cases.
On Monday night, Anna Bower, a senior editor at Lawfare, published the full text message exchange, which pertained to the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James, against whom Halligan brought charges for mortgage fraud earlier this month.
The case against James has been widely criticized as politically motivated, as James had previously brought a case against Trump for financial crimes, which resulted in a finding against him in a civil fraud trial in 2022.
The president appointed Halligan, a former insurance lawyer who has never prosecuted a criminal case but previously worked as a personal attorney for Trump, to take over for her predecessor, Erik Siebert, who was forced out for declining to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey on what he believed to be flimsy charges.
Halligan first messaged Bower on October 11, just two days after the indictment against James had been handed up by the Department of Justice (DOJ), accusing her of misrepresenting how she intended to use a rental property in Norfolk, Virginia, to secure a better mortgage rate in 2020, allegedly by claiming that it was for personal use as a "second home" when she was actually renting it to a family of three.
Even before Halligan's texts, Bower said she was "among the skeptics" of the case's merits, noting that the type of mortgage agreement signed by James not only allowed her to rent the property after a year, but that the indictment "provides scant details about the circumstances of the supposed rental arrangement" James supposedly made with clients in violation of her mortgage contract.
Her perception was bolstered by reporting from the New York Times, which revealed that since 2020, the home has been occupied by James' grand-niece, who does not pay rent on the property, and that James stays there several times per year.
In response to the report, Bower—an analyst who often provides commentary on legal stories that she did not herself report—posted on X that “this is important exculpatory evidence because the indictment accuses James of seeking a ‘second home’ mortgage when in reality she intended to use it as an ’investment’ home by renting it.”
This post apparently caught the attention of Halligan, who messaged Bower on Signal later that afternoon.
"Anna, Lindsey Halligan here," the first message read. "You are reporting things that are simply not true. Thought you should have a heads up."
Bower explained: "I assumed the exchange was a hoax because, while it is not unusual for lawyers to reach out to me about my reporting or commentary, it is highly unusual for a US attorney to do so regarding an ongoing prosecution—particularly in a high-profile case in which her conduct is already the subject of immense public scrutiny."
But she later confirmed it was Halligan, and asked what precisely her post had gotten wrong.
Halligan responded: "You're assuming exculpatory evidence without knowing what you're talking about. It's just bizarre to me. If you have any questions, before you report, feel free to reach out to me. But jumping to conclusions does your credibility no good."
Noting that she was not the person who reported the story, Bower asked if the Times report had gotten something wrong. Halligan brought the conversation back to Bower.
"Yes they did but you went with it!" she said. "Without even fact checking anything!!!!"
Halligan referred Bower to the DOJ's indictment of James, but Bower noted that the indictment's "odd and ambiguous" wording did not actually contradict the Times' reporting. When she asked for more clarification about what specific details were inaccurate, Halligan said "I can't tell you grand jury stuff," even though her discussion with Bower had already discussed grand jury materials.
When Bower explained that it was still "unclear" what the Times report had gotten wrong, Halligan began to launch into a personal attack against her.
"You're biased," Halligan wrote. "Your reporting isn't accurate. I'm the one handling the case and I'm telling you that. If you want to twist and torture the facts to fit your narrative, there's nothing I can do. Waste to even give you a heads up."
Bower again insisted that she'd be "happy to correct" any mistakes, but that she "can't do so without a sense of what I supposedly got wrong."
Halligan replied: "Continue to do what you have been and you'll be completely discredited when the evidence comes out."
Over the subsequent days, when Bower would continue to reach out to Halligan to ask about other aspects of the case, she was met with more insults and eventually silence.
When Bower reached out to the DOJ for comment, a spokesperson responded that Halligan was "attempting to point you to facts, not gossip, but when clarifying that she would adhere to the rule of the law and not disclose grand jury information, you threaten to leak an entire conversation."
"Good luck ever getting anyone to talk to you when you publish their texts," theDOJ added.
After sending the DOJ another set of follow-up questions on Monday in anticipation of the story's publication, Bower received another text from Halligan minutes before the story was to be posted. Bower described the exchange as follows:
"By the way—everything I ever sent you is off record. You're not a journalist so it's weird saying that but just letting you know."
I responded: "I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. You don't get to say that in retrospect."
Halligan was unpersuaded: "Yes I do. Off record."
"I am really sorry. I would have been happy to speak with you on an off the record basis had you asked," I said. "But you didn't ask, and I still haven't agreed to speak on that basis. Do you have any further comment for the story?
To my surprise, she kept going: "It's obvious the whole convo is off record. There's disappearing messages and it's on signal. What is your story? You never told me about a story."
