Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Pardoned January 6 rioter said ‘I’m shooting myself’ before Indiana deputy fatally shot him

      by

      The pardoned US Capitol attacker who was shot to death by an Indiana sheriff’s deputy during a traffic stop in January had first told the officer: “I’m shooting myself,” before attempting to retrieve a gun from his car, according to officials as well as newly released video of the encounter.Matthew Huttle’s killing by the deputy – whose body-worn and dashboard cameras captured video of the traffic stop – was “legally justified” and would not lead to any criminal charges, prosecutors said in a statement published on Thursday.Huttle, 42, had traveled to Washington DC with his uncle, Dale, when a mob of Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on 6 January 2021 in a desperate attempt to prolong his presidency despite his losing the 2020 White House election to Joe Biden, according to federal prosecutors. Matthew Huttle entered the Capitol for about 15 minutes – recording it on video – and agreed to a plea deal that resulted in about six months of prison for him.Dale Huttle, meanwhile, received 30 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to using a long flagpole to jab a police officer protecting the Capitol.The Huttles were among more than 1,500 Capitol attackers who were pardoned by Trump on 20 January, his first day back in the Oval Office after retaking it by defeating Kamala Harris in November’s election.Six days after Trump’s mass clemency, a deputy stopped Matthew Huttle as he drove at 70mph (113km/h) in a 55mph zone near the line between the north-west Indiana counties of Jasper and Pulaski. The deputy told Huttle he would be arrested for being a habitual traffic offender, which prompted the motorist – who had been ordered out of his car – to say: “No, I can’t go to jail for this.”Huttle later sprinted for his car as the deputy shouted: “No, don’t you do it buddy! No, no, no, no, no!”The deputy and Huttle struggled in the latter man’s car. Video captured Huttle shouting: “I’m shooting myself”, and investigators said he “reached in a manner consistent with retrieving a weapon”.Prosecutors said the deputy fired multiple shots at Huttle – mortally wounding him – after seeing him raise a gun. Investigators subsequently found a loaded 9mm pistol as well as additional ammunition inside Huttle’s car, prosecutors also said.“Based on the evidence … the deputy’s actions were legally justified under Indiana law,” said the statement signed by prosecutor Chris Vawter, which called Huttle’s killing a case of self-defense. “This investigation is now closed, and no charges will be filed.”Attempts to contact an attorney for Huttle were not immediately successful. In court filings pertaining to the case against him in the January 6 attack, Huttle’s attorney, Andrew Hemmer, claimed that his client was “not a believer in any political cause” and only went to the Capitol that day “because he thought it would be a historic moment”.“He had nothing better to do after getting out of jail” in connection with a driving violation, Hemmer wrote of Huttle.Those who criticized the clemency that Trump granted the Capitol attackers included the US’s largest police union, which had endorsed him over Harris, a former prosecutor.The Fraternal Order of Police said in a joint statement with the International Association of Chiefs of Police: “Crimes against law enforcement are not just attacks on individuals or public safety – they are attacks on society and undermine the rule of law.”Huttle was one of multiple pardoned Capitol attackers who have since landed in news headlines over other legal issues.That group included a man left facing unresolved charges in Texas of having solicited a minor.Another pardoned January 6 participant was rearrested on federal gun charges. And yet another was handed a 10-year prison sentence for killing a woman in a 2022 drunk-driving crash, according to authorities. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s effort to curtail birthright citizenship suffers yet another setback

      by

      Donald Trump’s effort to curtail automatic birthright citizenship nationwide as part of his hardline immigration crackdown suffered another legal setback on Friday when a second federal appeals court declined to lift one of the court orders blocking the Republican president’s executive order.The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US circuit court of appeals on a 2-1 vote rejected the Trump administration’s request for an order putting on hold a nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland who concluded the order was unconstitutional.“For well over a century, the federal government has recognized the birthright citizenship of children born in this country to undocumented or non-permanent immigrants,” the appeals court’s majority said.It said it was “hard to overstate the confusion and upheaval” that would result from allowing Trump’s order to take effect, as it challenged long-standing legal interpretations and practice in ways that could cause “chaos”.The panel’s majority included the US circuit judges Roger Gregory and Pamela Harris, both appointees of Democratic presidents. The US circuit judge Paul Niemeyer, an appointee of Republican former president George HW Bush, dissented, saying a nationwide injunction was “inappropriate”.It was the second time an appellate court had taken up Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, whose fate may ultimately be decided by the US supreme court.Another appeals court last week declined to lift a similar injunction issued by a judge in Seattle. Other judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire have likewise enjoined the order, finding it violates the US constitution. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.Trump’s order, signed on his first day back in the White House on 20 January, directed US agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither their mother nor father was a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.That order was to apply to children born after 19 February, but implementation has been repeatedly blocked by judges at the urging of immigrant rights groups and Democratic state attorneys general. It has also been rejected by the supreme court in the past. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s mass firings at federal agencies

