Tag: doj

Sen. Bill Hagerty Drops Truth Bombs and Obliterates MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell’s Every Left-Wing Narrative

In a must-see appearance on MSNBC, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) went toe-to-toe with Andrea Mitchell, dismantling her far-left narratives with a calm yet relentless barrage of facts.

The former U.S. Ambassador to Japan and staunch Trump ally delivered a masterclass in exposing the weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and highlighting the hypocrisy of the left-wing media.

Mitchell, attempting to corner Hagerty on the controversial nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, found herself struggling to keep up as Hagerty systematically dismantled her talking points.

Addressing Gaetz’s nomination, Hagerty didn’t shy away from defending Trump’s bold decision, tying the move directly to the American public’s frustration with the DOJ’s politicization.

Andrea Mitchell:
What is your reaction to Matt Gaetz as Attorney General? Right now, would you support him?

Bill Hagerty:
Listen, Andrea, it’s amazing to me that people are reacting the way they are to what you just showed, because there has been no one better at channeling the American public’s frustration with the weaponization of the Department of Justice than Matt Gaetz. You can understand the President’s frustration with the DOJ.

During his first campaign, they used a fake Clinton dossier to spy on him. Look at what happened in the first Trump administration—this whole fake Russiagate hoax. The DOJ litigated him for years over that.

In 2020, the DOJ went to big tech and had them censor Hunter Biden’s laptop to throw the election toward Joe Biden. Think about what just happened in 2024: the DOJ, with their colleagues around the country, brought five different cases to try President Biden’s top opponent, President Trump. I can understand his frustration in wanting to put an agent of change in place. I’m not surprised at all.

Andrea Mitchell:
I don’t want to litigate everything that happened with Donald Trump because there’s a lot of evidence to support many of the allegations and, in fact, the indictments—Mar-a-Lago, the sloppy intelligence handling.

Bill Hagerty:
I think the American public spoke louder than anybody. They gave him the strongest mandate we’ve seen in 36 years in reaction to all of this.

Andrea Mitchell:
But a Trump-appointed judge cut all of that off, and it wasn’t fully vetted. Let’s just say that was the legal system at work, no question.

Bill Hagerty:
It was not working. It was weaponized.

Mitchell attempted to pivot, bringing up allegations against Gaetz. But Hagerty didn’t flinch, pointing out the media’s fixation on unproven accusations while ignoring the DOJ’s overreach.

Keep reading

Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Biden-Harris DOJ to Block Destruction of Jack Smith’s Records Exposing Lawfare Against President Trump

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Paxton’s legal action seeks to secure a preservation order that would block any potential destruction of records from Jack Smith’s investigation into former President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit highlights a pattern of record destruction by past special counsels and raises concerns about accountability in a “weaponized” justice system under the Biden-Harris regime.

Paxton initiated the lawsuit following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request he filed, seeking access to documents and communications related to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation.

“Past Special Counsels, including—notoriously—Robert Mueller, destroyed records at the end of their investigations to avoid accountability. It is not clear why nobody was prosecuted for doing so. This request is part of my Office’s efforts to ensure that Americans are not cheated out of accountability or information again. This pattern of weaponizing the justice system for partisan retribution must end,” Ken Paxton said.

The letter reads in part:

“The State of Texas is requesting a waiver of all fees, and meets the criteria per Justice Department policy. This information request is in the public interest, as it will provide critical information for the public understanding of the Office of Special Counsel’s activities.

This request does not serve the commercial interest of the Attorney General’s office. This request is made in the State of Texas’s sovereign capacity. And this FOIA request seeks information that is important for the American people.

FOIA serves as “a means for citizens to know what their Government is up to.” And it provides “a structural necessity in a real democracy.” The Texas Attorney General’s Office frequently updates constituents on important, newsworthy information.

The Office issues press releases, and posts news on its website that is frequently reported on by the press. The information from this FOIA request will significantly contribute to the public’s understanding of the Special Counsel’s investigation, particularly when the subject of that investigation has been elected as the 47th President of the United States.”

Smith, appointed by Garland in November 2022, was tasked with investigating Trump just one day after Trump announced his 2024 presidential bid.

Jack Smith spent over $50 million of taxpayer money to hunt down Trump for non-crimes.

Since then, Smith’s investigation has led to a series of high-profile indictments against Trump.

Keep reading

IT WAS ALL POLITICAL: DOJ to fire Jack Smith, drop all legal cases against Trump before inauguration

In a shocking turn of events, Fox News is reporting that “Donald Trump’s legal problems have essentially all gone away since he won last night.”

Watch below as it is explained by Fox how the Department of Justice (DOJ) where Special Counsel Jack Smith works “cannot prosecute a sitting president,” adding that Smith “will be gone from his post as special counsel, meaning the cases will be gone before Trump takes the oath of office on January 20.”

All of a sudden, further admitted MSNBC, Smith and the DOJ are seeking to end their cases against Trump because they, too, recognize that there is a longstanding policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

Keep reading

DOJ invokes Civil War-era law in warning federal agents not to respond to polling places with guns

In recent days, federal law enforcement agents across the government received a jarring communication from the Justice Department: a warning they could be prosecuted under a Civil War-era law if they respond to an election polling place with guns, even for a fake report of a crime.

The memo from Corey R. Amundson, the chief of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section that oversees election crimes, was dated Oct. 15 and states it was prompted by inquiries about how the government might respond to Election Day violence.

It was brought to the attention of Just the News by a senior law enforcement official and confirmed by multiple federal agents, some who said their immediate bosses offered additional guidance.

“In our role overseeing federal prosecutorial efforts against election crime, the Public Integrity Section, through our Election Crimes Branch, has received inquiries about the legality of having armed federal law enforcement agents at polling places,” Amundson wrote. “Given the potential relevance of this issue to federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Defense. we thought it prudent to bring to your attention Title 18, United States Code, Section 592.”

“This statute — which has been on existence since 1864 — makes it a felony for a federal official to send armed personnel to an operational polling place for crowd control or other purposes,” the memo added.

DOJ officials and retired agents told Just the News similar communications about the Civil War-era law have been sent out in prior elections, but this year’s memo has gotten more attention internally because of a recent Election Day ISIS terror plot that was thwarted a few weeks ago in Oklahoma and more recent fire bombings of ballot collection boxes in the Northwest.

The current memo cautioned agents that bad actors might try to trick agents into an armed respond to a polling place with a false report of violence.

Keep reading

Grand Jury Witness Reportedly Hands Over to the Feds Sex Tapes Featuring Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs and Eight Celebrity ‘Victims’ — Including Two Underage Male Stars

There are main pipelines of stories involving the Sean Diddy Combs prosecution saga.

One is leaks from people inside the DOJ who are leaking like mad. A second is the alleged victims who are filing new suits against Diddy like there’s no tomorrow.

There are also people who are witnesses to the goings-on or who have evidence pertinent to this prosecution.

And now, one such witness has apparently come forward.

A producer from New Jersey says he saw – and was in possession of – a number of sex tapes featuring eight different celebrity victims — including two or three underage male stars.

New York Post reported:

“Courtney Burgess, who testified before a grand jury in Manhattan on Thursday, claimed in an interview with NewsNation’s ‘Banfield’ that he saw six males and two female celebs engaging in sex acts with the disgraced music mogul. Asked how many of the stars appeared to be under the influence or inebriated on the tapes, Burgess alleged, ‘All of them.’”

Keep reading

Civil Liberties Groups Push DOJ to Probe UK-US Collusion in Online Censorship

America First Legal (AFL) has announced that it has filed a formal complaint, based on new evidence, urging an investigation into the activities of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

This UK-based group has been accused of direct involvement in online censorship, including in the US, notably in the affair around the “naming and shaming” of the supposed Covid “Disinformation Dozen” – which is why the AFL’s complaint has now been submitted to the US Department of Justice (DOJ).

The key question that AFL wants to be answered is whether those behind CCDH should be treated as “agents of a foreign principal” who took on the role of stifling free speech in the US.

Such a designation of the group, if confirmed, would be in line with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

We obtained a copy of the request for you here.

Keep reading

Biden-Harris DOJ Confirms Request to Investigate Elon Musk’s Pro-Trump Election Activity

Former Republican Justice Department and other officials sent a letter Monday to Democratic Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting he open an investigation into billionaire Elon Musk’s cash prizes to registered voters in swing states.

Musk, through his America PAC, is selecting a $1 million lottery winner each day until the election to registered voters who sign a petition saying they support the First and Second Amendments.

The petition signers must be registered voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.

Musk handed out the first two checks for $1 million at a Donald Trump rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Sunday.

Keep reading

Warden Admits Biden-Harris DOJ Has Illegally Imprisoned Steve Bannon Since October 19

The Tennessee Star on Monday obtained a letter sent by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to attorneys representing Steve Bannon, wherein the federal agency acknowledged it is holding the former White House chief strategist in violation of the First Step Act (FSA) of 2018, as Bannon accrued 10 days of good time credit toward an early release:

To date, Mr. Bannon has earned 10 First Step Act (“FSA”) time credits. These credits would typically be applied toward early transfer to supervision pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3624 (g) (3). However, Mr. Bannon does not have a term of supervision following his term of imprisonment. Thus, his 10 FSA time credits can only be applied toward prerelease custody placement in a Residential Reentry Center or on home confinement.”

According to attorney R. Trent McCotter, who represents Bannon, “Those credits mean that Mr. Bannon could have been released to home confinement two days ago on October 19, 2024 (i.e., 10 days before the end of his sentence) – yet the BOP declined to do so, citing its view that there is ‘insufficient time’ remaining on Mr. Bannon’s sentence ‘to process’ the referral to home confinement.”