Halligan has a bachelor's degree in politics and broadcast journalism from Regis University. And as Bower notes, she has frequently dealt with the press as a member of Trump's legal team.
"As anyone who professionally engages with the media as routinely as Halligan would know, the default assumption when a reporter speaks with a public official is that everything is 'on the record,' meaning that anything the source says can be printed with attribution," Bower wrote.
The saga is the latest in a series of gaffes that have called Halligan's credibility as a prosecutor into question.
Her indictment against Comey has been ridiculed by legal scholars for being "almost devoid of factual material," as Benjamin Wittes, the co-director of the Harvard Law School-Brookings Project on Law and Security, put it. While attempting to present charging documents to a magistrate judge, she mistakenly presented two inconsistent documents, which the judge said "has never happened before."
While attempting to have the case against Comey for allegedly making false statements thrown out of court, his attorneys argued that Halligan altered some of his testimony, including by claiming that he was speaking about “Hillary Clinton” when he was actually answering a question about “the Clinton administration.”
Following the reveal of her exchanges with Bower, Andrew Fleischman, a trial and appellate lawyer in Georgia, joked on social media that "Halligan has all the poise and butt-dialing capacity of a sober [Rudy] Giuliani."
Others, like Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, raised the possibility that Halligan’s use of “disappearing messages” on Signal could have violated federal law, which requires federal prosecutors to preserve evidence that may be favorable to the accused.
In a CNN interview with Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, following the release of the texts, Bower explained that she has spoken to other legal reporters and prosecutors in the days since her conversation with Halligan.
Her sources in the legal profession, she said, "have never quite seen an exchange like this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'What Tyranny Looks Like': Democracy Defenders Slam Trump DOJ's Indictment of NY AG James
"This isn't justice," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "It's revenge. And it should horrify every American who believes no one is above the law.”
Oct 09, 2025
Critics sounded the alarm Thursday after the US Department of Justice indicted Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James—who successfully prosecuted President Donald Trump for financial crimes—for alleged bank fraud in what democracy defenders called the president's latest weaponization of the DOJ against a political foe.
Days after another prosecutor in Virginia resisted intense pressure from Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi and declined to pursue charges against James, US Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan—a former personal attorney for Trump whom the president appointed to her lifetime seat despite having never prosecuted a case—indicted James for allegedly defrauding a bank and making false statements to a financial institution.
"This is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system," James said in response to the news. "I am not fearful—I am fearless. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights."
This is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system.I am not fearful — I am fearless. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights..
[image or embed]
— New York Attorney General Letitia James (@newyorkstateag.bsky.social) October 9, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in response to the indictment: "This is what tyranny looks like. President Trump is using the Justice Department as his personal attack dog, targeting Attorney General Tish James for the ‘crime’ of prosecuting him for fraud—and winning."
“One US attorney already refused this case," Schumer added. "So, Trump handpicked an unqualified hack that would go after another political enemy. This isn't justice. It's revenge. And it should horrify every American who believes no one is above the law.”
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said on social media that the Trump administration is targeting James "for one reason: She had the courage to hold Donald Trump accountable."
"This is political weaponization of our courts, plain and simple—and proof that when you stand up to corruption, they come for you," she added. "I stand with Attorney General Letitia James. This attack won’t silence the truth."
Trump Wants the Nobel Peace Prize for War, Insurrection, and Indicting Letitia James with @mehdirhasan.bsky.social A desperate Trump is attempting to distract from the Epstein Files by indicting Letitia James and declaring war on American critics.thelefthook.substack.com/p/trump-want...
[image or embed]
— Wajahat Ali (@wajali.bsky.social) October 9, 2025 at 2:23 PM
Politico reported that James' case has been assigned to Judge Jamar Walker, an appointee of former President Joe Biden.
Halligan recently filed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey—who oversaw investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential ties to Trump's campaign—for allegedly making a false statement to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
Critics accuse Trump of signaling to Bondi his wish for her to go after some of his political enemies, who in addition to James and Comey include Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led the first House impeachment trial of the president. Following Comey's indictment, Trump vowed that "there'll be others."
Trump forced out Erik Siebert, Halligan’s predecessor, amid his refusal to indict Comey or file charges against James, who in 2022 filed a civil lawsuit against the then-former president, his two eldest sons, and the Trump Organization for business fraud. Trump and his organization were found liable for fraud and ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties, although an appeals court later overturned the fine while upholding the fraud findings.
Last month, the DOJ subpoenaed James as part of a probe into whether she violated Trump’s civil rights by suing him, his sons, and his business.