      by

      A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ordering the US defense department and other agencies to carry out the mass firings of some employees.The US district judge William Alsup said in San Francisco on Thursday that the US office of personnel management (OPM) lacked the power to order federal agencies to fire any workers, including probationary employees who typically have less than a year of experience.Alsup ordered the OPM, the human resources department for federal agencies, to rescind a 20 January and a 14 February email directing agencies to identify probationary employees who should be fired.Alsup said he could not order the defense department itself, which is expected to fire 5,400 probationary employees on Friday, and other agencies not to terminate workers because they are not defendants in the lawsuit brought by several unions and non-profit groups.But he suggested that the mass firings of federal workers that began two weeks ago would cause widespread harm, including cuts to national parks, scientific research and services for veterans.“Probationary employees are the lifeblood of our government. They come in at a low level and work their way up. That’s how we renew ourselves,” said Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee.Alsup handed down the order in a case brought by labor unions and non-profits filed last week.The complaint filed by five labor unions and five non-profit organizations is among multiple lawsuits pushing back on the administration’s efforts to vastly shrink the federal workforce.Thousands of probationary employees have already been fired. Just on Thursday, hundreds of workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the US’s pre-eminent climate research agency, learned they had lost their jobs.The plaintiffs say the OPM had no authority to terminate the jobs of probationary workers who generally have less than a year on the job. They also say the firings were predicated on a lie of poor performance by the workers.The Trump administration has maintained that the memo and email from the OPM merely asked agencies to review their probationary workforces and decide who could potentially be terminated, and did not require them to do anything.“An order is not usually phrased as a request,” Kelsey Helland of the US Department of Justice told Alsup during the hearing.But the judge said it was unlikely that virtually every federal agency independently decided to decimate its staff.“How could that all happen with each agency deciding on its own to do something so aberrational? I don’t believe it,” Alsup said.There are an estimated 200,000 probationary workers – generally employees who have less than a year on the job – across federal agencies. About 15,000 are employed in California, providing services ranging from fire prevention to veterans’ care, the complaint says. More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge allows Trump’s AP Oval Office ban to stand over Gulf of Mexico name

      by

      A federal judge on Monday denied a request by the Associated Press to immediately restore full access to presidential events for the news agency’s journalists.The US district judge Trevor McFadden declined to grant the AP’s request for a temporary injunction restoring its access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and events held at the White House. The Trump administration barred the outlet earlier this month for continuing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage after the president renamed it the “Gulf of America”.McFadden, a Trump appointee, said the restriction on “more private areas” used by Trump was different from prior instances in which courts have blocked government officials from revoking access to journalists.“I can’t say the AP has shown a likelihood of success here,” McFadden said.But he also described the ban as “problematic” and advised the government that “case law in this circuit is uniformly unhelpful to the White House”. McFadden said the issue required more exploration before ruling. Another hearing in the case has been set for next month.The AP filed a lawsuit over the ban last week, in which it named three senior Trump aides and argued that the decision to block its reporters from certain locations violates the US constitution’s first amendment protections against government abridgment of speech by trying to dictate the language they use in reporting the news.“The constitution prevents the president of the United States or any other government official from coercing journalists or anyone else into using official government vocabulary to report the news,” Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the AP, said during a court hearing.The outlet’s attorneys argued the AP would face “irreparable harm” if the ban was not immediately lifted.Trump administration lawyers argued in a court filing before the hearing that the AP does not have a constitutional right to what they called “special media access to the president”.Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, had called the AP lawsuit a “blatant PR stunt” while Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, has said: “We feel we are in the right in this position.”Leavitt is one of the three White House officials named as defendants in the lawsuit. The other two, Susan Wiles, the chief of staff, and Taylor Budowich, the deputy chief of staff, have not responded to requests for comment.Trump signed an executive order last month directing the US interior department to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.The AP said in January it would continue to use the gulf’s long-established name in stories while also acknowledging Trump’s efforts to change it.The White House banned AP reporters in response, preventing the AP’s journalists from seeing and hearing Trump and other top White House officials as they take newsworthy actions or respond in real time to news events.“We’re going to keep them out until such time as they agree that it’s the Gulf of America,” Trump said last week.The White House Correspondents’ Association said in a legal brief backing the AP in the case that the ban “will chill and distort news coverage of the president to the public’s detriment”.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Julianne Moore’s freckles? How Republican bans on ‘woke’ books have reached new level

      by

      When the actor Julianne Moore learned her children’s book, Freckleface Strawberry, a tale of a girl who learns to stop hating her freckles, had been targeted for a potential ban at all schools serving US military families, she took to Instagram, posting that it was a “great shock” to discover the story had been “banned by the Trump Administration”.Moore had seen a memo that circulated last week revealing that tens of thousands of American children studying in about 160 Pentagon schools both in the US and around the world had had all access to library books suspended for a week, while officials conducted a “compliance review” to hunt out any books “potentially related to gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology topics”.Although whether Moore’s book would be selected for “further review” or banned entirely remains unclear, the episode brought into stark relief that the movement to ban books in the US – which has been bubbling up for several years, mostly in individual states – had reached a whole new level: the federal one.Donald Trump’s re-election, and his subsequent crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, has many campaigners fearing that the Pentagon move to scrub its libraries of anything it opposes ideologically could be the first of a series of broad attempts to eliminate any discussions of race, LGBTQ+ issues, diversity and historical education from public schools.The Trump administration has scoffed at the idea that it is banning books, and last month it instructed the Department of Education to end its investigations into the matter, referring to bans as a “hoax”. Indeed, many deny that banning books is censorship at all – a disconnect that stems not just from the historical context of book banning, but from a semantic dispute over what it means to “ban” something.In the early 20th century, books such as Ulysses by James Joyce and The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck were banned due to “moral concerns”.Likewise, the red scare of the 1950s saw increased censorship of materials perceived as sympathetic to communism, while the 1980s saw attacks against books dealing with race and sexuality, such as The Color Purple by Alice Walker, which was nearly banned two years after its release in 1984 after a parent petitioned against its use in an Oakland, California, classroom.The difference today, however, is that instead of coming primarily from conservative community organizers, the book banning movement is now coming from government – school boards, local governments and now, with the Pentagon move, even the federal government, increasingly working in lockstep.The modern wave of book bans could be said to have started with a backlash against The 1619 Project, a journalistic anthology by Nikole Hannah-Jones published by the New York Times. The project aimed to reframe US history by centering the contributions of Black Americans, but conservative politicians – including Trump – claimed it taught students to “hate their own country”.View image in fullscreenIn response, Republican lawmakers moved to ban the work in schools, marking the beginning of an intensified campaign against so-called “anti-American” literature.According to PEN America, a non-profit dedicated to defending free expression in literature, more than 10,000 book bans occurred in public schools during the 2023-2024 school year. Books that address racism, gender and history were disproportionately targeted.“The whole principle of public education is that it is not supposed to be dictated by particular ideologies that aim to censor what other people can learn and access in schools,” Jonathan Friedman, the managing director for US free expression programs at PEN America, said.Rightwing politicians, however, have increasingly used book banning as a rallying cry, portraying certain books as tools of “indoctrination” – failing to note the irony that indoctrination is the process of carefully limiting ideas, like banning books.One key figure has been the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis. He has echoed Trump’s dismissal of book bans as a “hoax”, and spearheaded multiple attempts to reshape education to reflect only conservative values, including the Stop Woke Act, which restricts discussions on systemic racism, and the Parental Rights in Education Act, widely known as the “don’t say gay” law, which limits discussions of gender identity and sexuality in classrooms.Banned titles in Florida schools now include Beloved and The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, Normal People by Sally Rooney, Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood and The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky.What DeSantis and other rightwingers often say is that these efforts don’t truly constitute “bans” because they only remove books from schools, rather than totally outlawing them from being bought in the US, and therefore don’t encroach on free speech. John Chrastka, the executive director and founder of EveryLibrary, argued that this is faulty reasoning.“The private marketplace is protected by the first amendment in ways that the government is not beholden to,” he said. “The idea that because a book is still available for sale means that it’s not being banned outright is only the difference between a framework that was in place prior to the 1950s” and today.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe noted that Lady Chatterley’s Lover, which was first published in 1928 in Europe, was banned in the US for several years before finally getting its American publication in 1959 in what was a watershed affirmation of the right to free speech. Realizing that the first amendment prevented them from blocking the book from US bookstores, critics turned their attention to libraries instead, a grayer area in terms of constitutional protections.DeSantis and other rightwing politicians have taken the lesson: if the constitution prevents you from banning a book from being bought or sold in Florida, the next best thing is to ban it from the places most people would have the easiest access to it – schools and libraries.“It doesn’t add up,” Chrastka added, “the idea that a teenager in a state where it’s impossible for them to get to an independent bookstore because they don’t exist any more somehow has enough liberty to buy the book when the school library is blocked from having it available for them.”Another key distinction is between banning books from classroom curriculum versus removing them from school libraries – which, unlike classrooms, are historically protected spaces for free access to ideas.“What you read for a class supports the curriculum,” says Chrastka, whereas “the school library is supposed to support independent reading. One of them is required reading and the other one isn’t, but [the reading material] is meant to be available.”The landmark supreme court case Island Trees School District v Pico in 1982, when a school board in New York removed books from its libraries it deemed “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy”, established that school boards cannot restrict the availability of books in their libraries simply because they don’t like or agree with the content.Critics contend the new wave of book bans, although not yet about preventing sales at bookshops, fails to meet the intended purpose of libraries: to preserve and provide a variety of ideas and information that may not be readily or equally accessible to everyone.Now, many fear that once certain books are established as unacceptable in schools, the censorship could spread to colleges, bookstores and eventually nationwide bans. Even if that does not happen, experts say one of the most reliable ways to ensure ideas are suppressed is to dismantle the education system, making Trump’s repeatedly stated goal of eliminating the Department of Education a particular concern.“The vast majority of the budget for the Department of Education and the laws and regulations that make sure that the department is functional go to help students succeed and protect students who are otherwise vulnerable,” said Chrastka.With the education system having been chipped away at for decades with budgets cuts, low literacy rates and high dropout rates, book bans only make it weaker.“What we need in this country is for students to feel supported and to find their own identities, and reading is a core component of that,” Chrastka said. “Let’s let the kids discover themselves and discover their own path forward in the process.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican says he wouldn’t back unconstitutional third Trump term

      by

      A conservative lawmaker poured cold water on extremist Republican fantasies that Donald Trump could find a way to run for an unconstitutional third presidential term, saying he would not support that barring an amendment to the US constitution that would legalize it.Asked Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press about Trump’s boasts that he might just stay in the Oval Office after his second presidency ends in 2028, the Republican US senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma said: “No, I’m not changing the constitution, first of all, unless the American people chose to do that.”The comments from Mullin – who made it a point to invoke the maxim among some that Trump should be taken seriously though not literally – referred to a 1951 constitutional amendment that barred US presidents from serving beyond two terms.The exchange between Meet the Press host Kristen Welker and Mullin came after after Republican congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee proposed a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment that would allow Trump to serve a third stint in the White House because his two terms were not consecutive. That would bar the other three living former presidents who served two consecutive terms from seeking the Oval Office again.Furthermore, Trump recently referred to himself as “King” – a title with no term limits – when discussing his push to halt New York’s congestion pricing policy.The US constitution expressly forbids presidents from running for a third term thanks to its 22nd amendment. That amendment was introduced after Franklin D Roosevelt served two terms after being elected in 1932 – and then was re-elected in 1940 and 1944 amid the second world war. He served as president until his death in 1945.Proposing to change that amendment – in the form Ogles suggested or otherwise – would need approval from two-thirds of both the US Senate and House, which is a margin of control that Trump’s Republican party does not have in Congress. Three-fourths of the US’s state legislatures also would need to approve the change.Republicans as of last year controlled only the legislatures and governorships of about 23 of the US’s 50 states. Democrats controlled those same levers of power in 17 states, with the rest being divided.Nonetheless, that steep math has not stopped Trump from raising the possibility of staying in office beyond his second presidential term since his victory in November’s White House election.At a White House event on Thursday, he teased: “Should I run again? You tell me.”The audience, which included elected Republican officials like US senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and Congressman John James of Michigan as well as famed golfer Tiger Woods, responded with chants of: “Four more years!”According to the Washington Post, Trump remarked that the crowd reaction to his comments would draw “controversy”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThey did indeed.On Sunday, the Democratic US House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, said Trump is trying to “disorient everyday Americans” by talking about a third term and referring to himself as a monarch. Jeffries said those “outrageous” comments were “intentionally unleashing extremism”.Trump “is not a king”, Jeffries said on CNN’s State of the Union. “We will never bend the knee. Not now, not ever. And we’ll continue to point out that he’s focused on the wrong things.”As Republicans are wont to do when Trump muses on unconstitutional ideas, Mullin on Sunday insisted Trump was only joking about pursuing a third White House term.“The president is a very interesting guy that you can find extreme humor when you sit down to visit with him,” Mullin added. “At the same time, he can be deadly serious.” More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court temporarily blocks firing of head of federal whistleblower protection office

      by

      The US supreme court on Friday temporarily kept on the job the head of the federal agency that protects government whistleblowers, in its first word on the many legal fights over the agenda of Donald Trump’s second presidency.The justices said in an unsigned order that Hampton Dellinger, head of the office of special counsel, could remain in his job at least until Wednesday. That’s when a lower-court order temporarily protecting him expires.With a bare majority of five justices, the high court neither granted nor rejected the administration’s plea to immediately remove him. Instead, the court held the request in abeyance, noting that the order expires in just a few days.US district judge Amy Berman Jackson has scheduled a Wednesday hearing over whether to extend her order keeping Dellinger at his post. The justices could return to the case depending on what she decides.Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito sided with the Trump administration, doubting whether courts have the authority to restore to office someone the president has fired. Acknowledging that some presidentially appointed officials have contested their removal, Gorsuch wrote that “those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement”.Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have rejected the administration’s request.The conservative-dominated court has previously taken a robust view of presidential power, including in last year’s decision that gave presidents immunity from prosecution for actions they take in office.The justice department employed sweeping language in urging the court to allow the termination of the head of an obscure federal agency with limited power. Acting solicitor general Sarah Harris wrote in court papers that the lower court had crossed “a constitutional red line” by blocking Dellinger’s firing and stopping Trump “from shaping the agenda of an executive-branch agency in the new administration’s critical first days”.The office of special counsel (OSC) is responsible for guarding the federal workforce from illegal personnel actions, such as retaliation for whistleblowing. Its leader “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office”.Dellinger was appointed by Joe Biden – who ended Trump’s first presidency by winning the 2020 election – and was confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term in 2024.“I am glad to be able to continue my work as an independent government watchdog and whistleblower advocate,” Dellinger said in a statement. “I am grateful to the judges and justices who have concluded that I should be allowed to remain on the job while the courts decide whether my office can retain a measure of independence from direct partisan and political control.”Harris said the court should use this case to lay down a marker and check federal judges who “in the last few weeks alone have halted dozens of presidential actions (or even perceived actions)” that encroached on Trump’s presidential powers.The court already has pared back a 1935 ruling, known as Humphrey’s Executor, that protected presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed leaders of independent agencies from arbitrary firings.Conservative justices have called into question limits on the president’s ability to remove the agency heads. In 2020, for instance, the court by a 5-4 vote upheld Trump’s first-term firing of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).Chief justice John Roberts wrote for the court that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception”. But in that same opinion, Roberts drew distinctions that suggested the court could take a different view of efforts to remove the whistleblower watchdog. “In any event, the OSC exercises only limited jurisdiction to enforce certain rules governing Federal Government employers and employees. It does not bind private parties at all or wield regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB,” Roberts wrote.The new administration already has indicated it would seek to entirely overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision, which held that Franklin D Roosevelt could not arbitrarily fire a Federal Trade Commission member during his presidency. Trump has taken aim at people who are on the multimember boards that run an alphabet soup of federal agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit System Review Board.Like Dellinger, they were confirmed to specific terms in office and the federal laws under which the agencies operate protect them from arbitrary firings. Lower courts have so far blocked some of those firings. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      DoJ investigation into cases against Trump marked by vested interests

      by

      Donald Trump’s investigation into the criminal cases brought against him during the Biden administration, including the special counsel prosecutions, will be overseen by a group of justice department officials who all have vested interests that could undercut even legitimate findings of misconduct by prosecutors.The new attorney general, Pam Bondi, has taken steps in recent weeks to create the “weaponization working group” to carry out Trump’s day one executive order directing the department to review possible abuses of the criminal justice system over the past four years.Bondi’s group, according to her memo laying out its structure, will be composed of the attorney general’s office, the deputy attorney general’s office, the office of legal policy, the civil rights division and the US attorney’s office for the District of Columbia as it examines cases that angered Trump.The investigation is already politically charged because the group is tasked with sending reports to Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, an arrangement that deputizes the justice department to the White House in an unusual way.But the involvement in various adversarial litigation against the Biden administration by the lawyers leading the five offices conducting the investigation – notably into former special counsel Jack Smith’s team that indicted Trump – give rise to a tangle of possible conflicts.The problem with conflicts is that they could undercut any conclusions finding impropriety even if they are colorable claims, such as the allegation that a top prosecutor once tried to strong-arm a defense lawyer into making his client give evidence to incriminate Trump.And for all of the discussion by Trump’s allies that there should be some civil or criminal proceedings against members of the previous administration, an actual or perceived conflict of interest, could risk a judge dismissing any attempt to pursue claims in court.The justice department did not respond to a request for comment.The possible conflicts are varied: some of the justice department officials were defense lawyers in the very cases they will now be investigating, while others signed onto positions defending Trump in civil and criminal matters.Bondi and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general nominee, pledged to consult about any potential conflicts with career attorneys. But some of those career attorneys were recently fired – and replaced in at least one instance by a lawyer who worked for Blanche when he defended Trump.Bondi’s possible conflict arises with the special counsel prosecutions, after she signed on to an amicus brief that supported Trump and urged the federal judge in Florida who oversaw the classified documents case to dismiss the charges because Smith was illegally appointed.The deputy attorney general’s office will soon to be led by Blanche and his principal deputy Emil Bove, who were the lead defense lawyers for Trump in the special counsel prosecutions as well as the New York criminal trial – meaning they faced off directly with the Biden justice department.The head of the justice department’s office of legal policy, Aaron Reitz, was formerly in Texas attorney general Ken Paxton’s office, which joined a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its controversial initiative to address violence and threats against school administrators.The head of the justice department’s civil rights division, Harmeet Dhillon, was most recently the principal at the Dhillon Law Group, which Trump and the Republican National Committee retained as counsel in various civil litigation matters.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAnd, if confirmed to the role, the acting US attorney in Washington, Ed Martin, would be investigating the very prosecutors and the FBI agents he personally faced off with as a defense lawyer for multiple people charged in connection with the January 6 riot at the US Capitol.Martin has separately come under scrutiny because, after he became the acting US attorney, he dismissed a case against one of his ex-January 6 rioter clients before he had formally withdrawn from the representation.He later explained to the presiding US district judge that it was an oversight and he had simply forgotten to remove his name as the “counsel of record” when that client decided to appeal the case and retained a new lawyer.But it remains unclear whether Martin has actually withdrawn himself as the defense lawyer after the court notified him that he was not permitted to file a removal request because his membership with the DC bar – partly the jurisdiction he oversees as acting US attorney – had lapsed.The overlapping vested interests also extend past the justice department to the White House itself, the final destination for the weaponization group’s findings, according to the executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office.Miller, the deputy chief of staff for policy orchestrating the immigration crackdown, will receive the final report. Coincidentally, one of Miller’s lawyers during the investigations into Trump was John Rowley – who was also part of the Trump legal team.Also on the wider Trump legal team was Stanley Woodward, now serving as a top lawyer in the White House chief of staff’s office.Woodward was the lawyer pulled into a contentious meeting in 2022 convened by Jay Bratt, a senior prosecutor on the special counsel team who allegedly suggested Woodward’s application to be a DC superior court judge would be derailed if he did not convince his client, Trump bodyman Walt Nauta, to testify against Trump. More