Bannon’s attorneys filed the letter as part of an effort to secure an earlier release but it was sent to Bannon’s lawyers by the Acting Warden at the Federal Correctional Institute (FCI) in Danbury, Connecticut, where Bannon is serving a four-month sentence after he was convicted in 2022 for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena from the House select committee that investigated January 6.

Acting Warden Darek Puzio said that “Mr. Bannon has earned 10 First Step Act (“FSA”) time credits,” which the warden additionally acknowledged “would typically be applied toward early transfer to supervision,” but noted that Bannon was not sentenced to any form of supervised release.

According to Puzio, this means Bannon can only use his credits, which the BOP typically calls good time credits, to secure a transfer to home confinement for the remainder of his sentence. However, the federal official claimed there is insufficient time left in Bannon’s sentence to arrange this and that the BOP department responsible for such arrangements “will not accept placements under 30 days.”

While confirming FCI Danbury and the BOP are willfully ignoring the good time credit accrued by Bannon, the warden nonetheless acknowledged the former Trump adviser “will be released on his full-term release date of October 29, 2024.”

In a legal filing containing the letter, Bannon’s attorneys argued that Puzio’s admission means the court should order Bannon “released immediately.”

This acknowledgment by Puzio and the BOP follows last week’s statement by Bannon that the Biden-Harris administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) was illegally holding him through its abandonment of the landmark civil justice reform signed into law by former President Donald Trump.

“The Harris Bureau of Prisons is illegally holding me past my legal release date–trying to eliminate one of President Trump’s strongest advocates–these criminals reek of desperation,” said Bannon in a statement last week to The National Pulse.

Keep reading

DOJ Lawyers Press Merrick Garland to Investigate Israel’s Killing of American Citizens

Attorneys at the Department of Justice have sent a letter to Merrick Garland, pressing the US attorney general to‬‭ “investigate‬‭ potential‬‭ violations‬‭ of‬‭ U.S.‬‭ law‬‭ by‬‭ Israel’s‭ government,‬‭ military,‬‭ and‬‭ citizenry,‬‭ and‬‭ hold‬‭ the‬‭ perpetrators‬‭ to‬‭ account.”

The letter, exclusively obtained by Zeteo, represents increasing internal discontent over the DOJ’s silence as the Israeli government, supported by US citizens and organizations, allegedly violates US and international laws – in contrast to the department’s willingness to announce charges against Hamas leaders over the Oct. 7 attack. It also comes as the Israeli government responds to US requests to heed US and international laws by escalating its violation of them.

“We honor the Department’s commitment to investigating and prosecuting crimes regardless of the perpetrator’s race or nationality and regardless of political considerations. We know you do too, Attorney General Garland,” the letter’s authors write, citing a speech Garland delivered to the department last month.

“In your speech, you stressed the importance of the ‘fair and impartial application of our laws.’ You also quoted the Principles of Federal Prosecution and reminded us that, as attorneys for the government, we should not be influenced by, among other factors, a person’s background, our feelings concerning the victim, and the effect of a charging decision on our professional and personal circumstances. You told us that ‘we must treat like cases alike,’ … And finally, you insisted that, guided by these norms, ‘we will not allow this nation to become a country where law enforcement is treated as an apparatus of politics.’”

Keep reading

Federal Judge Sides with Biden-Harris DOJ, Blocks Attempt to Remove Ineligible Voters from Rolls Ahead of Election

A federal judge on Wednesday halted an Alabama effort to purge voter registration rolls of people who should not be able to vote in the state.

The Justice Department sued Alabama to stop Secretary of State Wes Allen from what he said were “strategic efforts” to “remove noncitizens registered to vote,” according to NBC.

Under the program, Allen sought to remove 3,251 voters and said they would be referred to the state attorney general’s office for possible prosecution.

U.S. District Court Judge Anna Manasco, who had been nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2020, said the program had to stop due to the timing.

“For decades, federal law has given states a hard deadline to complete systematic purges of ineligible persons from voter rolls: no later than ninety days before a federal election,” Manasco wrote. NBC referred to the rule as a “quiet period.”

“This year, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen (1) blew the deadline when he announced a purge program to begin eighty-four days before the 2024 General Election, (2) later admitted that his purge list included thousands of United States citizens (in addition to far fewer noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote), and (3) in any event, referred everyone on the purge list to the Alabama Attorney General for criminal investigation,” Manasco wrote.

Manasco ordered the state to contact those who were targeted by the program to let them know they are able to vote this year.

The order said that Allen is not barred from removing voters who would be ineligble for other reasons — such as criminal offenses or death.

If Allen learns an individual on the rolls is not an American citizen by means other than the program to remove them en masse, he can remove such a person, the order said.

The injunction to stop Allen from removing voters only lasts until the day after the Nov. 5 election.

“Because this litigation is still ongoing, I am limited in my ability to comment,” Allen said in a statement, according to The Washington Post.

“Earlier today, the federal court issued a preliminary injunction order. I will comply with the order of the federal court.

Keep reading