In addition to Democratic lawmakers, pro-democracy campaigners also slammed Thursday's indictment, with Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey contending that "this is revenge and another dangerous abuse of power."
"Just days after prosecuting James Comey, Trump’s Justice Department pursued charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James in a thinly veiled act of retaliation for defeating Trump in court," Harvey added. “Americans do not want our president using taxpayer-funded prosecutors and law enforcement to exact revenge. If prosecutors can't even do their jobs without facing prosecution themselves, none of us are safe from Trump's overreach.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement:
Yet again, the vengeful Donald Trump has demanded the perversion of justice, this time with the vindictive charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James. Yet again, career prosecutors have recommended against bringing criminal charges. Yet again, only an interim US attorney who previously served as Trump’s personal lawyer was willing to seek the indictment.
Attorney General James will defend herself from these unjust charges and continue to do her job. But this prosecution is directed not only against Letitia James, but all Americans. No one should fear criminal prosecution because they stand up to Donald Trump.
“The government should be for the people," Gilbert added. "It should serve justice and law and regular Americans. It should not be distorted to serve the vindictive revenge effort of a single man. Even if that man is the president and the president thinks he is a king.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dementia President: Could It Be That Trump Has Truly Lost His Mind?
Given his behavior, it could very well be that the President of the United States is going nuts.
Sep 29, 2025
Over the weekend, on his Truth Social, Trump shared a video purporting to be a segment on Fox News — it wasn’t — in which an AI-generated, deepfaked version of himself sat in the White House and promised that “every American will soon receive their own MedBed card” that will grant them access to new “MedBed hospitals.”
What?
Believers in the “MedBed” conspiracy theory think certain hospital beds are loaded with futuristic technology that can reverse any disease, regenerate limbs, and de-age people. No one has an actual photo of these beds because they don’t exist.
Trump also posted (again, without any basis in fact) that the FBI “secretly placed … 274 FBI Agents into the Crowd just prior to, and during” the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, during which they were “probably acting as Agitators and Insurrectionists.”
Trump added that this “is different from what Director Christopher Wray stated, over and over again!” and went on: “Christopher Wray, the then Director of the FBI, has some major explaining to do. That’s two in a row, Comey and Wray, who got caught LYING.”
In fact, the Department of Justice’s inspector general reported that there were no undercover FBI agents at the January 6 riots. (FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that the few FBI agents present on January 6 were there on “a crowd control mission after the riot was declared.”)
Trump also announced Saturday that he intends to send the U.S. military to Portland, Oregon, authorizing “Full Force, if necessary” to “protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”
Hello? Although protesters have been camping on the sidewalks outside the ICE office for months, the demonstration has dwindled to almost nothing. Of the 29 related arrests, 22 happened on or before July 4, when the protests were at their peak.
What’s been the media’s response to Trump’s bonkers postings and announcements this weekend? Nada. The media either ignored them, mentioned them as part of Trump’s “strategy,” or assumed Trump was just being Trump.
But there’s another explanation.
Trump is showing growing signs of dementia. He’s increasingly unhinged. He’s 79 years old with a family history of dementia. He could well be going nuts.
You might think this would be covered in the news, but he isn’t facing anything like the scrutiny for dementia that Joe Biden did.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of Trump’s growing dementia is his paranoid thirst for revenge, on which he is centering much of his presidency.
The paranoia was becoming evident in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. On November 11, 2023, he pledged to a crowd of supporters in Claremont, New Hampshire, that:
“We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible — they’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American dream.”
Most media commentators chalked this up to overheated campaign rhetoric.
But since occupying the Oval Office, Trump has demanded that his attorney general target political opponents, urged the head of his FCC to threaten a major network for allowing a late-night comedian to say things Trump disliked, suggested that the government revoke TV licenses of network broadcasters that allow criticism of him, and pulled government security clearances from former officials whom he deems his enemies.
Less than two weeks ago, he demanded that the Justice Department prosecute a handful of named political opponents “now!” — including James Comey, whom Trump fired from his post in 2017 after Comey oversaw the FBI’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election; Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who indicted Trump; and Adam Schiff, U.S. senator from California, who played an active role in the House hearings on January 6, 2021.
On September 19, Erik Siebert, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (initially selected for the position by Trump) resigned after Trump told reporters “I want him out.” Siebert had concerns about the strength of the evidence against both Comey and James.
The following day, Trump posted a message to his attorney general, Pam Bondi. “Pam,” it began, “Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.’”
