

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"If he is tasked with leading Trump’s revenge agenda against his political enemies and critics, we have every reason to believe he will execute this mission with eagerness and fealty."
Early Saturday, outgoing Sen. Bill Cassidy cast the deciding vote to confirm Todd Blanche as US Attorney General shortly after outlining a litany of reservations about the nominee.
Around 4:30 am ET, the US Senate voted 50-49 to confirm Blanche, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney and acting attorney general since April, as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. It did so despite widespread concerns, including among some Republicans, that he would use the office primarily to carry out the president's whims.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), one of two Republicans who voted against Blanche, outlined her concerns in a social media post Friday ahead of the vote, saying Trump had "accelerated" the "politicization—even weaponization" of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and that Blanche had played a part.
"I take issue with the handling of the release of the Epstein files; the sweeping immunity protections granted to the president, his family, and their businesses; the statements that have been made to anti-abortion groups; and the repeated targeting of individuals ranging from former administration staff to sitting US senators," Murkowski said.
Murkowski also expressed doubt about Blanche's promise to eliminate the department's so-called $1.8 billion "weaponization fund" for Trump's supporters and allies—including January 6 Capitol insurrectionists. Referring to it as a "slush fund," she said confirming Blanche would cost the Senate any "leverage" to prevent it from being revived.
In a speech Friday ahead of the vote, Cassidy (R-La.)—who lost his Senate primary in May after being attacked by Trump as "disloyal"—raised similar concerns about Blanche, but ultimately said they did not prevent him from supporting the nominee.
"Mr. Blanche showed poor judgment in approving the anti-weaponization slush fund and exempting the president from [Internal Revenue Service] audits," Cassidy said on the Senate floor. "Mr. Blanche said these were mistakes and has made efforts to kill the slush fund."
To secure his confirmation, Blanche struck a deal with Republican holdouts, including Sens. Thom Tillis (NC) and John Cornyn (Texas), earlier last week and issued an order to eliminate the $1.8 billion fund, but did not agree to end the exemption from tax audits of Trump's past activity.
Cassidy also said he was concerned about "DOJ bringing suits against political enemies," but argued that Trump's "unrelenting" targeting of his foes meant any attorney general he appointed would face the same pressure.
To address the allegation that Blanche would act as a "yes-man" for Trump, Cassidy quoted William Barr, who served as attorney general during Trump's first term: "Because of his previous client-attorney relationship with President Trump, Mr. Blanche would be precisely the person to push back on President Trump."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on CNN Friday night that the Republicans who were voting to confirm Blanche despite their reservations "know better" than to trust him and would ultimately "regret" the decision.
"He advanced... this $1.8 billion slush fund. That's a terrible idea. And frankly, that my colleagues and friends, John Cornyn and Bill Cassidy, accept this paper-thin excuse of a signed deal by Todd Blanche doesn't pass the smell test because, frankly, President Trump is the one who continues to berate and push for that weaponization fund," he said. "I have no confidence that Todd Blanche won't just turn around and give it to him once confirmed."
Asked about Cassidy's reasoning that Blanche, as Trump's former attorney, would be more willing and able to constrain the president, Coons said, "I don't buy that at all."
"What I've seen from Todd Blanche in the role of [acting] attorney general and in his confirmation hearing was that he still thinks of himself as President Trump's personal lawyer, not the person who is trying to protect the Department of Justice and the Constitution from presidential overreach," Coons said.
Ultimately, just two Republicans joined every Democrat to vote against confirming Blanche—Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins, who faces a difficult reelection battle against Democratic nominee Troy Jackson in Maine. Cassidy, Tillis, and Cornyn all voted yes.
Former Ambassador Norm Eisen, the co-founder and board member of Democracy Defenders Action, said that Blanche's confirmation was "a dark day for the rule of law."
"Senate Republicans sounded the alarm, rightfully so, calling out the ‘fund that would pay people who beat police officers,’ and exposing a nominee who has never stopped serving the personal and political interests of Donald Trump. Yet, at the precipice, they lost their nerve and the majority voted for him anyway."
Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that approving the slush fund was "one of the most brazen attempts to circumvent the law and benefit Trump and his cronies."
She added that every senator who voted for Blanche "cast a vote in support of the Blanche-led Department of Justice’s continued failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and its unconscionable treatment of Epstein survivors, its efforts to wipe clean the records of those who participated in January 6th violence against lawmakers and law enforcement officers, its record of weaponized prosecutions, and its brazen rejection of the notion of prosecutorial independence from White House pressure."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said that "Moving forward, our country has to contend with an attorney general who sees himself as a personal servant to Donald Trump instead of a public servant to the American people."
"If he is tasked with leading Trump’s revenge agenda against his political enemies and critics, as he likely will be," she said, "we have every reason to believe he will execute this mission with eagerness and fealty."
"BreakThrough News is not the first, nor will it be the last, to come under official attack," said one press freedom advocate.
Press freedom groups are issuing dire warnings on Thursday that House Republicans' efforts to subpoena the nonprofit left-wing news organization BreakThrough News represent a dangerous new step in a McCarthyite war on political dissent.
On Wednesday, Fox News reported that BreakThrough, a New York-based outlet, was one of three nonprofits that had been issued subpoenas by the GOP-controlled House Ways and Means Committee as part of an investigation into $39 million worth of donations from tech mogul Neville Roy Singham, a self-described socialist who has used his wealth to fund left-wing nonprofits.
In letters sent Tuesday, the committee, led by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), said that BreakThrough, as well as two other organizations—the People’s Forum Inc., a New York-based activist hub, and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research—had not turned over any documents that had been requested as part of an investigation into whether rules around tax exempt status for nonprofits should be tightened to protect against foreign influence.
The committee has accused Singham, an American who now lives in Shanghai, of exploiting the tax code and using shell companies and donor-advised funds to hide foreign money that has been used to promote the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. It does not, however, make any specific accusation of legal wrongdoing.
The subpoena requires BreakThrough News to turn over records about its finances, foreign donors and grant recipients, fiscal-sponsorship arrangements, and communications with Singham and any foreign entities.
In a statement on Wednesday, BreakThrough News said it was "under attack."
"For years, Republican lawmakers have painted a target on our backs, falsely claiming that our political views and reporting are part of some foreign plot," the outlet said. "Now, the MAGA-dominated House Ways and Means Committee has issued us a subpoena—demanding internal communications, financial records and more. Make no mistake, this is a flagrant abuse of power, and a direct attack on our work as journalists and on the First Amendment generally."
BreakThrough said it does not receive any funding from foreign governments or institutions and that it already complies with all the tax and public reporting requirements that nonprofits have to follow.
"We are not charged with any crime, because our only 'crime' has been to tell the truth–by covering the activities of the Palestine solidarity movement, unmasking the truth of ICE’s terror in our streets, and exposing Washington’s crimes around the world, from Cuba to the Congo," the outlet said. "That’s the journalism they want to shut down. Their goal is to saddle us with legal proceedings and hostile media to drain our resources and stop this important work."
While the committee stated that they are investigating BreakThrough over its financing rather than its politics, letters sent to the organization have treated the content of its reporting as circumstantial evidence of malign foreign influence, referring to it as "anti-American" and claiming that its negative coverage of Israel was "sowing division within the United States."
Chip Gibbons, the policy director of the free speech advocacy group Defending Rights & Dissent, told Common Dreams that the subpoena of BreakThrough was a "deeply chilling assault on the First Amendment."
"Such tactics are, quite literally, a throwback to the House Un-American Activities Committee, which today is mostly viewed as a disgrace," Gibbons said. "I say mostly, because just three days ago [Secretary Marco] Rubio's State Department released a report preposterously attacking the US left, including some of these groups, as Cuban fronts that cited old HUAC reports."
He further emphasized in a press release that there was "no plausible need" for a news organization to provide documents as part of a broad congressional inquiry.
"The only thing these groups are accused of is essentially receiving donations from a US citizen who has been the subject of an intensive campaign of demonization," Gibbons said. "It is lawful for Americans to donate to activist causes and media projects while holding views disfavored by Congress. This is clearly not a valid legislative inquiry at all, but an attempt to intimidate and chill dissenting opinions."
Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed that “Congress shouldn’t be using a tax investigation as a pretext to dig through a newsroom’s internal communications or financial records.
"Freedom of the press," he said, "applies to all journalists, regardless of whether politicians like their editorial slant or their politics."
In what it has portrayed as a fight against "left-wing terrorism," the Trump administration has increasingly blurred the lines between violent activity and protected political speech that they claim "incites" violence.
National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, signed by Trump in September, designates large swathes of left-wing viewpoints on race, gender, immigration, and other topics as "indicators" of domestic terrorism that have been used to link entire groups of people to violent acts they themselves did not commit.
Rubio said last week that the administration would soon be designating more left-wing organizations as terrorist groups, while senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller said that the full force of the state would be used to "disrupt, identify, defund, de-bank, arrest, prosecute" those deemed to "foment" political violence, not just those who actually commit it.
He has previously pledged to use the law to "dismantle" organizations that use heated rhetoric to refer to their right-wing opponents, including calling them "fascist" or "authoritarian."
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, described the subpoena of BreakThrough as an extension of a "retaliatory ethos" Trump has taken towards critical journalists "with the goal of shutting down criticism and dissent."
She told Common Dreams, "BreakThrough News is not the first, nor will it be the last, to come under official attack for bringing people alternative and useful news coverage about ICE abuses, foreign policy, Palestinian rights, and other topics."
"Allowing a congressional committee to harass an independent newsroom with a broad subpoena sets an awful precedent," Stern said. "If lawmakers can abuse tax oversight to single out outlets whose reporting offends them today, no newsroom in America is safe from government intimidation tomorrow.”
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake."
A coalition of progressive groups is pressuring Senate Democrats to oppose President Donald Trump's nomination of Jay Clayton III to lead America's spy agencies over his role in helping the administration use the legal system to attack journalists.
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that Clayton, who currently serves as the US attorney for Manhattan, had issued subpoenas to four of its journalists after they'd reported on security concerns related to the luxury jet gifted by the Qatari government, which Trump has begun to use in place of Air Force One against the wishes of the Secret Service.
The US Department of Justice said in a statement that the goal of the investigation was to prosecute leakers who spoke to the press about the plane's lacking security features. According to the Times, the FBI requested that it hold off publishing the story and reveal the names of its anonymous sources, which it refused to do.
A top newsroom lawyer for the Times described the subpoenas as "an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.”
On Monday, the group Demand Progress and nearly three dozen other progressive advocacy groups sent a letter to Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).
It urged them to oppose the nomination of Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence, a role previously held by Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned in May.
"The committee need not speculate how Clayton would exercise the enormous powers of the federal government: He is demonstrating it now," the coalition wrote. "A federal prosecutor who will weaponize the grand jury process against reporters—and their sources—to punish disclosures unwelcome to the president has shown the Senate the precise instinct that is disqualifying in a director of national intelligence."
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake," the letter continued.
The coalition emphasized that Clayton, whose confirmation hearing in the Senate is scheduled for Wednesday, has no experience in intelligence work, having spent most of his career as a corporate lawyer on Wall Street. He was tapped to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump's first term and then to serve as US attorney for the Southern District of New York in his second.
"More troublingly," it said, "Clayton has spent his time in this position weaponizing his authority on behalf of the president, particularly by politicizing high-profile investigations."
As Trump came under fire for his relationship with the late child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, Clayton was assigned to "take the lead" of a Department of Justice probe that selectively targeted a list of the president's enemies.
Clayton also oversaw the process of redacting files related to Epstein before their release to the public, which was met with criticism for including identifying information of abuse survivors, including nude photos, while blacking out the names of Trump and other prominent individuals despite a mandate from Congress.
The letter also notes Clayton's amplifying of Trump's debunked theories of election fraud in California as part of efforts to restrict mail-in voting, as well as his defense of Trump's $1.8 billion "slush fund," which a judge ruled this week constituted an improper act of self-dealing.
"We are living with the serious consequences of unqualified Trump loyalists, blindly pursuing the "MAGA" agenda at agencies like the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Health and Human Services, and more," the letter concludes. "Adding the [intelligence community] to this list—especially in light of Clayton's shocking willingness to weaponize federal power to satisfy the president's political grievances... will have devastating consequences for our national security and the civil liberties of Americans."
"He’s insinuating that his own regime has so normalized corruption and lawlessness that past corruption and lawbreaking schemes now seem minor."
At an event for the Richard Nixon Foundation on Thursday, Vice President JD Vance suggested that if the 37th president's Watergate scandal had happened today, it would barely make the news, let alone destroy a presidency.
But his critics say that's only because President Donald Trump has totally "normalized" corruption.
During a speech at the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, California, Vance celebrated that the "historical legacy" of Tricky Dick, whose name has functioned as a shorthand for presidential lawlessness since his resignation in 1974, "is enjoying a bit of a renaissance, and, I think, deservedly so."
"If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story," Vance said. "The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy."
He said the way the "deep state took down Richard Nixon" was "not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions tried to do to Donald Trump in the first Trump administration."
Vance also said he personally identified with Nixon: "Young senator, vice president, writes a bestselling book, is hated by the media. It kinda sounds like JD Vance," he said. "I've always liked Richard Nixon."
The vice president was correct that, as Trump adopts a similar philosophy of boundless executive authority, there is a concerted effort among Republicans to rehabilitate the image of Nixon—who infamously declared in a 1977 interview with David Frost that "if the president does it, that means it's not illegal."
Christopher Rufo, an intellectual architect of crusades by the so-called "New Right" against liberal cultural institutions, in 2023 cast Nixon's presidency as "a blueprint for counterrevolution—the last hope for restoring the American republic,” praising his efforts to use lawfare to destroy left-wing groups.
Vivek Ramaswamy, a 2024 Republican presidential candidate who is now running for governor of Ohio, has called for a "revival of Nixonian realism" in foreign policy, citing his "unapologetic American nationalism" and hyperfocus on US interests at the expense of moral concerns.
During a speech at the National Conservatism Conference in 2021, Vance himself cited Nixon's declaration that "the professors are the enemy" to say that the next Republican president would need to “honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country."
Some critics described Vance's downplaying of Watergate's severity on Thursday as a sign of historical ignorance or willful deception.
"Let’s remember what Nixon actually did," said Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.). "Operatives tied to his reelection campaign broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters to plant listening devices. Then Nixon personally orchestrated the cover-up. The 'smoking gun' tape caught him ordering the CIA to shut down the FBI’s investigation."
"Nixon weaponized the IRS and FBI against his political enemies, authorized burglaries of private citizens, and fired the special prosecutor investigating him in what is called the Saturday Night Massacre," continued Levin. "When the Supreme Court ordered him to release the tapes, the vote was unanimous. Even his most loyal defenders walked away once they heard his own words."
"JD Vance works for the most corrupt president in American history," Levin said. "So of course he wants you to believe Watergate was nothing."
Political scientist and author Michael McFaul suggested that Vance was not aware of how bad he sounded.
The fact that Watergate would probably be a mere blip, McFaul said, "is a tragic indictment of [Vance's] administration," and it's "amazing to me that’s not obvious to him."
Others saw it not as a feint from Vance, but as a boast about everything the Trump administration has gotten away with.
"'We do a Watergate twice a day' is a crazy way to confess your own corruption," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in response to Vance's comments.
Amid a litany of other scandals during his second term, Trump has openly used the presidency to make nearly $4 billion since returning to office, accepted lavish gifts from foreign countries while rewarding them politically, and attempted to appropriate taxpayer money to reward his allies. He's pardoned donors and supporters who committed crimes while pushing the Justice Department to target enemies. His administration has brazenly defied the law and the courts to carry out mass deportations of immigrants without due process. And he has carried out hundreds of extrajudicial assassinations and launched multiple illegal wars of aggression without congressional approval.
"Vance is telling on himself," said The Lever editor-in-chief, David Sirota. "He’s insinuating that his own regime has so normalized corruption and lawlessness that past corruption and lawbreaking schemes now seem minor."
John Culver, a retired CIA analyst, said that Vance is "right" that Watergate would no longer register with the public today, "but not for the reasons he thinks."
He blamed modern corporate-controlled media for numbing the public to outrageous political scandals that would have once enveloped a presidency.
Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos "would have fired" Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the journalists who broke the Watergate scandal, "a year earlier," Culver said. "The [New York Times] journos would save it for their book."
He said, "Trump has a Watergate-scale scandal every month, and media billionaires distract, distract, distract.”
"If the administration and its allies in Congress are truly walking away from the $1.8 billion criminal enrichment fund, they should have no problem joining us in banning it outright," the Maryland Democrat said.
Though acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche has said President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “weaponization” slush fund is now “dead,” Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin on Thursday unveiled draft legislation that would eliminate what he describes as a “super pardon” buried in the Department of Justice settlement reached last month.
While Blanche—whom Trump said he plans to nominate for a full term as attorney general—has backed off the fund that would allow the DOJ to disburse taxpayer money to Trump allies and January 6 insurrectionists amid bipartisan backlash, a news release from Raskin’s (D-Md.) office on Thursday said the acting AG has done nothing to rescind “the mother of all sweetheart deals he tucked into his unprecedented settlement with Trump.”
The settlement, created in exchange for Trump dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for improperly leaking his tax returns, gives Trump, his entire family, and all their business ventures total and permanent immunity for “any matters currently pending or that could be pending” not only before the IRS, which Trump sued in the case that led to the settlement, but also before “other agencies or departments.”
The Maryland Democrat also said that despite retreating on the "weaponization" fund, the DOJ is still using its Judgment Fund to improperly reward the president's allies.
According to the Washington Post, as of April, the DOJ had already paid $8.5 million to prominent Trump allies who claimed to have been wrongly targeted by the Biden administration, even though no court formally determined that they had been.
“If the administration and its allies in Congress are truly walking away from the $1.8 billion criminal enrichment fund, they should have no problem joining us in banning it outright,” Raskin said. “But no one should be fooled by Trump and Blanche’s tactical pause: Nothing has been dismantled, and nothing has been renounced. Trump’s scheme to raid the Judgment Fund, bankroll political allies using taxpayer cash, and score a sweeping Super Pardon is alive and well and remains a clear and present threat to our constitutional order.”
Raskin, who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a new legislative package on Thursday, aiming to destroy the remaining vestiges of the DOJ deal and ensure that future presidents can never use federal settlements to reward themselves.
The Block Lawless Agreements and Nullify Corrupt Handouts and Emoluments (BLANCHE) Act, bars sitting presidents from entering settlements for money damages with the federal government and requires independent judicial oversight of any such agreements, including ones that grant the president "super pardons" like the one granted to Trump by the DOJ.
“My legislative package would end the slush fund, outlaw collusive settlements, and make clear that no president can use taxpayer dollars to cut partisan loyalty reward checks,” Raskin said.
He also introduced the Constitutional Rights Defense Act, which would allow individuals to file suits against the federal government when their rights are violated by agents of the state.
In contrast with the January 6 Capitol riot participants who have been claiming compensation under the fund, Raskin said his bill "ensures that all people who have actually had their constitutional rights violated by the government will have access to justice."
Raskin has previously introduced legislation that would block the use of federal funds to finance the Trump IRS settlement and prohibit payouts to January 6 Capitol riot participants and other Trump allies, including family members.
"Congress must act with urgency to shut down this presidential plunder once and for all,” Raskin said.
“The attorney general has the awesome responsibility to set a national example of ethical behavior... From her first day as attorney general, Bondi did just the opposite."
The former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court filed an ethics complaint against former US Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday, accusing her of fostering an "environment of lawlessness" inside the Department of Justice.
The 23-page complaint, submitted to the Florida Bar, accuses Bondi, who was fired in April by President Donald Trump, of having "engaged in what appears to be serious professional misconduct" and violating her professional responsibilities during her time leading the DOJ.
The complaint was filed by Peggy Quince, who retired from the bench in 2019 after serving on the state's high court for two decades. She was joined by a group of legal ethics organizations, including the group Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), where she now sits on the board. The complaint is also backed by over 100 legal scholars and retired judges.
"As the former chief justice of this state's highest court, there are key principles that we must protect," Quince said. "First, whatever legal position you have achieved, you are still bound to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. All lawyers are alike in that regard, and no one lawyer is above the law. Second, the Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court have a duty to ensure that lawyers adhere to all applicable rules. That should be the baseline minimum for this profession."
“The attorney general has the awesome responsibility to set a national example of ethical behavior—and to ensure that DOJ lawyers live up to that standard,” said James W. Conrad, Jr., an LDAD volunteer and a principal author of the complaint. “From her first day as attorney general, Bondi did just the opposite, personally and repeatedly violating ethical standards and coercing Department lawyers into violating their own professional responsibilities if they wanted to keep their jobs.”
Citing a memo she signed on her first day on the job directing DOJ employees to engage in "zealous advocacy" for the policy set by the "chief executive," the complaint accuses Bondi of having fostered a “fall-in-line-or-be-gone” attitude within the department that measured success only by serving the interests of Trump.
As a result, it said employees "were induced to engage in acts they were ethically forbidden from doing, under threat of suspension or termination—or were fired for not doing so."
The complaint highlights the DOJ's "blatant violations" of the Epstein Files Transparency Act by failing to release large numbers of files, and overredacting ones that referenced powerful individuals—including Trump—while exposing sensitive information about more than 100 alleged survivors of the sex offender's abuse, including nude photos of some.
Under Bondi's watch, the complaint also says DOJ lawyers violated an “unprecedented number” of binding court orders, particularly in cases related to the unlawful detention of immigrants.
It cites a list created by Patrick J. Schiltz, the Chief Judge of the US District Court for Minnesota, which found that during US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) "Operation Metro Surge," the agency had violated 96 orders in a single month. A tally from another judge in New Jersey found between 52 and 72 violations within just two months.
In these cases, where ICE ignored orders to provide legal hearings, release detainees, or not remove them from the district, the complaint said Bondi took “no apparent action” to make the agency obey the law.
The complaint also accuses Bondi of directing employees to bring cases against Trump's political and personal enemies without probable cause, in direct response to the president's political pressure.
It cites Bondi's appointment of the inexperienced prosecutor Lindsey Halligan as US attorney to go after figures hated by Trump, like New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, after previous prosecutors balked at bringing charges due to lack of evidence. After Halligan's appointment was ruled to be improper, a judge threw out the indictments, though the DOJ has attempted to bring new charges.
A grand jury also declined the DOJ's attempts to bring felony charges against six Democratic congresspeople who made a video reminding members of the military that they could disobey unlawful orders issued by the president.
It also accuses Bondi's DOJ of attempting to hit anti-ICE protesters with vague and flimsy charges, like the man who was charged with felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection Officer and was ultimately acquitted.
“Bondi repeatedly ignored her ethical obligations,” said Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director of anti-corruption and ethics at Democracy Defenders Fund, another group backing the complaint. “She was responsible for releasing sensitive information about Epstein victims, shielding documents in the Epstein files from the American public, violating court orders, and charging citizens for crimes without probable cause. This warrants an investigation and action—lawyers have been disbarred for less.”
Someday Blanche’s progeny may ask him why—as the chief law enforcement officer in the United States—he helped a rogue president run roughshod over the rule of law.
During President Donald Trump’s first term, he bemoaned the failure of his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to protect him from the Justice Department’s investigation of Russia’s efforts to elect Trump in 2016.
“Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Trump erupted, referring to his notorious former fixer who had also been Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s hatchet man during the 1950s Senate hearings into communist activity. Trump later fired Sessions.
For a time, Attorney General William Barr was the answer. But the two men parted ways after Barr told him repeatedly that no evidence supported Trump’s obsessive claims that voter fraud had cost him the 2020 election.
In Trump’s second term, it appeared that Pam Bondi fit the bill. She tried valiantly to meet Trump’s every legal need. She transformed the Justice Department into Trump’s personal tool, prosecuted Trump’s perceived enemies, and tried to protect Trump from the fallout over the scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking of minors.
Bondi's Deputy, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is now auditioning to remove the “Acting” from his title. He hopes to succeed where his predecessors have failed—to become Trump’s enduring Roy Cohn.
But she bungled the Epstein files. She tried but failed to prosecute two key targets on Trump’s vengeance list: New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. She savaged her own reputation but could not save her job.
Bondi’s deputy, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is now auditioning to remove the “Acting” from his title. He hopes to succeed where his predecessors have failed—to become Trump’s enduring Roy Cohn.
Blanche began his legal career in 1999 as a paralegal in the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Working days and attending Brooklyn Law School at night, he graduated in 2003. After a stint as an associate in the Davis Polk firm and two federal court clerkships, he returned in 2006 to the US Attorney’s Office as a prosecutor and eventually became co-chief of the violent crimes division.
In 2014, Blanche joined the WilmerHale firm as a partner before moving to another big New York firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft. In 2019, he represented Paul Manafort on state mortgage fraud charges similar to federal crimes for which Manafort had already been convicted in 2018. (Trump pardoned Manafort in December 2020). Blanche got the state law claims dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.
But in April 2023, Cadwalader balked when Blanche, then a registered Democrat, sought to represent Trump in the hush-money case involving payments to Stormy Daniels. So Blanche left Cadwalader and started his own firm. The jury eventually convicted Trump, but for Blanche it began a profitable relationship that generated over $3 million from Trump’s Save America PAC in the new firm’s first year alone.
Blanche went on to represent Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and in the election obstruction case involving Trump’s efforts to overthrow the 2020 election. In 2024, Blanche switched his registration from Democrat to Republican.
Blanche is no longer Trump’s personal attorney, but you wouldn’t know it from his conduct in office.
Although he was the No. 2 official in the Justice Department, in July 2025 he tried to quiet the MAGA backlash over Trump’s breach of an election pledge to release the Justice Department’s Epstein files. Blanche went to Florida where Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell was in prison and interviewed her personally. Openly seeking a pardon, Maxwell said that she had never seen Trump do anything inappropriate.
Mission accomplished.
Shortly thereafter, Maxwell was transferred to a “club fed-type” prison camp—even though her conviction had rendered her ineligible for such placement under Bureau of Prisons policy. Blanche said that threats against her were the reason for the transfer.
As acting attorney general, Blanche has now picked up where Bondi had failed to put Comey behind bars. At an April 28, 2026 press conference, he announced Comey’s indictment alleging that in posting an Instagram photo of sea shells that formed “86 47” on a North Carolina beach, Comey “knowingly and willfully made a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States.”
A sea-shell death threat via Instagram.
“So, I think it's fair to say that threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially a crime,” Blanche said indignantly as he explained that the charges against Comey came with a 10-year potential prison sentence. “Threatening the life of the President of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice.”
Blanche continued, “[W]hile this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute.”
Really? How about these?
“Hang Mike Pence”—Trump pardoned more than 1,500 January 6 insurrectionists, some of whom may have been responsible for the sign carrying that message and the gallows accompanying it. The statute of limitations on such “threats” is five years. Where was that indictment?
“86 46”—Anti-Biden Trump social media personality Jack Posobiec posted this in January 2022. It also appeared on T-Shirts, caps, and Republican fundraising messages.
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) posted this in February 2024: “We’ve now 86’d: McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell. Better days are ahead for the Republican Party.”
Prosecutors face a daunting task proving Comey’s subjective intent to harm Trump. Even longtime Trump apologist Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, acknowledged that the indictment “is unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny. If it did, it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”
When asked at his press conference how he would prove intent, Blanche said “with witnesses, with documents, and with the defendant himself,” adding: “It's very premature for me to do that today.”
That non-answer won’t suffice when Comey’s lawyers provide evidence that this is just another vindictive prosecution on Trump’s behalf at taxpayer expense.
Someday Blanche’s progeny may ask him why—as the chief law enforcement officer in the United States—he helped a rogue president run roughshod over the rule of law.
He probably won’t tell them about Roy Cohn.
Trump is likely to appoint a successor who’s better at covering up his relationship with Epstein, more effective in prosecuting his enemies, and more convincing in pretending they believe what they’re saying in trying to justify Trump’s corruption.
There’s always a temptation to celebrate when President Donald Trump does something sensible, like firing his Attorney General, Pam Bondi—until you ask yourself why he’s done it.
Not since John Mitchell, who was Richard Nixon’s attorney general, has anyone done more to tarnish that office and damage the Justice Department than has Bondi.
But Trump didn’t fire her because she turned the Justice Department into a cesspool of corruption. Just the opposite. He fired her because she didn’t hide the corruption well enough. She failed to achieve all the corrupt goals he set for her: She didn’t make the Epstein files go away, didn’t fully prosecute his enemies, and wasn’t convincing enough in congressional hearings and on television in advocating for Trump.
Trump has been furious that the Epstein files continue to be a political liability. He’s upset that his MAGA base, and congressional Republicans who are responsive to it, doesn’t believe that the truth has yet been told about what the Justice Department knows about Epstein. He’s angry that so many continue to think there’s a continuing cover-up—which there surely is.
Trump doesn’t simply demand total loyalty from his lackeys. He wants them to convincingly act on the media and before Congress as if they’re motivated by sincere conviction rather than mere loyalty to Trump.
But he doesn’t want the cover lifted. To the contrary—he wants it slammed shut so tightly that the public will forget all about him and Epstein. To Trump, Bondi’s failure was to have left the cover open just enough that the public still demands a full accounting.
Similarly with Trump’s demand that she prosecute his enemies (a demand he mistakenly made public on social media). He’s not angry that she’s tried to do so; he’s angry that she’s bungled it so badly that several courts rejected her prosecutors’ attempts and several grand juries have even turned down her prosecutors’ requests to indict.
The same thing with her appearances on TV and before Congress. Trump doesn’t simply demand total loyalty from his lackeys. He wants them to convincingly act on the media and before Congress as if they’re motivated by sincere conviction rather than mere loyalty to Trump. Bondi failed at this, too.
There’s no cause for celebration in Trump’s firing Bondi because Trump is likely to appoint a successor who’s better at covering up his relationship with Epstein, more effective in prosecuting his enemies, and more convincing in pretending they believe what they’re saying in trying to justify Trump’s corruption.
