Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War  (Read 98722 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
Lawfare List
« Reply #550 on: February 11, 2025, 01:17:12 PM »
For those playing at home, links to the current suits against Trump and the changes he’s authored:

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1889336000754655492

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
Court Listener Site
« Reply #551 on: February 12, 2025, 10:00:55 AM »
Site tracking the progress, for lack of a better term, of the injunction against Trump taking executive action. Note the attached .pdfs and such:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69628289/hampton-dellinger-v-scott-bessent/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile
FO
« Reply #553 on: February 13, 2025, 06:58:53 AM »


(2) TRUMP COURT FIGHTS GET MIXED RESULTS SO FAR: U.S. District Judge Jeanette Vargas amended a temporary restraining order to clarify that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Senate-confirmed senior Treasury officers are not barred from accessing Bureau of Fiscal Services payment data.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied an emergency appeal by the Trump administration to overturn federal Judge John McConnell’s order to unfreeze all federal loans and grants. McConnell said on Monday that the Trump administration was still not complying with his order to unfreeze spending.

Why It Matters: So far the courts have only imposed temporary restraining orders on the Trump administration, and more hearings over injunctions are scheduled for Friday, 14 February. The Trump administration seems headed toward a confrontation with the federal courts over executive authority, and the extent of lower court authority over the Executive Branch. As the left exhausts legitimate political options, they are more likely to look outside of legitimate politics to respond to the Trump administration. - R.C.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile
FO: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare
« Reply #554 on: February 13, 2025, 03:29:43 PM »


(5) DOJ TO ALLOW PRESIDENT TO FIRE INDEPENDENT AGENCY CHIEFS: Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said the Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that legal protections that block the President from firing members of independent regulatory agencies is unconstitutional, and the DOJ will no longer defend those protections in court. Harris said the DOJ will push the Supreme Court to overturn a 1935 decision that blocks the President from removing officials from independent agencies.

(6) FIRED INSPECTORS GENERAL SUE TRUMP ADMIN: Recently-fired inspectors general at eight federal agencies are suing the Trump administration, alleging their terminations violated the Inspector General Act which requires the President to notify Congress 30 days before removing inspectors general.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
Swinging the Axe in the Southern District of NY
« Reply #555 on: February 15, 2025, 08:07:59 PM »
There’s a link to an eight page letter you can find if you click the link below that is as thorough a bitchslapping as I’ve seen in a while. Indeed, a couple positions ago I was my civil service unit’s hatchetman and the place where the unit’s problem children would find themselves if they were in need of “performance management.” I’ve written my share of letters like these and confess I found this one to be one of the best daggers to the vocational heart of the matter I’ve seen:

The Hammer Drops at Justice
New leadership and new rules are too much for sanctimonious DOJ employees, who resign rather than follow orders to depoliticize the department.
JULIE KELLY
FEB 15, 2025

Emil Bove, in his typical fashion, was having none of it.

In a scathing nine-page letter, the acting deputy attorney general detailed a long list of insubordination and politicking by Danielle Sassoon, the temporary U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, related to her refusal to drop the federal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams as instructed. Last September, the then-U.S. Attorney for SDNY handed down a five-count indictment against the Democratic mayor, a move some considered political retribution for Adams’ intraparty squabbles with the Biden administration.

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

A review by the Trump Department of Justice, consistent with the president’s executive order to halt the weaponization of the DOJ, determined the investigation into Adams had “accelerated after Mayor Adams publicly criticized President Biden's failed immigration policies,” Bove wrote. Bove, who once worked as a prosecutor in the SDNY office, further explained the case represented “election interference”—Adams is up for re-election this year—and “imposed on Mayor Adams' ability to govern and cooperate with federal law enforcement to keep New York City safe.” (Bove also noted the apparent political aspirations of Damian Williams, her predecessor responsible for the Adams case. Williams landed on Kamala Harris’ short list for attorney general right after announcing the charges; after Trump won, he launched a campaign-style website touting, among other prosecutions, the Adams indictment.)

But Sassoon, also in typical fashion for federal prosecutors, sanctimoniously touted her alleged “principles” and loyalty to the rule of law as reasons to defy Bove’s order. “Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations,” Sassoon, who had been in the post a mere three weeks, wrote. “I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment regardless whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous, to the defendant or to those who appointed me.”

Sassoon offered her resignation if Bove did not reverse course. He not only accepted her resignation but announced she would be the subject of investigations by both Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Who Are the Fools and Cowards?

Others quickly joined Sassoon at the unemployment line—or the line to become the newest MSNBC legal analyst. Six more DOJ officials resigned; Hagan Scotten, one of two prosecutors on the Adams case, tendered his resignation on February 14. “I expect you will find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion [to dismiss]” Scotten, whom Bove had placed on paid leave pending an investigation into his insubordination, wrote.

But if their collective intention was to demonstrate independence and integrity, it achieved the opposite—with the exception of DOJ bootlickers at National Review and the Wall Street Journal. Recent polls indicate historically low levels of support for the DOJ among Republicans, something apparently lost on so-called “conservative” publications.

Americans voted for Donald Trump in a partial repudiation of overzealous government lawyers, the sort perfectly embodied by Sassoon and company, using their unchecked power to imprison those they consider to be on the wrong side of the political aisle.

The exodus represented another in a series of purges, forced and otherwise, at the DOJ since Trump took office. On January 21, at least 15 senior DOJ officials were removed or reassigned. A few days later, several members of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team also were fired. (Smith resigned on January 10.) Dozens of prosecutors who had been hired on a temporary basis to handle January 6 cases were dismissed as the DOJ shuttered the so-called “Capitol Siege” investigation.

At the same time, house cleaning at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is under the purview of the DOJ, immediately got underway. Several top FBI officials were warned to clean out their desks or get the ax. Chiefs at the Miami and Washington field offices, responsible for the reckless armed raid of Mar-a-Lago, were sent packing.

Bove also called out the insubordination of acting FBI director Brian Driscoll, who, like Sassoon, refused to follow orders and produce the names of thousands of FBI employees involved in the unprecedented J6 investigation. (Driscoll reportedly compiled after Bove noted his defiance but sent the names over a classified server. He will be replaced, and possibly fired, next week after Kash Patel takes over.)

Dropping the Adams case not only comports with the president’s depoliticization directive but appears to meet new standards set forth in a February 5 memo by Bondi. She cautioned against bringing reckless cases and warned, “there is no place in the decision-making process for animosity or careerism.” DOJ employees, she reminded her department, are bound by the Justice Manual, which prohibits political or personal concerns related to charging decisions. “These types of considerations, which previously led to the improper weaponization of the criminal justice system at the federal and state levels, as President Trump observed in Executive Order 14147, 90 FR 8235, have no place in the Department,” she wrote.

Which is why the departure of folks like Sassoon and Scotten are welcome news. Their self-serving, media-whoring exit letters have nothing to do with upholding the law and everything to do with advancing their personal and perhaps political interests.

https://www.declassified.live/p/the-hammer-drops-at-justice

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20286
    • View Profile
Andrew McCarthy knocks Trump's DOJ tit for tat
« Reply #556 on: February 16, 2025, 08:37:44 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/this-is-not-restoring-the-way-the-justice-department-is-supposed-to-work/

I have mixed feelings on this but generally side AGAINST McCarthy on this one.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War
« Reply #557 on: February 16, 2025, 09:25:03 AM »
I suspect I agree-- but I am paywall blocked.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
The 9-0 SCOTUS Would Appear to Hold Sway
« Reply #558 on: February 16, 2025, 10:00:13 AM »
An apt analysis of the SDNY resignations:

"Fools" Rush In the Department of Justice
Another day, another resignation letter.

JOSH BLACKMAN | 2.14.2025 6:34 PM
The fallout continues from the Eric Adams case. Yesterday, I wrote about Danielle Sassoon's resignation, and Emil Bove's response. Today, Hagan Scotten, another Assistant United States Attorney resigned with a formal letter.

Again, there is much to discuss about the Sassoon-Bove exchange, which I will do in the future after I've had some more time to reflect. Here, I will reflect on one passage in Scotten's letter:

I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal. But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.
In recent years, the Department of Justice has prosecuted public officials in high profile cases. In several of those cases, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the convictions.

In McDonnell v. United States (2016), the Court held that an "official act" must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific pending before a public official. DOJ thought it knew what was a proper exercise of government power. The Supreme Court disagreed. Could it be said that the scores of DOJ employees who brought this ill-fated prosecution were "fools"? Do you know who was the Chief of the DOJ Public Integrity Section at the time? Jack Smith. Was it foolish for a prosecutor to indict a former Governor in a case that garnered zero votes at the Supreme Court?

Jack Smith also led the prosecution of John Edwards, the former Senator and Vice Presidential Candidate. Smith relied on a dubious theory of campaign finance law, and the case yielded a deadlocked jury and a mistrial. (When Smith reported that he had enough evidence to convict Trump, I thought back to the Edwards case.) DOJ did not try that theory again. Was it foolish to bring this prosecution of a former public official when the jury wouldn't even convict?

Fast forward to Kelly v. United States (2020). This prosecution arose from the so-called Bridgegate scandal. The United States indicted members of Governor Chis Christie's administration. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. Justice Kagan ruled that the scheme, which did not aim to obtain money or property, could not violate the federal fraud law. Was it foolish to indict a public official in a case that garnered zero votes at the Supreme Court?

In 2023, the Supreme Court decided Ciminelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States. These cases arose over scandal involving funding for a Buffalo Bills stadium project. In both cases, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the convictions. Was it foolish to bring these cases that garnered zero votes at the Supreme Court?

Sensing a pattern? Another public corruption case pending this term, Kousisis v. United States, will likely yield a reversal. And I think the prosecution against Senator Menendez will meet a similar fate, if he is not pardoned. That doesn't even factor in Alvin Bragg's conviction of Trump, which will almost certainly not stand up on appeal. Lawfare all the way down. Maybe, just maybe, federal prosecutors are not in the best position to determine whether public officials abused their power.

I appreciate that Scotten thinks that the Trump DOJ's approach to criminal prosecution is "foolish." I think much the same can be said for how federal prosecutors have approached public corruption cases for some time. And you don't have to take my word for it. Add up all of the unanimous Supreme Court rulings.

What we have here are two very different conceptions of the federal criminal justice system. On the one hand, Sassoon and her colleagues defend the traditional notion that "independent" prosecutors have the power to define what is in the public good. They can define when public officials abuse their power, and can punish those actions with criminal sanctions. (We saw similar arguments during the first Trump impeachment.) Those defending Sassoon are invested in the DOJ club, and the continuation of its longstanding practices.

President Trump, through Bove, articulate a different perspective. The President, as head of the executive branch, can make his own determination of what is in the public good, and determine when public officials are abusing their power. Trump, perhaps more than any living person, is uniquely situated to make this sort of judgment. From the moment he was sworn in, he faced nonstop litigation (remember the Emoluments Clauses?) and two impeachment trials. After he left office, he was indicted in several courts based on novel and dubious theories of criminal liability. Who can forget the efforts to disqualify him under Section 3--which also led to a unanimous Supreme Court reversals? And despite all that happened, Trump still won re-election. Distinguished prosecutors thought they knew what was in the public good. The voters disagreed.

There will likely be more resignations. But I think little more is left to be said here. There are two diametrically-opposed views on display. And only one such view can prevail.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/14/fools-rush-in-the-department-of-justice/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20286
    • View Profile
From National Review - Andrew McCarth
« Reply #559 on: February 16, 2025, 11:29:27 AM »
Trump's tit for tat DOJ:

By Andrew C. McCarthy
February 15, 2025 6:30 AM
The Adams case is not the only one that will bring the foolishness of this directive into sharp relief.
In recording our podcast last week, I opined to Rich Lowry that Pam Bondi’s first day on the job as attorney general was Trump II in small compass: a flurry of directives that critics will have a tough time keeping up with, and that combine a lot of good with some bad ideas that could undermine the administration’s capacity to accomplish the good.


This is the first in a series of posts that will address the main bad idea arising from Bondi’s first-day directives: the Justice Department’s new “Weaponization Working Group” (which itself follows on President Trump’s executive order on “Ending Weaponization of the Federal Government”). The “Weaponization” memo is a patently partisan and ethically careless political document masquerading as legal guidance. As such, it lends itself to exploitation by Democrats implicated in Trump DOJ enforcement actions, as well as by the 570 judges appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden to the federal courts over twelve of the past 16 years (about two-thirds of the total of non-senior federal judicial seats in the United States).

And there is already abundant reason to conclude that the last thing the Trump administration intends to do is remove politics from law enforcement decisions.

Rather than simply announce an urgently needed policy to investigate and prosecute civil rights violations (which necessarily include “lawfare,” the punitive, selective deployment of law enforcement powers against political adversaries), Bondi targets a number of Trump prosecutorial nemeses by name. The AG’s directive is an obvious attempt to cement a revisionist history of the Trump prosecutions as nothing more than the partisan harassment of an innocent man — with this revisionism to be authored by newly minted Trump prosecutors who, as defense lawyers, represented Trump and other defendants implicated in the “weaponization” cases.


My thoughts, since you asked ( :wink:) is that I don't know I would call this weaponization though as much as the persuit of those accountable for previous abuse of the law. They cannot get away with this and we cannot spend yrs wrangling about who actually did abuse the DOJ vs those simply doing their jobs as instructed.   The  latter option is more likely to result in NO ONE being held accountable.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2025, 11:33:37 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War
« Reply #560 on: February 16, 2025, 03:57:26 PM »
Agree.

Regarding the Blackman analysis:

In States such as CA and NY, the democratic control of Attorney General is done directly by the vote of the people.

OTOH the Federal Govt is UNITARY-- the only democratic control on the DOJ is via the election of the President.   THEREFORE the President does have ultimate control, but if he is wise he will do so

a) rarely, and
b) transparently. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20286
    • View Profile
State AGs may prosecute Fauci
« Reply #561 on: February 19, 2025, 09:23:54 AM »
So the Left wants to play state AG trumping Fed Laws.  Two can play this game:

https://pjmedia.com/benbartee/2025/02/18/19-state-attorneys-general-signal-intent-to-prosecute-fauci-n4937109

He needs to be prosecuted for the cover up both with lying about Corona being a lab leak from also using US funds to fund what turned into over a million US deaths.

Just to cover his own derriere!  :x

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile
FO: Various (Wow!!!)
« Reply #562 on: February 19, 2025, 10:39:06 AM »

(1) TRUMP ASKS SCOTUS TO INTERVENE IN SPECIAL COUNSEL FIRING: President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) to lift a federal court’s restraining order blocking Trump from firing U.S. Office of Special Counsel chief Hampton Dellinger.

Federal Trade Commission chair Andrew Ferguson called for the Supreme Court to overturn legal precedent shielding independent agency officials from being unilaterally fired by the White House.

Why It Matters: The second Trump administration is enacting revolutionary change with the federal bureaucracy, and attempting to get control of the Treasury in order to control the flow of money from federal agencies to Democrat, progressive, and far left non government groups. Clearing out the federal bureaucracy and the independent agencies would eliminate a major source of political and legal power, used by Democrats to target conservatives with lawfare and debanking during the Biden administration. - R.C.

(2) TRUMP RESISTANCE PREPARES TO EXPAND LAWFARE: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the courts will be an important venue for “holding Donald Trump accountable when he breaks the law,” and Schumer plans to issue demand letters, hold public hearings, and pursue legal action where necessary.

House Democrats formed a litigation working group co-chaired by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Raskin said Democrats will write amicus briefs for ongoing lawsuits, but could also join lawsuits if House Democrats have “distinctive interests” that are not already represented.

Why It Matters: Congressional Democrats are effectively locked out from interfering with the Trump administration’s executive actions, and Democrats’ only remaining political recourse is the Senate legislative filibuster. The Trump administration seems to be edging closer to defying the lower federal courts. If Trump openly defies the lower courts or the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, this would remove the only effective legal avenue for Trump Resistance 2.0 until the 2026 midterm elections. House Democrats are also planning “nine days of visibility” protests in their districts while the House is in recess. - R.C.

(3) TRUMP ADMIN FIRES DOJ IMMIGRATION JUDGES: The Department of Justice (DOJ) terminated 20 newly hired immigration judges, and five assistant chief immigration judges.

According to one of the fired judges, the DOJ sent a letter saying retaining the newly hired immigration judges was “not in the best interest” of the DOJ.

Why It Matters: The Trump administration is expanding and ramping up expedited removals, allowing the administration to bypass the immigration courts in most cases. However, the Trump administration is also likely clearing out judges the administration expects would decide against removals and hinder Trump’s immigration agenda. - R.C.

=======================

Edited to add:

(1) TRUMP ISSUES EO ASSERTING AUTHORITY OVER EXECUTIVE BRANCH: President Donald Trump issued an executive order yesterday, asserting Presidential control over all executive branch agencies.

According to the order:

All independent federal agencies will be required to submit all proposed and final regulatory actions to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will have authority over all independent agency spending, and OMB can prohibit independent agencies from certain spending activities

The President and Attorney General will provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the entire executive branch, and executive branch employees cannot interpret the law in an official capacity in a way that contravenes the President’s or Attorney General’s legal opinions

The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy work is exempt from the order, but the Board of Governors will have to comply with the executive order on issues related to supervision or regulation of financial institutions

Why It Matters: This order will likely be targeted by additional lawsuits from Democrats and federal workers. The Trump administration is in a fight with the courts and Congress over Presidential Article II powers and effective control of the executive branch. Previous administrations allowed the power of the White House to be limited in a way that was advantageous to Democrats’ political agenda. Many executive agencies, especially independent regulators, effectively became a fourth branch of the federal government, with more authority vested in Congress through the Impoundment Control Act than the White House. The Trump administration has been asserting authority through a blitz of executive actions since Trump’s inauguration, but this is the first open declaration from the Trump administration that it is taking control of the executive branch. - R.C.

(2) FIRST CRACKS APPEAR IN LAWFARE AGAINST TRUMP ADMIN: Washington D.C. Federal Judge Christopher Cooper questioned the authority of courts to force the Trump administration to pause mass firings at federal agencies, during a hearing yesterday in a lawsuit brought by federal employee unions.

The federal employee unions said they turned to the court due to the Merit Systems Protection Board’s and Federal Labor Relations Authority’s lack of power to quickly stop government-wide firings.

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a request from 14 Democrat state Attorneys General to block the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing government systems and firing employees.

Why It Matters: These two cases appear to be the first cracks in the lawfare campaign against the Trump administration’s executive actions. Democrats and the federal bureaucracy have relied on lower federal courts to stymie Trump, however lower federal court authority over the White House now seems to be an open political question. Trump said he will not defy the courts, but eventually the Trump administration could come to a tipping point where Trump will have to decide to openly defy the lower federal courts or comply with national level injunction that will bring Trump’s agenda to a halt. - R.C.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2025, 01:33:44 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20286
    • View Profile
here we go again; the cabal
« Reply #563 on: February 22, 2025, 10:06:01 AM »
Princeton NYU judge,  probably Jewish, Biden appointee blocks Trump's DEI

 :roll:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arbitrary-discriminatory-judge-blocks-trump-003835865.html

The Jewish lawyer lister crew
within the DEM lawyer lister crew
associated with the Dem jurno lister crew

This is interesting.
The word *cabal* is derived from Kabalah, the Jewish mystical interpretation of the bible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
How Best to Limit Judge-Based Lawfare
« Reply #565 on: February 26, 2025, 07:13:30 AM »
An exploration of how to limit judge shopping and the issuance of nation-wide injunctions:

Congress should restrict use of nationwide injunctions and make it more difficult to rig results by judge shopping in such cases.

The radical Democrats have chosen their strategy to fight the reforms that voters demanded last November: the continued use of the judiciary to wage political lawfare against President Donald Trump and his administration. They often do so by carefully vetting and selecting a single federal court or judge that they think is aligned with their political views and will give them favorable treatment, even in highly charged political disputes. They then seek to have their favored judge issue a universal or nationwide injunction against the president or other government officers or agencies. This creates a system ripe for abuse that ultimately undermines the citizenry’s respect for the courts.

Abusive Nationwide Political Injunctions

Nationwide injunctions seek to block federal policies from being enforced anywhere in the country, not just in the district where the issuing judge sits. They are often used in an unprecedented manner to block federal policies disfavored by Democrats from being implemented or enforced.

One example of the abuse of such political nationwide injunctions occurred in 2017. President Trump had temporarily restricted noncitizens’ entry into the United States from eight specified countries that he determined had insufficient controls to prevent terrorism. A single district judge in Hawaii entered a nationwide injunction overturning that policy decision. That injunction did not just prohibit the enforcement of the restrictions in Hawaii, but extended to all 50 states. The following year, in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court reversed the injunction as an “abuse of discretion.”

Nationwide injunctions may sometimes be appropriate, but they also can be petri dishes that breed dangerous problems. They run afoul of the general principle that federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction whose role is to decide the dispute between the parties before them. They can interfere with the constitutional allocation of power between Congress and the president.

When courts become involved in such political disputes it can increase the perception that they are in the pocket of a particular political party. Such politicization undermines public confidence in an apolitical judiciary.

Whether to continue or modify the role of nationwide injunctions is a complex topic. This article will not attempt to wade into the dispute over whether they should be permitted at all or limited in scope. But whether they stay or go, there is a way to limit their abuse: Congress should act swiftly.

Judge Shopping and How to Limit It

Many of these political suits have been filed by Democrat state attorneys general, unions, left-leaning nongovernmental organizations, and others who are implementing the Democrats’ lawfare. The administration is defending several cases vigorously, with a number of successes so far. But some judges have granted injunctions, and even a successful defense can take an inordinate length of time.

This delay is these plaintiffs’ friend. It typically would be a year or more before a case presenting this issue could be decided by the Supreme Court. When such an injunction is granted, even one day’s delay can prevent the president from exercising his constitutional duty as the chief executive officer of the United States. That is unacceptable.

Congress should prevent this abuse. It can take a first step now by making it more difficult for plaintiffs to rig the results by judge shopping for nationwide political injunctions.

As the Trump v. Hawaii case exemplifies, these national injunction cases often raise constitutional issues with novel and unprecedented arguments that would be rejected by most judges. But when they have a weak and unprecedented case, the radical Democrats often seek to tilt the scales. They do this by shopping for judges whom they know will favor them — and who often have conflicts of interest — and then persuading those judges (who don’t need much arm-twisting) to make rulings that will advance Democrats’ political agenda.

Currently, any one of the hundreds of federal district judges in the country can attempt to thwart the agenda of the president — the single person in whom the Constitution has vested the executive power of the United States. It is akin to allowing any of the corporals in an Army division to overrule the commanding general’s orders.

In establishing the separation-of-powers doctrine in our Constitution, the Founders did not foresee or intend such a bizarre result. The current Congress therefore should limit the potential for abuse by eliminating forum shopping in such cases with this simple solution: Congress should amend the federal jurisdictional statutes to divest any single district court or judge of the ability to issue nationwide political injunctions that prohibit or limit the implementation of a president’s or other government officer’s national or international policies.

Congress should legislate that any request for such injunctive relief may be heard only by a panel of three judges, rather than by a single judge. To further reduce judge shopping and to ensure geographic diversity of the judges in cases with nationwide implications, the members of the panel should be drawn from districts in three different circuits, with both the circuits and all three judges selected at random.

So, for example, if the plaintiffs filed their suit in New York or Washington, D.C., knowing that their chances of drawing a left-leaning, “progressive” judge are high, none of the judges from that district could rule on a request for injunctive relief. The three judges on the panel might be from California, Montana, and Mississippi.

Such reforms would thwart most judge shopping, thereby reducing the risk of improper national injunctions, lessening the danger of further politicization of our courts, and improving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

This should be a relatively swift and simple solution. Congress could then consider the more complex issue of whether courts can enter national injunctions at all, especially in political cases. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, such “universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious. If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”

* * * * *

After reading this, if you want to read the discussion of the other two points in The Massive Resistance and Ideas About How to Fight It, i.e., recall elections and possible grounds for suits against the state AGs and others waging the lawfare, please feel free to purchase a paid subscription.

https://johnalucas6.substack.com/p/restricting-judge-shopping-in-cases?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile
FO: Trump Resistance Lawfare
« Reply #566 on: February 28, 2025, 08:12:52 AM »


(1) TRUMP RESISTANCE TO COORDINATE LAWFARE EFFORTS: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said Democrats have hired lawyers leaving the Department of Justice (DOJ), and brought back lawyers from the January 6 Committee to coordinate legal efforts nationwide opposing the Trump administration.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT) said House Judiciary Committee Democrats are preparing “shadow hearings,” and are meeting with Democratic legal experts including elections attorney Marc Elias.

Why It Matters: There are currently about 90 lawsuits filed against Trump’s executive actions, and so far most of the federal district courts have issued temporary restraining orders that the Trump administration has minimal avenues to appeal.

However, now at least two federal judges have issued injunctions, which can be appealed by the Trump administration including emergency appeals to the Supreme Court. The lawfare campaign against the Trump administration now appears to be moving more quickly toward a tipping point where Trump will have to decide to defy the courts, or comply and halt his own agenda. A more coordinated lawfare effort from the Trump Resistance could also accelerate the timeline for this tipping point, with the expectation that Trump will back down or cause a constitutional crisis by openly defying the courts. - R.C.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20286
    • View Profile
Raskin
« Reply #568 on: February 28, 2025, 09:51:59 AM »
I have Raskin derangement syndroms along with Schiff Jayapal derangement syndromes:

"Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said Democrats have hired lawyers leaving the Department of Justice (DOJ), and brought back lawyers from the January 6 Committee to coordinate legal efforts nationwide opposing the Trump administration."

Hired them.  With taxpayer money?

Who is paying for this the "SS":   Soros & Sons?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
The “Deranged Jack Smith” Executive Order
« Reply #569 on: February 28, 2025, 11:51:49 AM »
Perhaps misfiled as this is anti-lawfare if anything, but amusing to see nonetheless:

'Deranged Jack Smith' Takes Down His Friends
An order signed by President Trump on Tuesday signals a new front in fighting lawfare operatives in the private sector.
JULIE KELLY
FEB 27, 2025

As an aide started to explain the latest order about to be signed during a press conference in the White House on Tuesday afternoon, President Trump interrupted his spiel.

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


Subscribe
“Hold it, this is a good one,” the president, holding up his hand, said to several reporters assembled in the Oval Office. “Is everybody listening? We’re going to call it the ‘Deranged Jack Smith’...bill.”

The order, in the form of a memo to several agency heads, suspended the security clearance of employees at Covington & Burling, a Democratic-connected white-shoe law firm headquartered in Washington. According to a January 27 Wall Street Journal article--and followed up by Politico--the firm provided at least $140,000 in pro bono services to disgraced former special counsel Jack Smith.

Although both cases ended after Trump’s election, Smith’s problems were just beginning. Trump had promised on the campaign trail that his administration would investigate evidence of abuse and misconduct by the special counsel and his team. He fulfilled that promise by signing an executive order on January 20 to end the “weaponization” of the federal government, particularly the DOJ and intelligence community: “The prior administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented, third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process. These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”

In a follow-up move, Attorney General Pam Bondi formed a “Weaponization Working Group” on Feb. 5 and specifically cited Smith, “who spent more than $50 million targeting President Trump.”

Smith officially left the Biden DOJ on January 10 but not before succeeding in releasing one volume of his two-volume report into the investigations of the president. And in the “quit digging a hole” category, Smith recently signed an open letter to current prosecutors expressing “alarm…by recent actions of the Department’s leadership.”

With Free Friends Like This…

Trump, along with his DOJ, likely will have the last laugh. And it’s doubtful Smith’s free lawyers at Covington & Burling, with offices around the world, are amused. While it’s unclear how many security clearances have been suspended, it appears two lawyers—Peter Koski and Clinton pal Lanny Breuer—were directly involved in providing free counsel to Smith. Koski worked at the DOJ’s public integrity unit during the same time Smith headed the unit during the Obama administration. Other notable Democrats at the firm include former Attorney General Eric Holder, Biden’s longtime foreign affairs advisor and Ukraine war architect Victoria Nuland, and Biden’s former White House counsel Dana Remus.

The presidential directive may have an immediate impact on Smith’s ability to build a defense, particularly for Koski. “Revoking [Koski’s] clearance could limit his access to sensitive government records, given that both of Mr. Smith’s criminal investigations against Mr. Trump involved classified documents. Doing so could sharply limit what representation Mr. Koski might be able to offer,” the New York Times reported on Feb 25.

But Trump’s “Deranged Jack Smith” order goes beyond suspending access to privileged material. The president further ordered federal agencies to look for any government contracts with Covington & Burling. “I also direct the Attorney General and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law,” the president wrote.

It’s unknown how many, if any, government contracts exist with the firm. Possibly none. But the missive is yet another welcome sign of the so-called “Trump 2.0” administration, where heads will roll inside and outside government not just for viciously targeting the president and his supporters but for misleading the American people and wasting time and money in the process. To wit, the president indicated this is just the start.

After signing the order, the president turned to his aide and asked, “we’ll be doing this for other firms as time goes by?” The aide answered in the affirmative. After adding his signature, Trump threw his Sharpie to someone in the office. “Why don’t you send it to Jack Smith,” he joked.

Prestigious law firms act as both the hidden hammer and revolving door in the lawfare against Republicans. This is playing out in at least a dozen lawsuits filed against the Trump administration over the past 30 days. Until there is pain felt by both public and private lawyers responsible for this unprecedented attack against the will of the people, it will continue.

https://www.declassified.live/p/deranged-jack-smith-takes-down-his


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile
FO: Bill to end state persecutions of federal officials
« Reply #571 on: March 06, 2025, 08:21:03 AM »


(2) REPUBLICANS TAKE AIM AT STATE LEVEL LAWFARE: Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) introduced the Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation (PEPPER) Act of 2025, which would allow sitting and former Presidents and Vice Presidents to transfer state court cases to the federal courts.
The PEPPER Act would also codify federal immunity for official acts of federal officers, and bar politically motivated state prosecutions of federal officials.
Why It Matters: The GOP are moving to shield the Trump administration from current or future state level prosecutions and lawsuits. This bill could pass the Senate if Republicans can convince seven Senate Democrats that the bill would ensure bipartisan protection. Republicans could also use the “nuclear option” to remove the Senate legislative filibuster and pass the bill with a simple majority. - R.C.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20286
    • View Profile
Democrat lawfirm security clearances and access to Fed agencies
« Reply #572 on: March 06, 2025, 03:10:51 PM »
ended:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/06/exclusive-trump-to-suspend-security-clearances-employees-law-firm-center-russia-hoax/

 8-)

I don't know if they ever represent Repubs but over years and years this lawfirm keeps coming up in the news as a legal "military branch" of the Democrat Party.   They seem to be deep state DNC hacks.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20286
    • View Profile
NYT on Drudge
« Reply #573 on: March 07, 2025, 12:43:02 PM »
https://archive.is/L0q81

Actually this lawfare is not just enemy of Trump
they are enemies of all of us.   they twist and distort the law.

hope they actually do experience problems from this as the firm more than deserves.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20286
    • View Profile
Judge "orders " Trump to rehire probationary Fed employees
« Reply #576 on: March 13, 2025, 01:23:11 PM »
I will give you 2 guess as to appointed this judge
and one guess as to where the judge got his law degree:

https://www.breitbart.com/news/us-federal-judge-orders-agencies-to-rehire-fired-workers/

Same old stinking Dem lib lawyer network.   :x

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74108
    • View Profile
WT:
« Reply #577 on: Today at 05:59:43 AM »


Trump vs. deep state: Tiny agency, huge battle over aid

Intrigue of legal thriller develops at foundation

By Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The U.S. African Development Foundation, one of the smallest agencies in the federal government, has become a major battlefield in the guerrilla warfare between the Trump administration and resisters deep inside the bureaucracy.