He said he was promoting Lindsey Halligan, one of his former personal attorneys, to take Siebert’s place, and fumed: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
On September 22, three days after Halligan assumed office, she secured a simple, two-count indictment against Comey for allegedly lying to Congress and for allegedly obstructing justice.
“JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey,” Trump exalted on social media following the indictment. “He has been so bad for our Country, for so long, and is now at the beginning of being held responsible for his crimes against our Nation.”
The Comey indictment was a blip in the weekly news cycle. The media appeared to shrug: Yes, of course Trump is vindictive, so what else is new?
But wait. Are his acts those of a sane person? Or of an aging paranoid megalomaniac?
Even if it’s unclear to which category Trump belongs, shouldn’t this question be central to the coverage of his presidency? At the very least, shouldn’t the media be actively investigating?
Keep ReadingShow Less
'There'll Be Others': Comey Just the Beginning of DOJ Targets, Trump Warns
"You can expect to see more of this sort of fact-free, ethically-compromised indictment as Trump works through his enemies list," said one observer.
Sep 26, 2025
US President Donald Trump said Friday that the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey is likely just the beginning of what critics are calling a "revenge tour" aimed at punishing perceived political enemies—especially officials who held the convicted felon accountable or tried to do so.
The president was asked by a reporter outside the White House in Washington, DC, "Now that James Comey has been indicted, who is the next person on your list in this retribution?"
Trump replied: "It's not a list, but I think there'll be others. I mean, they're corrupt. These were corrupt radical left Democrats."
"Comey was essentially a Dem... he was worse than a Democrat," Trump said of the former FBI director, who was a registered Republican for most of his adult life before leaving the party and becoming unaffiliated in 2016. "I would say the Democrats are better than Comey."
"But there'll be others," the president reiterated. "That's my opinion. They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history. What they've done is terrible. And so... frankly, I hope there are others [because] you can't let this happen to a country."
Q: Now that Comey has been indicted, who is the next person on your list?TRUMP: It's not a list, but I think they'll be others. I mean, they're corrupt. These were corrupt radical left Democrats.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 26, 2025 at 7:11 AM
Comey was indicted Thursday by newly installed US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan—a former personal lawyer for Trump who has never prosecuted a case—for allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing congressional proceedings related to testimony he delivered before a US Senate committee in 2020. He was charged despite career Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors finding insufficient evidence to pursue a case.
Attorney and author Lisa Needham wrote Friday that given that Halligan has "already proven more than willing to do whatever Trump says... you can expect to see more of this sort of fact-free, ethically-compromised indictment as Trump works through his enemies list."
Trump pushed out Erik Siebert, Halligan's predecessor, amid his refusal to indict Comey or file mortgage fraud charges against Democratic New York Attorney General Leticia James, who in 2022 filed a civil lawsuit against the then-former president, his two eldest sons, and the Trump Organization for business fraud. They were found liable for fraud and ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties, although an appeals court later overturned the fine while upholding the fraud findings.
Last month, the DOJ subpoenaed James as part of a probe into whether she violated Trump's civil rights by suing him, his sons, and his business.
Comey's indictment followed mounting pressure from the president and his supporters for embattled US Attorney General Pam Bondi to charge Comey, James, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who as a House lawmaker managed Trump's first impeachment trial in 2020.
"There’s no separation between the Department of Justice and Trump’s desire for retribution," Needham wrote. "However, because, as political science professor Mark Copelovitch puts it, 'Performative public lying is a hallmark of far right authoritarian parties,' both Trump and Bondi are pretending that this is a run-of-the-mill prosecution as opposed to yet another stop on Trump’s vengeance tour."
Other critics allege that, like some other recent administration moves, Comey's indictment is part of an attempt to distract from the harms of Trump's economic policies, his handling of the Epstein documents, and the corruption scandal involving "border czar" Tom Homan allegedly receiving a $50,000 cash bribe.
"The Department of Justice is in full cover-up mode," Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)—who managed Trump's second House impeachment trial—said during a Friday morning interview on CNN. "They're doing the bidding of President Trump with respect to Mr. Comey, they're doing the bidding of President Trump with respect to covering up cases."
"The administration started off by having Trump basically force out the US attorney for New York, another Republican, Danielle Sassoon, because she wouldn't quash a grand jury indictment against [New York City Mayor Eric] Adams because he had become a political friend of Donald Trump's," Raskin continued.
"So what we see is the complete politicization of the Department of Justice," he added. "But we're in the midst of trying to get this information with apparently real crimes and we've got a strong bipartisan majority saying stop the cover-up of the Epstein files, just go ahead and release them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy