Jeanine Pirro

Nov. 6 (UPI) — Former Justice Department paralegal Sean Dunn is not guilty of assault for throwing a sub sandwich at a Border Patrol agent in Washington, D.C., a federal jury ruled Thursday.

The jury deliberated a misdemeanor assault charge against Dunn on Wednesday and Thursday before rendering its verdict, NBC News reported.

Dunn accosted Border Patrol agent Greg Lairimore in the capital’s U Street area, swore at him called him an unwelcome “fascist” before throwing a footlong sub sandwich that struck him in the chest.

The Border Patrol agent was there as part of President Donald Trump‘s federal law enforcement surge to thwart crime in the nation’s capital.

Lairimore testified that the sandwich “exploded” when it hit his chest, but photos showed it was still wrapped while lying on the ground after striking him.

The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where a grand jury earlier rejected several potential felony charges against Dunn.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro proceeded with the misdemeanor assault charge against Dunn and agreed to hold a jury trial upon the request of Dunn’s attorneys.

Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier cited Dunn as an example of the “deep state” in Washington and fired him from his DOJ job.

The incident went viral as video footage circulated on social media and inspired murals and other depictions of a masked Dunn preparing to hurl a footlong sub sandwich like a quarterback would throw a football.

Some people also dressed in costumes intended to mimic Dunn, and many Washington-area homes featured skeletons dressed similarly to Dunn during Halloween.

Oct. 29 (UPI) — Two U.S. attorneys in Washington, D.C., have been suspended after turning in a sentencing memo that described the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as carried out by “thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters,” sources said.

The prosecutors were assistant U.S. attorneys Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White, who were prosecuting a case against Taylor Taranto. Taranto was pardoned by President Donald Trump for his part in the Jan. 6 riots. He was arrested for unrelated threats and firearms charges, and the description of the capitol insurrection was part of a sentencing memo for that case, according to anonymous sources reported by ABC News, Politico and The Washington Post. Taranto is scheduled to be sentenced Friday.

White and Valdivia were locked out of their government-issued devices Wednesday and told they will be placed on leave. It happened just hours after they filed the memo, sources told ABC.

The memo asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to sentence Taranto to 27 months in prison for a hoax threat against the National Institute of Standards and Technology and for driving through President Barack Obama‘s neighborhood with a van full of guns and ammunition.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, who leads the Washington, D.C., office prosecuting Taranto, declined to comment.

But Pirro released a statement on the case.

“While we don’t comment on personnel decisions, we want to make very clear that we take violence and threats of violence against law enforcement, current or former government officials extremely seriously,” Politico reported Pirro said in a statement. “We have and will continue to vigorously pursue justice against those who commit or threaten violence without regard to the political party of the offender or the target.”

It wasn’t clear whether the two prosecutors were told why they were put on leave or if the suspensions would change Taranto’s sentencing date.

In the memo, White and Valdivia said the following about Jan. 6:

“On January 6, 2021, thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol while a joint session of Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. Taranto was accused of participating in the riot in Washington, D.C., by entering the U.S. Capitol Building. After the riot, Taranto returned to his home in the State of Washington, where he promoted conspiracy theories about the events of January 6, 2021.”

WASHINGTON — A federal magistrate judge on Thursday angrily accused Justice Department prosecutors of trampling on the civil rights of people arrested during President Trump’s law enforcement surge in the nation’s capital.

Judge Zia Faruqui, a former federal prosecutor, said leaders of U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office have tarnished its reputation with how they are handling the deluge of cases. He said Pirro’s office is routinely bringing cases that don’t belong in federal court and needlessly keeping people in jail for days while they evaluate charges.

“It’s not fair to say they’re losing credibility. We’re past that now,” Faruqui said. He later added, “There’s no credibility left.”

The judge lambasted Pirro’s office during a hearing at which he agreed to dismiss the federal case against a man accused of threatening to kill Trump while in police custody. The defendant, Edward Alexander Dana, spent more than a week in jail before a federal grand jury refused to indict him.

It is extraordinarily rare for a grand jury to balk at returning an indictment, but it has happened at least seven times in five cases since Trump’s surge started nearly a month ago. Faruqui said it is ironic that an occupying force is at the mercy of the occupants” serving on the grand juries.

Pirro has been critical of Faruqui, one of four magistrates at the district court in Washington. On Thursday, the top federal prosecutor for Washington responded to Faruqui’s latest remarks by saying the judge “has repeatedly indicated his allegiance to those who violate the law and carry illegal guns.”

“This judge took an oath to follow the law, yet he has allowed his politics to consistently cloud his judgment and his requirement to follow the law,” she said in a statement. “America voted for safe communities, law and order, and this judge is the antithesis of that.”

Faruqui said there is no precedent for what is happening at the courthouse over the last few weeks. He said Trump administration officials are frequently touting the arrest figures on social media with seemingly no regard for how the arrests are affecting people’s lives.

“Where are the stats on the people illegally detained?” he asked.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Conor Mulroe said prosecutors from Pirro’s office are working around the clock on the influx of new cases.

“You are busy because you all have created this mess,” he told Mulroe. “I’m not saying it’s your problem. It’s your office’s problem.”

Mulroe was the only representative of Pirro’s office who attended Thursday’s hearing. Faruqui questioned why Pirro or her top deputies “don’t have the dignity to come here” and defend their charging decisions.

“That’s what leaders do,” he said.

The White House says over 1,800 people have been arrested since the operation started Aug. 7. Over 40 cases have been filed in district court, which hears the most serious federal offenses, including assault, gun and drug charges.

Dana was jailed for about a week after his arrest on Aug. 17. A different judge ordered his release on Aug. 25. On Thursday, Pirro’s office opted to drop the federal case against Dana but charge him with misdemeanors, including destruction of property and attempted threats, in D.C. Superior Court.

Dana’s attorney, assistant federal public defender Elizabeth Mullin, said prosecutors should have known that this case didn’t belong in federal court.

“A 15-year-old would know,” she said. “It was obvious from the outset.”

Dana was arrested on suspicion of damaging a light fixture at a restaurant. An officer was driving Dana to a police station when he threatened to kill Trump, according to a Secret Service agent’s affidavit. Dana also told police that he was intoxicated that night. Mullin said Dana’s “hyperbolic rambling” didn’t amount to a criminal threat.

Faruqui ordered prosecutors to file a brief explaining why they didn’t immediately inform him of its charging decisions in Dana’s case. The judge apologized to Dana “on behalf of the court” and suggested that Pirro’s office also owes Dana an apology.

Pirro said in an earlier statement that a grand jury’s refusal to indict somebody for threatening to kill the president “is the essence of a politicized jury.”

“The system here is broken on many levels,” she said. “Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in D.C. refuses to even let the judicial process begin. Justice should not depend on politics.”

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 30 (UPI) — North Carolinian Jan Carey on Wednesday was charged with two misdemeanor counts arising from the burning of a U.S. flag on Monday as an act of protest.

Carey, 54, is charged with one count of lighting and maintaining a fire in an area that is not designated for fires and without using a receptacle under approved conditions.

He also is charged with one count of creating a public hazard by lighting and tending a fire in a manner that threatened, caused damage to and resulted in the burning of property, real property and park resources.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and Assistant U.S. Attorney Travis Wolf filed the charges against Carey in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Each charge carries a maximum penalty of up to six months in jail and fines based on the amount of damage done.

Carey burned the flag in front of the White House on the same day that President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it illegal to burn the U.S. flag.

Carey was arrested and said he is a veteran who burned the flag in protest over the president’s executive order, CBS News reported.

Upon learning of the executive order, Carey told WUSA that he wanted to test the executive order.

The executive order also requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to challenge a 1989 Supreme Court ruling affirming that burning the U.S. flag is a form of protected speech

The 2020 presidential election is history, but a legal dispute over Fox News’ reporting on President Trump’s false claims of voter fraud is heating up.

A motion for summary judgment by voting equipment company Smartmatic filed Tuesday in New York Supreme Court laid out in detail how phony allegations that it manipulated votes to swing the election to Joe Biden were amplified on Fox News.

The motion also described how the Fox News Media hosts who are defendants in the suit — the late Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business — were allegedly committed to helping Trump prove his fraud theories so he could remain in office.

“I work so hard for the President and the party,” Pirro wrote in a text to Ronna McDaniel, then chair of the Republican National Committee.

Pirro left Fox News in May to become U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Smartmatic is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion in damages, claiming that the network’s airing of the false statements hurt the London-based company’s ability to expand its business in the U.S.

Fox News settled a similar suit from Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million in 2023.

The motion alleged that on-air hosts repeated the fraud claims even though executives and producers were told they were false.

The Fox News research department, known as the “Brainroom,” allegedly informed network producers that Smartmatic’s role in the 2020 election was limited to Los Angeles County and that the company’s software was not used in Dominion voting machines, another false claim made on the air.

Fox News maintains the network’s reporting on President Trump’s false claims were newsworthy and protected by the 1st Amendment. But part of the company’s legal strategy has been focused on minimizing the damage claims.

Fox News has asserted that any problems Smartmatic has experienced in attracting new business are rooted not in its reporting but in the federal investigation into the company’s activities with overseas governments.

Last year, Smartmatic’s founder, Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, and two other company officials were indicted by the U.S. attorney’s office and charged with bribing Philippine officials in order to get voting machine contracts in the country in 2016.

While the Trump camp’s assertions that the election was fixed were not believed throughout Fox News and parent company Fox Corp., the conservative-leaning network gave continued to give them oxygen to keep its audience tuned in, the motion alleged.

The motion described a “pivot” that occurred on Nov. 8, 2020, when then-Fox News Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan asked Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott to address the decline in the network’s ratings after Biden was declared the winner of the election. The network also looked at research to evaluate why viewers were leaving.

“The conclusion reached based on performance analytics: give the audience more election fraud,” the court document stated.

Such thinking, the filing said, permeated the company, already in a panic over losing viewers to right-leaning network Newsmax. The upstart outlet saw a ratings surge after Biden’s win due to its unwavering support of Trump’s claims.

“Think about how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said in a text to his colleague Greg Gutfeld.

Throughout November and December 2020, the three hosts named in the suit, Dobbs, Pirro and Bartiromo, repeatedly featured Trump’s attorneys Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell as guests. They spread the falsehoods that Smartmatic software was used in Dominion voting machines and altered millions of votes.

Smartmatic’s work in Los Angeles during the 2020 election was meant to be an entry point for the company to expand its domestic business. The company’s defamation suit claims that Fox News obliterated those efforts by presenting the false fraud claims.

But Fox News believes that issues with Smartmatic’s $282-million contract with Los Angeles County could help advance its case.

On Aug. 1, federal prosecutors filing a legal brief alleging that taxpayer funds from the county went into a slush fund held by a shell company to help pay for its illegal activities.

Federal prosecutors handling the case involving Smartmatic’s business in the Philippines said they plan to detail similar alleged schemes out of L.A. County and Venezuela to show that the bribery fits a larger pattern.

Fox News attorneys have filed a brief asking for county records that they believe will help bolster their case. The network is also expected to try to get the Smartmatic indictments in front of the court to raise doubts about the company’s reputation.

A Smartmatic representative said Fox News’ records request is a diversion tactic.

“Fox lies and when caught they lie again to distract,” a Smartmatic representative said in a statement. “Fox’s latest filing is just another attempt to divert attention from its long-standing campaign of falsehoods and defamation against Smartmatic.”

The company added that it abided with the law in Los Angeles County and “every jurisdiction where we operate.”

Smartmatic’s Tuesday court filing also included information that contradicted public statements Fox News made at the time.

The document alleged that Fox News fired political analyst Chris Stirewalt and longtime Washington bureau executives Bill Sammon for their involvement in calling the state of Arizona for Biden on election night. The early call of the close result in the state upset the Trump camp and alienated his supporters.

At the time, Fox News said Stirewalt departed as part of a reorganization and Sammon retired.

But the motion said Rupert Murdoch himself signed off on the decision to sever Stirewalt and Sammon from the company in an effort to assuage angry viewers who defected.

The motion cited a communication from Dana Perino, co-host of Fox News show “The Five,” describing a phone call with Stirewalt after his dismissal.

“I explained to him — you were right, you didn’t cave, and you got fired for doing the right thing,” Perino said.

Both Sammon and Stirewalt now work in the Washington bureau of NewsNation, the cable news network owned by Nexstar Media Group.

Aug. 4 (UPI) — The Justice Department announced Monday its Civil Rights Division would end a decades-old consent decree, which banned the federal government from using civil service exams to hire qualified candidates.

Luevano v. Director, Office of Personnel Management, a 1979 lawsuit filed during the Carter administration, accused the federal government’s Professional and Administrative Career Examination — or PACE — of discriminating against Black and Hispanic applicants.

A consent decree was entered in 1981, making civil service exams obsolete for the next 44 years. In March, the Trump administration filed a motion to terminate it.

“For over four decades, this decree has hampered the federal government from hiring the top talent of our nation,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Today, the Justice Department removed that barrier and reopened federal employment opportunities based on merit — not race.”

Angel Luevano, who filed the case more than forty years ago, said attorneys for both sides met with the U.S. District Court judge for the District of Columbia last week to resolve the issue.

“The Decree has had its usefulness and a tremendous effect on the country,” Luevano said. “Millions of minorities and women hold jobs because of that class action lawsuit. It wasn’t DEI. It didn’t just benefit minorities and women. The alternative Outstanding Scholar Program … was actually used 70% by Whites.”

Luevano said he took the PACE exam, before filing the lawsuit, to get into a federal job and achieved a passing grade of 80, but did not get referred to federal openings because only those with 100 on their tests got jobs.

“I’m extremely proud of the effect that it has had on federal hires and getting minorities and women into federal jobs,” he added. “It affected my decision to join, it was the key for me to join federal civil rights compliance in the Labor Department.”

On Monday, the Justice Department called the federal government’s hiring practices over the last four decades “flawed and outdated theories of diversity, equity and inclusion.”

“It’s simple, competence and merit are the standards by which we should all be judged; nothing more and nothing less,” said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for the District of Columbia. “It’s about time people are judged, not by their identity, but instead ‘by the content of their character.'”

Aug. 3 (UPI) — The Senate has confirmed former Fox News TV host and Donald Trump supporter Jeanine Pirro as the top U.S. federal prosecutor.

Pirro, a former New York state district attorney and county judge, was confirmed along party lines 50-45 Saturday. She was among a host of staunch Trump backers who claimed the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump due to fraudulent voting. There was no evidence to support that claim.

Pirro said in a statement that she was “blessed” to have been confirmed by lawmakers and said in a statement to “get ready for a real crime fighter.”

Pirro used her platform as a host of the Fox New “Justice with Jeanine” host to purvey a baseless conspiracy theory that the election was stolen from Trump, and later became co-host of the Fox show “The Five.”

In 2021, Pirro was among five defendants named in a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems, accusing the network of knowingly promoting false claims about the company’s voting machines used to tabulate votes in the election.

Fox eventually settled the lawsuit with Dominion for $785 million and acknowledged that claims about a fraudulent election were false.

President Donald Trump nominated Pirro in May, calling her a “powerful crusader for victims of crime,” and, in a social media post, a person who “excelled in all ways.”

“Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position,” Trump wrote in the post.

At the end of Trump’s first term, he pardoned Pirro’s husband, Albert Pirro, Jr., who had been convicted in 2000 on charges of fraud and tax evasion.

Criticism of the nomination was swift and exacting. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., saying “blind obedience to Donald Trump is nearly unrivaled among his ardent supporters.”

“For an important prosecutorial position like this one, the country has a right to demand a serious and principled public servant,” Schiff added. “Jeanine Pirro is not it.”

The Senate adjourned for a monthlong recess Saturday having failed to advance dozens of other Trump nominees.

Trump reacted on social media, telling Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to “Go to Hell!”

July 24 (UPI) — Arizona resident Christina Chapman must serve 102 months in prison for her role in a $17 million scheme to help North Koreans obtain remote positions with U.S. tech firms.

U.S District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Randolph Moss on Thursday sentenced Chapman, 50, after she entered a guilty plea in February to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments on behalf of the government of North Korea.

Chapman participated in a “fraudulent scheme that assisted North Korean workers — posing as U.S. citizens and residents — in obtaining and working in remote [Internet technology] positions at more than 300 U.S.companies,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti announced in a news release.

“North Korea is not just a threat to the homeland from afar,” Pirro said. “It is perpetrating fraud on American citizens, American companies and American banks.”

She said it’s important for U.S. corporations and businesses to verify the identities of remote workers to thwart such fraud.

“If this happened to these big banks, to these Fortune 500, brand-name, quintessential American companies, it can or is happening to your company,” Pirro added.

In addition to the prison term, Moss also ordered Chapman to forfeit $284,555.92 that was intended for North Koreans and to pay a $176,850 fine.

She also must serve three years of supervised release after completing her prison term.

Chapman was part of what the Justice Department says is one of the largest North Korean IT worker fraud schemes.

It involved the theft of identities from 68 U.S. citizens and residents and affected 309 U.S. businesses and two international businesses.

Chapman is a U.S. citizen and participated in the scheme from October 2020 to October 2023 by using stolen and purchased identities of U.S. nationals to help North Korean operatives to obtain remote work as U.S. firms, including many Fortune 500 companies.

The DOJ says Chapman operated a “laptop farm” at her home, where she received and operated at least 90 laptops to fool U.S. employers into thinking the North Korean operatives were located in the United States.

She also shipped 49 laptops and other devices that U.S. employers provided and that she shipped overseas.

Chapman sent several to a city in China that is located along the border with North Korea.

The companies affected include a top-five television network, a Silicon Valley tech company, an aerospace manufacturer, a U.S. carmaker, a luxury retail store and a U.S. media and entertainment company.

The North Korean operatives also tried to gain remote employment with two U.S. government agencies.

Court documents indicate North Korea has deployed thousands of highly skilled IT workers around the world to use false, stolen or borrowed identities of people in the United States and elsewhere to obtain remote positions.

The scheme relies on the assistance of U.S. citizens and legal residents when tried in the United States and enables North Korea to defraud respective employers of millions of dollars, the DOJ says.

The illicit funds often are used to help fund North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

The Department of State in July sanctioned North Korean hacker Song Kum Hyok for similar alleged criminal activities

The DOJ in August also accused Matthew Isaac Knoot, 39, of Nashville, of allegedly operating a laptop farm to benefit North Korea’s nuclear arms program.