justice

The United States Department of Justice has reportedly placed two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, on administrative leave after they referred to the participants in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as “a mob of rioters”.

Documents the two prosecutors had filed in advance of a Thursday sentencing hearing were also amended to remove references to the January 6 attack.

The new filings were made on Wednesday, the same day that the prosecutors received their notices and were locked out of their government devices.

Both were members of the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, according to sources who spoke to Reuters and The Associated Press, on condition of anonymity.

The punishment they faced was the latest instance of the administration of President Donald Trump taking action against federal prosecutors who participated in cases the Republican leader perceives as unfavourable.

Trump has long defended the participants in the January 6 attack, going so far as to pardon more than 1,500 rioters who had pending criminal charges or convictions during the first day of his second term.

Another 14 rioters had their sentences commuted. In a presidential statement, Trump called the prosecutions a “grave national injustice”.

The attack on the Capitol was prompted by Trump’s false claims that his defeat in the 2020 presidential election had been “rigged”. Spurred by the misinformation, thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on the day that lawmakers inside were certifying the Electoral College votes.

More than 100 police officers were hurt, and multiple deaths were attributed to the attack, including a protester who was shot while trying to enter the Speaker’s Lobby and a police officer who collapsed and suffered multiple strokes, potentially due to the stress of being assaulted.

Some officers were beaten with flag poles, fire extinguishers and hockey sticks.

The Justice Department has yet to comment on Wednesday’s suspensions of the two prosecutors.

The lawyers were previously scheduled to appear on Thursday in federal court for the sentencing of Taylor Taranto, a Navy veteran who was among those pardoned by Trump for participating in the January 6 attack.

During that clash, he was observed attempting to breach the Speaker’s Chamber, a restricted area. Taranto had been charged with four misdemeanours for those actions before Trump pardoned his charges.

In May, Taranto was convicted on unrelated charges, including illegally carrying two firearms, the unlawful possession of ammunition, and spreading false information and hoaxes.

Taranto had been arrested on June 29, 2023, near an address in Washington, DC, supposedly linked to former President Barack Obama, one of Trump’s political rivals.

Trump had posted the address on social media, and Taranto proceeded to drive to the area, livestreaming his progress, in an attempt to seek out “tunnels” to enter the residence.

Upon exiting his vehicle and entering a restricted area, he was confronted by Secret Service agents. He allegedly told them, “Gotta get the shot, stop at nothing to get the shot.”

There were reportedly more than 500 rounds of ammunition in his van.

A day earlier, Taranto had also recorded a “hoax” video claiming that a car bomb was headed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Taranto’s defence lawyers have described him as a “journalist” and “comedian”. But prosecutors have sought a sentence of more than two years in prison for Taranto.

That sentencing recommendation was kept in the revised documents submitted on Wednesday.

At Thursday’s hearing, US District Judge Carl Nichols praised the suspended prosecutors, White and Valdivia, saying they did a “commendable and excellent job” and displayed the “highest standards of professionalism” in the case.

Nichols ultimately sentenced Taranto to 21 months in prison. Since Taranto has already been in custody for 22 months, he will not serve any additional time.

Career prosecutors are assigned to criminal cases regardless of the presidential administration in power.

But the Trump White House has repeatedly sought to sideline, if not fire, those who prosecuted cases that run contrary to the Republican president’s interests.

In January, for instance, nearly two dozen employees of the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC, were fired, many with links to the January 6 prosecutions carried out under former President Joe Biden.

And in June, another three prosecutors involved in the January 6 cases were reportedly fired.

At the center of the sprawling legal battle over President Trump’s domestic military deployments is a single word: rebellion.

To justify sending the National Guard to Los Angeles and other cities over the outcry of local leaders, the Trump administration has cited an obscure and little-used law empowering presidents to federalize soldiers to “suppress” a rebellion, or the threat of one.

But the statute does not define the word on which it turns. That’s where Bryan A. Garner comes in.