The case has all the intrigue of a legal thriller novel. President Trump sends his Department of Government Efficiency team to the foundation’s headquarters, just north of the White House, only to find employees blocking them at the door.

Mr. Trump’s team then threatened to bring in the U.S. Marshals.

With elements reminiscent of medieval Catholic Church intrigue, two men claim power at the agency.

For now, the president’s team has come out on top, with U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon refusing to order the president to recognize Ward Brehm, the man picked by the Trump opponents to be president of the USADF. He said Mr. Brehm hadn’t met the burden of winning a temporary restraining order.

“Unfortunately, for Brehm, based on the record before me, I cannot find that he satisfies the ‘high standard for irreparable injury,’” Judge Leon wrote.

Still, Mr. Brehm told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune he believes he remains in charge anyway.

The case is part of a vast legal battle over Mr. Trump’s aggressive takeover of the federal bureaucracy.

Foreign aid programs have been a particular target for Mr. Trump, who, in a Feb. 19 executive order, called for the wind-down, as much as legally possible, of the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and USADF.

It was an obvious target for Mr. Trump and his budget-cutting DOGE because of its nexus to foreign aid programs, which Mr. Trump is skeptical of, and because an inspector general slammed it last year for taking a relaxed approach to fraud with taxpayer money.

With a budget of $45 million, the agency said it doled out $16.6 million in agriculture grants, $7.4 million in energy grants and $4.2 million in youth and women entrepreneurship grants last year.

The two sides tell different stories in their court documents, but piecing it all together, it appears that soon after Mr. Trump’s executive order, a DOGE staffer contacted the foundation and asked for access to its computers to do some systems checks.

The next day, a DOGE team showed up and said it was there to slim down the agency by ousting most personnel and cutting the work down to one or two grants. Foundation staffers refused, saying the systems were private. Mr. Trump’s DOGE team threatened to have the foundation’s board fired.

On Feb. 24, short emails from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel fired four board members, including Mr. Brehm and former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, the foundation chair. On Feb. 26, one last remaining board member was fired.

Two days later, Mr. Trump appointed Pete Marocco, the State Department official now in charge of foreign aid programs, as the sole board member and acting chairman.

The problem, according to the original board, is that they never got the emails firing them. They said the White House seemed to guess at the correct addresses and got them wrong. They held a meeting on March 3, without Mr. Marocco, where they deemed Mr. Marocco’s appointment illegal and designated Mr. Brehm as the foundation’s president.

They then held their regular meeting on March 4, again without Mr. Marocco, who said he would take control the following day.

When he did show up on March 5, the foundation staff blocked his access, and he reportedly said he would call the U.S. Marshals or Secret Service to force entry.

The matter then hit the courts. In a lawsuit filled with charges of “bullying” and “strong-arm” tactics, Mr. Brehm, a George W. Bush appointee who had been on the board since 2008, demanded to be recognized as the rightful head.

He said if Mr. Trump’s team is allowed to take control, even briefly, it would ruin the agency beyond repair.

Mr. Trump’s attorneys said the president has clear firing powers and the law does not require him to give a reason.

In his brief ruling this week, Judge Leon cast doubt on all sides.

He expressed skepticism that Mr. Trump has followed the Constitution in installing his pick to the board. He said federal law doesn’t appear to allow temporary appointments such as Mr. Marocco’s.

If he eventually decides that way, Judge Leon said the remedy will be reinstating Mr. Brehm with back pay. It doesn’t rise to the level of deserving a restraining order immediately putting him back on the job.

The judge said what Mr. Brehm is doing is complaining that Mr. Trump is tilting the agency away from how Mr. Brehm and the other old board members wanted to run things.

“Congress has defined the agency’s minimum level of functioning already, yet Brehm is asking the court to define what it means for the agency to be fulfilling its mission,” Judge Leon wrote. “The court would be guessing here and would be substituting Brehm’s judgment for that of Congress. This I will not do,” he said.

In a statement, Mr. Brehm said he was “disappointed” with the ruling but “encouraged by the remaining options presented to us.”

“USADF continues to comply with its statutory obligations, and we are determined to do everything we can to ensure the long-term viability of this wonderful agency and its incredible staff that has effectively and faithfully served those among the poor in Africa on behalf of the people of America,” he said.

The Washington Times reached out to Ms. Moseley Braun for this report