In other words, someone who will be even worse than Bondi has been, undermining the rule of law.
"We live in a country where we have one reality for everyday people and another for the rich, the well-connected, and the well-protected," Lee said. "And that cannot continue to be our reality."
Democratic Rep. Summer Lee introduced articles of impeachment against US Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday and accused the nation's top prosecutor of “breaking the law to protect pedophiles” and prosecute President Donald Trump’s “political opponents.”
"We live in a country where we have one reality for everyday people and another for the rich, the well-connected, and the well-protected. And that cannot continue to be our reality," Lee (D-Pa.) said in a video posted to her social media on Tuesday announcing the articles.
Two of the five articles pertain to Bondi's conduct surrounding the Department of Justice's (DOJ) release of files related to the late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which the DOJ has been accused of covering up to protect Trump.
One article accuses Bondi of obstruction of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena in July 2025, which required the DOJ to release the full, unredacted files to the House Oversight Committee in August as part of a congressional inquiry.
"The Department of Justice refused to adhere to the subpoena and withheld substantial evidence; evidence logs indicate that amongst the withheld evidence are FBI interviews with a survivor who accused Trump of sexual abuse," the article reads.
In February, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee announced that they were investigating the DOJ's handling of an accusation made against Trump to the FBI in 2019. A woman accused the president of having sexually assaulted her at the age of 13 in the 1980s.
Another impeachment article accuses Bondi of violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), signed into law in November, which required the DOJ to release "all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials" pertaining to the Epstein case without redacting information to protect powerful figures from embarrassment.
The DOJ missed the December 19 deadline to release the files and has since released only about 3 million pages of documents as part of its "final" trove, while millions more remain unavailable.
The pages that have been released, the article says, "were heavily redacted" to scrub the names of Trump and other powerful figures, but sensitive information about many of Epstein's victims—including identifying details and nude photographs—was released, even though the law said redacting this information was permitted.
Meanwhile, it says the DOJ "continues to withhold documents," including FBI interviews with the Trump accuser.
Three of four memos detailing the interviews with the accuser were posted to the DOJ website in March. They include the victim's graphic claims that Trump hit her after she bit his penis when he attempted to force her to perform oral sex.
Trump has denied the allegations, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has called the alleged victim "disturbed."
Approximately 37 pages of FBI records related to the accusation, including the fourth memo and pages of agent notes, remain unreleased to the public, according to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
"Pam Bondi is complicit in the most egregious cover-up in American history, hiding documents that reveal a young woman reported being sexually assaulted by Donald Trump when she was just a minor," said Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), a cosponsor of Lee's impeachment articles. "Bondi’s actions are not only disgusting and wrong. They are also illegal."
Another article accuses Bondi of having "abused" the DOJ and FBI's powers in a partisan fashion—to target Trump's enemies and shield his friends from accountability. It also cites Bondi's attempts to criminalize protesters who express anti-Trump viewpoints by designating them as "domestic terrorism threats" and creating secretive lists of organizations and individuals to be targeted.
Bondi is also accused of misleading courts on several occasions—including in the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and the Salvadoran national Kilmar Ábrego García and says she presented "demonstrably false allegations in court to support baseless prosecutions against protesters."
She is also accused of perjury before Congress during her confirmation hearing, where she pledged not to politicize her office or target journalists. It also accused her of lying during last month's contentious hearing in which she claimed that there was "no evidence" in the Epstein files "that Donald Trump has committed a crime."
No US attorney general has ever been impeached by the US House, which requires a simple majority. Trump was impeached twice by a Democratic-controlled House during his first term of office, though neither resulted in a conviction in the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority.
Outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had articles of impeachment filed against her in January by more than 80 cosponsors following the shooting of two US citizens by immigration agents.
Earlier this month, Noem became the highest-ranking Trump official to be fired in his second term, and earlier this week, Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees referred her to the DOJ for prosecution, also for perjury.
In addition to Ansari, Lee's impeachment articles against Bondi are cosponsored by Reps. Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Dave Min (D-Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.). Previous articles of impeachment against Bondi have been introduced by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) earlier this month.
Lee emphasized that while Bondi "deserves to be held accountable," this "is also about what we want our government to be, and who we want it to work for."
"This is our chance to get justice," Lee said, "to hold people accountable who, time and again, have gotten away with screwing us over."