For decades, Garner has defined the words that make up the law. The landmark legal reference book he edits, Black’s Law Dictionary, is as much a fixture of American courts as black robes, rosewood gavels and brass scales of justice.

The dictionary is Garner’s magnum opus, as essential to attorneys as Gray’s Anatomy is to physicians.

Now, Black’s definition of rebellion is at the center of two critical pending decisions in cases from Portland, Ore., and Chicago — one currently being reheard by the 9th Circuit and the other on the emergency docket at the Supreme Court — that could unleash a flood of armed soldiers into American streets.

That a dictionary could influence a court case at all owes in part to Garner’s seminal book on textualism, a conserative legal doctrine that dictates a page-bound interpretation of the law. His co-author was Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice whose strict originalist readings of the Constitution paved the way for the court’s recent reversal of precedents on abortion, voting rights and gun laws.

On a recent weekday, the country’s leading legal lexicographer was ensconced among the 4,500 some-odd dictionaries that fill his Dallas home, revising the entry for the adjective “calculated” ahead of Black’s 13th Edition.

But, despite his best efforts not to dwell on the stakes of his work, the noun “rebellion” was never far from his mind.

Federal authorities stand guard at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Ore., that has been the site of protests against the Trump administration.

(Sean Bascom / Anadolu via Getty Images)

“One of the very first cases citing my book sent a man to his capital punishment,” he explained of an earlier dictionary. “They cited me, the guy was put to death. I was very disturbed by that at first.”

He managed his distress by doubling down on his craft. In its first 100 years, Black’s Law Dictionary was revised and reissued six times. From 1999 to 2024, Garner produced six new editions.

“I work on it virtually every day,” he said.

Most mornings, he rises before dawn, settling behind a desk in one of his three home libraries around 4 a.m. to begin the day’s defining.

That fastidiousness has not stopped the lexical war over his work in recent months, as judges across the country read opposite meanings into “rebellion.”

The Department of Justice and the attorneys general of California, Oregon and Illinois have likewise sparred over the word.

In making their case, virtually all have invoked Black’s definition — one Garner has personally penned for the last 30 years. He began editing the 124-year-old reference book in 1995.

“The word ‘rebellion’ has been stable in its three basic meanings in Black’s since I took over,” he said.

“Ooo! So at some point I added, ‘usually through violence,’” he amended himself.

This change comes from the definition’s first sense: 1. Open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler; esp., an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country, usu. through violence.

States have touted this meaning to argue the word rebellion cannot possibly apply to torched Waymos in Los Angeles or naked bicyclists in Portland.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has leaned on the second and third senses to say the opposite.

The California Department of Justice wrote in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Illinois case that federal authorities argue rebellion means any form of “resistance or opposition to authority or tradition,” including disobeying “a legal command or summons.”

“But it is not remotely plausible to think that Congress intended to adopt that expansive definition,” the state said.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth walks onstage to deliver remarks as part of the Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary celebration at Camp Pendleton on Oct. 18.

(Oliver Contreras / AFP via Getty Images)

Although the scope and the stakes of the rebellion fight make it unique, the debate over definitions is nothing new, experts say.

The use of legal dictionaries to solve judicial problems has surged in recent years, with the rise of Scalia-style textualism and the growing sense in certain segments of the public that judges simply make the law up as they go along.

By 2018, the Supreme Court was citing dictionary definitions in half of its opinions, up dramatically from prior years, according to Mark A. Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School.

Splitting hairs over what makes a rebellion is a new level of absurdity, he said. “This is an unfortunate consequence of the Supreme Court’s obsession with dictionaries.”

“Reducing the meaning of a statute to one (of the many) dictionary definitions is unlikely to give you a useful answer,” he said. “What it gives you is a means of manipulating the definition to achieve the result you want.”

Garner has publicly acknowledged the limits of his work. Ultimately, it’s up to judges to decide cases based on precedents, evidence, and the relevant law. Dictionaries are an adjunct.

Still, he and other textualists see the turn to dictionaries as an important corrective to interpretive excesses of the past.

“The words are law,” Garner said.

Law enforcement officers watch from a ledge of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as a protester stands outside in an inflatable frog costume on Oct. 21 in Portland, Ore.

(Jenny Kane / Associated Press)

Judges who cite dictionaries are “not ceding power to lexicographers,” he argued, but simply giving appropriate heft to the text enacted by Congress.

Others call the dictionary a fig leaf for the interpretive excesses of jurists bent on reading the law to suit a political agenda.

“Judges don’t want to take personal responsibility for saying ‘Yes, there’s a rebellion’ or ‘no, there isn’t,’ so they say ‘the dictionary made me do it.’” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “No, it didn’t.”

Though he agreed with Black’s definition of rebellion, Segall rejected the idea it could shape jurisprudence: “That’s not how our legal system works,” he said.

The great challenge in the troops cases, legal scholars agree, is that they turn on a vague, century-old text with no relevant case law to help define it.

Unlike past presidents, who invoked the Insurrection Act to combat violent crises, Trump deployed an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to wrest command of National Guard troops from state governors and surge military forces into American cities.

Before Trump deployed troops to L.A. in June, the law had been used only once in its 103-year history.

With little interpretation to oppose it, the Justice Department has wielded its novel reading of the statute to justify the use of federalized troops to support immigration arrests and put down demonstrations.

Administration attorneys say the president’s decision to send soldiers to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago is “unreviewable” by courts, and that troops can remain in federal service in perpetuity once called up, regardless of how conditions change.

Border Patrol official Greg Bovino marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on Aug. 14.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Judges have so far rejected these claims. But they have split on the thornier issues of whether community efforts to disrupt immigration enforcement leave Trump “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws” — another trigger for the statute — and if sporadic violence at protests adds up to rebellion.

As of this week, appellate courts also remain sharply divided on the evidence.

On Oct 23, Oregon claimed the Department of Justice inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland in response to protests to more than triple its actual size — a mistake the department called an “unintended ambiguity.”

The inflated number was repeatedly cited in oral arguments before the 9th Circuit and more than a dozen times in the court’s Oct. 20 decision allowing the federalization of Oregon’s troops — an order the court reversed Tuesday while it is reviewed.

The 7th Circuit noted similar falsehoods, leading that court to block the Chicago deployment.

“The [U.S. District] court found that all three of the federal government’s declarations from those with firsthand knowledge were unreliable to the extent they omitted material information or were undermined by independent, objective evidence,” the panel wrote in its Oct 11 decision.

A Supreme Court decision expected in that case will probably define Trump’s power to deploy troops throughout the Midwest — and potentially across the country.

For Garner, that decision means more work.

In addition to his dictionaries, he is also the author of numerous other works, including a memoir about his friendship with Scalia. In his spare time, he travels the country teaching legal writing.

The editor credits his prodigious output to strict discipline. As an undergrad at the University of Texas, he swore off weekly Longhorns games and eschewed his beloved Dallas Cowboys to concentrate on writing, a practice he has maintained with Calvinist devotion ever since.

“I haven’t seen a game for the last 46 years,” the lexicographer said, though he makes a biannual exception for the second halves of the Super Bowl and college football’s national championship game.

As for the political football with Black’s “rebellion,” he’s waiting to see how the Illinois Guard case plays out.

“I will be looking very closely at what the Supreme Court says,” Garner said. “If it writes anything about the meaning of the word rebellion, that might well affect the next edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.”

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled their long-promised report on former President Biden’s use of the autopen, delivering a blistering critique of his time in office and inner circle that largely rehashes public information while making sweeping accusations about the workings of his White House.

The GOP report does not include any concrete evidence that aides conspired to enact policies without Biden’s knowledge or that the president was unaware of laws, pardons or executive orders signed in his name. But Republicans said their findings cast doubt on all of Biden’s actions in office. They sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi urging a full investigation. President Trump ordered a similar inquiry earlier this year.

At its core, the report advances contested claims that Biden’s mental state declined to a degree that allowed White House officials to enact policies without his knowledge. It focuses heavily on the pardons he granted in office, including to his son, Hunter Biden, based on depositions with close Biden aides.

“The cost of the scheme to hide the fallout of President Biden’s diminished physical and mental acuity was great but will likely never be fully calculated,” the report reads. “The cover-up put American national security at risk and the nation’s trust in its leaders in jeopardy.”

Biden has strenuously denied he was unaware of his administration’s actions, calling such claims “ridiculous and false.” Democrats on the House Oversight committee denounced the probe as a distraction and waste of time.

Republicans are shifting attention back to Biden at a tumultuous time, 10 months into Trump’s presidency, with the government shut down and Congress at a standstill over legislation to fund it. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has kept the House out of session for nearly a month, with most public-facing committee work grinding to a halt.

The report on Biden was largely compiled over several months before the shutdown began. Based on interviews with more than a dozen members of Biden’s inner circle, the report offers few new revelations, instead drawing broad conclusions from unanswered questions.

It includes repeated references to polls of Biden’s approval rating and perceptions of his public gaffes and apparent aging, much of it publicly known.

It alleges a “cover-up of the president’s cognitive decline” orchestrated by Biden’s inner circle and takes particular aim at Biden’s doctor, Kevin O’Connor, who invoked his Fifth Amendment right against testifying. Republicans also singled out senior aides Anthony Bernal and Annie Tomasini, who similarly pleaded the Fifth. All three “should face further scrutiny” from the Justice Department, Republicans said.

Republicans also sent a letter to the D.C. Board of Medicine urging that O’Connor face “discipline, sanction or revocation of his medical license” and “be barred from the practice of medicine in the District of Columbia.”

The report does not include full transcripts of the at-times multiple hours of recorded testimony that witnesses delivered before the committee. It repeatedly scolds Biden officials and Democratic allies for defending Biden’s mental state.

“The inner-most circle, or cocoon, of the White House senior staff organized one of the largest scandals in American history — hiding a cognitively failing president and refusing any means of confirmation of such demise,” the report says.

While the report claims that record-keeping policies in the Biden White House “were so lax that the chain of custody for a given decision is difficult or impossible to establish,” Republicans do not offer any concrete instances of the chain of command being violated or a policy being enacted without Biden’s knowledge.

Still, Republicans argue that Biden’s use of the autopen should be considered invalid unless there is documented proof of him approving a decision.

“Barring evidence of executive actions taken during the Biden presidency showing that President Biden indeed took a particular executive action, the committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void,” the report says.

Democrats and legal experts have warned that broad scrutiny of executive actions could pose future legal headaches for the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, who also often enact policies directed by lawmakers through devices like the presidential autopen.

Brown and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

The tribunal’s message came as it released its genocide verdict following four days of public hearings in Istanbul, Turkiye.

The Gaza Tribunal has issued its final findings, saying that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and that “Israeli perpetrators and their Western enablers” should not be allowed to escape justice for their crimes.

The unofficial tribunal, which was established in London last November, gave its “moral judgement” on Sunday, following four days of public hearings in Istanbul, Turkiye.

Presided over by Richard Falk, a former United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, the initiative comes in the tradition of the Russell Tribunal, which heard evidence in 1967 of United States war crimes in Vietnam.

The year-long Gaza process involved collecting information, hearing witnesses and survivors, and archiving the evidence.

In its ruling, the tribunal’s jury condemned the genocide in Gaza and crimes including the mass destruction of residential properties, the deliberate denial of food to the civilian population, torture, and the targeting of journalists.

Criticism of post-war plans

After saying that Israel’s war on Gaza shows global governance is failing to uphold its duties, the tribunal recommended that all “perpetrators, supporters and enablers” be held accountable and that Israel be suspended from international organisations like the UN.

The jury also found Western governments, “particularly the United States”, complicit with Israel through the provision of “diplomatic cover, weapons, weapon parts, intelligence, military assistance and training, and continuing economic relations”.

As well as calling for justice, the tribunal criticised two post-war plans put forward by US President Donald Trump and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, suggesting they “ignore the rights of the Palestinian people under international law” while “doing nothing to rein in the perpetrators of genocide”.

“Palestinians must lead the restoration of Gaza, and Israel and its enablers must be held responsible for all reparations,” members of the tribunal said in a statement.

Given that it is not a court of law, the tribunal “does not purport to determine guilt or liability of any person, organisation or state”, but should rather be seen as a civil society response to the war on Gaza, the jury said.

“We believe that genocide must be named and documented and that impunity feeds continuing violence throughout the globe,” the jurors explained. “Genocide in Gaza is the concern of all humanity. When states are silent civil society can and must speak out.”

Israel is facing genocide accusations – brought by South Africa – at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Although it is likely to be years before the ICJ gives its judgement, it found in an interim ruling in January 2024 that it is “plausible” that Israel is violating the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.

Israel has repeatedly denied accusations that it has committed genocide in Gaza.

The U.S. Department of Justice will monitor polling sites in five California counties as voters decide on Proposition 50 on Nov. 4, it said Friday, after being asked to do so by state GOP officials.

Monitoring, which is routinely conducted by the Justice Department, will occur across Southern California and in the Central Valley, in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties, the Justice Department said.

Proposition 50 — one of November’s most hotly-watched electoral issues, with national political implications — asks California voters whether the state should redraw its congressional districts to better favor Democrats. It is a response to President Trump’s pressure campaign on Texas and other red states to redraw their lines in favor of Republicans, and is considered a must-pass measure if Democrats hope to regain control of the House in next year’s midterms.

The Justice Department said its monitors would work to “ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law,” including the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Civil Rights Act.

“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

“Our democracy depends on free and fair elections,” said acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in the L.A. region, who will be helping to coordinate the monitoring effort. “We will work tirelessly to uphold and protect the integrity of the election process.”

The Justice Department also announced monitors will be stationed in Passaic County, N.J. That state is holding a consequential gubernatorial election.

While federal monitoring is routine, it has been viewed with heightened skepticism from both parties in recent years. When the Justice Department under President Biden announced monitoring in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states during last November’s presidential election, some Republican-led states balked and sought to block the effort.

Democrats have been highly skeptical of the Trump administration’s plans for monitoring elections, in part because of Trump’s relentless denial of past election losses — including his own to Biden in 2020 — and his appointment of fellow election deniers to high-ranking positions in his administration, including in the Justice Department.

Corrin Rankin, chair of the California Republican Party, had specifically asked the Justice Department to send monitors to the five counties in a letter to the Justice Department on Monday.

Rankin wrote that the party had “received reports of irregularities” in each of the counties during recent elections, which they feared could “undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election” this November.

Rankin called Proposition 50 a “politically charged question,” and said it was “imperative to have robust voter participation and public confidence in the results regardless of the outcome.”

Matt Shupe, a spokesperson for the California GOP, declined to comment on the letter Friday.

California officials, including Secretary of State Shirley Weber and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have promised safe and fair elections and said their teams will also be out in the field enforcing California’s election laws in November.

“Our election laws provide the backbone for a free and fair election, and as California’s top law enforcement officer, I will do everything in my power to protect your right to vote,” Bonta recently said. “In the lead-up to the election and on Election Day, my office will be on call to provide assistance to the Secretary of State’s Office in enforcing California’s election laws, as needed, through a team of attorneys and administrative staff located across the state.”

Dean Logan, elections chief for Los Angeles County, said in a statement Friday that federal election monitors are welcome to view election activities and that the state has “clear laws and guidelines that support observation and prohibit election interference.”

“The presence of election observers is not unusual and is a standard practice across the country,” Logan said.

Logan didn’t directly address the California GOP’s specific statements about Los Angeles County, but said that the county regularly updates and verifies voter records in coordination with state and federal agencies and protects the integrity of the election process.

“Voters can have confidence their ballot is handled securely and counted accurately,” he said.

This article will be updated.

Journalists and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have joined forces to seek justice for 42 men arbitrarily detained and tortured by the Nigerian military in Borno State, North East Nigeria.

During an advocacy meeting organised by HumAngle and Amnesty International in Maiduguri, the state capital, on Wednesday, Oct. 22, civic leaders and media practitioners took a step to spotlight an investigation that opened a can of worms on the gross violation of human rights.

The survivors were present at the meeting to share first-hand accounts of how they endured years of torture, abuse, and brutal treatment in detention. They were accompanied by some of their relatives, who waited over a decade for their return. 

One survivor lost his sight while in detention, another lost an ear, and the other bore scars all over his body. Their stories cast a sombre mood over the room, as participants and advocates reflected on how to achieve transitional justice for the victims.

Usman Abba Zanna, the HumAngle reporter who investigated the case for months, detailed how he followed a lead from local sources and made several visits to Gallari, a rural community in Borno’s Konduga Local Government Area, to verify claims of military invasions and arbitrary arrests.

“In a conflict situation like this, there are so many cases of violation of humanitarian laws and war crimes by state actors. These men were the breadwinners of their families, and the military just arrested all of them,” Zanna narrated to the audience, stating that the arrest happened immediately after the Chibok schoolgirls’ abduction in April 2014.

“When I went to Gallari, I met a 16-year-old boy who told me that they had arrested his father. He was now saddled with all the responsibilities of the family, including caring for her grandmother, who cried until she became blind. He travels far away to work and raise money to fend for his younger ones,” he added. 

In his remarks, Isa Sanusi, the Country Director at Amnesty International in Nigeria, reiterated the organisation’s efforts in documenting human rights violations amid insurgency and armed violence in the region. He said the organisation’s recent partnership with HumAngle is another move to seek accountability.

“One of the issues that we consistently talk about is the issue of accountability. Many people believe that the only way to bring peace is just to say that schools are being rebuilt and people are being forced to return to their communities,” he said, urging stakeholders in the meeting to take necessary actions.

“So many people are always asking: How are we going to have accountability, and how is it going to work? This is the reason we’re here. Amnesty International and HumAngle are partners in making sure that we seek accountability in this case.”

Hauwa Shaffii Nuhu, HumAngle’s Managing Editor, corroborated this sentiment, saying: “Journalism and advocacy are some of the most effective tools with which to correct the ills in society. Through the gathering today, we are merging both so that the suffering of people like the Gallari men and all other victims of enforced disappearances can have their stories heard. This is in the hopes that targeted advocacy towards stakeholders will elicit positive action from them.”

The raid that led to the arrests shattered the civilian community, leaving children, wives, and the elderly in displacement, poverty, and forcing some to remarry or assume breadwinning responsibilities prematurely.

Ten years later, in 2024, HumAngle revisited the incident, documenting the fate of the forgotten men. Three of them were released following our investigation a few months later. When we visited them after their return, we found an even more disturbing revelation: 37 of the 42 men detained had died gruesomely in detention, and those still alive carry their grief and scars around.

It’s easy to miss the confidence of Billy Wilder or Frank Capra whenever some brave soul tries to make a comedy that takes America’s temperature by straddling cynicism and optimism. Those Hollywood masters could handily juggle the sweet, sour and satirical and, in Wilder’s case, even leave you believing in a happy ending.

With his writing-directing feature debut, “Good Fortune,” however, Aziz Ansari, who stars alongside Seth Rogen and Keanu Reeves (as an angel named Gabriel), swings big, hoping to capture that jokey truth-telling vibe about the State of Things. His subject is a fertile one too: the gig economy fostering our crushing inequity, but also the desperation of the have-nots and how oblivious the wealthy are about those who made them rich. So let’s stick it to the billionaires! Let Keanu help the downtrodden!

Ansari’s high-low morality tale, set in our fair (and unfair) Los Angeles, is a friendly melding of celestially tinged stories (“Heaven Can Wait,” “Wings of Desire”) and body-swap comedies (“Trading Places”). But as agreeable as it is, it can’t square its jabs with its sentimentality. It’s got heart, kind eyes, a wry smile and some funny lines, but no teeth when you really need things bitten into, chewed up and spit out.

Ansari plays Arj, living a serious disconnection between his professional identity — wannabe Hollywood film editor — and how he actually exists: task-gigging for scraps and living in his car. When a garage-reorganizing job for Jeff (Rogen), a Bel-Air venture capitalist, turns into an assistant position, Arj feels secure enough to use the company card for a fancy dinner with occasional colleague and romantic interest Elena (an underused Keke Palmer). Jeff clocks the charge the next day, though (a realistic detail about the rich watching every penny), and immediately fires Arj.

All along, Arj’s sad situation has touched Reeves’ long-haired, khaki-suited angel, whose life-saving purview (he specializes in jostling distracted drivers) is low in the hierarchy overseen by boss guardian Martha (Sandra Oh). Gabriel wants a big healing job to show Arj, with a little role-reversal magic, that being Jeff isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Except, of course, it is. (David Mamet’s line “Everybody needs money — that’s why they call it money” comes to mind.) The newly luxe-and-loving-it Arj shows no signs of wanting to switch back (which is apparently his call to make in the rules of this scenario), leaving out-of-his-depth Gabriel in the position of convincing a sudden billionaire why he should go back to being poor.

Which is where “Good Fortune,” for all its grasp of how Depression-era screwball comedies made the filthy rich mockable, struggles to match its issue-driven humor with its fix-it heart. While it’s funny to watch Rogen’s freshly desperate character suffer food-delivery humiliation, buying the script’s changes of heart — and the film’s naïve idea of where everyone should be at the end — is another matter. That’s why screwball comedies didn’t try to upend capitalism, just have some clever fun with it and let a simple love story stick the landing. Ansari’s ambition is admirable but he’s better at diagnoses than solutions.

His gold-touch move is giving the hilariously deadpan Reeves one of his best roles in years: a goofy meme brought to disarming life and the movie’s beating heart. Doing good can be hard work; understanding humans is harder. Plus, Reeves makes eating a burger for the first time a sublimely funny reaffirmation that sometimes, indeed, it is a wonderful life.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

The October 13, 2023, attack in southern Lebanon killed a Reuters journalist and wounded six other reporters.

The NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) has urged Lebanon to continue its pursuit of justice over a deadly Israeli strike two years ago that killed a Reuters journalist and wounded six other reporters.

The rights group said in a statement on Monday that it welcomed a move by Lebanon’s Ministry of Justice to investigate legal options to press charges against Israel for crimes against journalists.

Reporters Without Borders also welcomed that “Lebanon is finally taking action” as Israel is accused of targeting a large number of journalists during its military aggression in Gaza and Lebanon.

Issam Abdallah, a videographer for the Reuters news agency, was killed in the October 13, 2023, attack by an Israeli tank on southern Lebanon near the Israeli border. Two Al Jazeera reporters were among those injured.

HRW said Lebanon’s announcement last week that it was looking at legal options to pursue the matter presented a “fresh opportunity to achieve justice for the victims”.

Ramzi Kaiss, the NGO’s Lebanon researcher, said the country’s action to hold Israel accountable is overdue.

“Israel’s apparently deliberate killing of Issam Abdallah should have served as a crystal clear message for Lebanon’s government that impunity for war crimes begets more war crimes,” he said.

“Since Issam’s killing, scores of other civilians in Lebanon have been killed in apparently deliberate or indiscriminate attacks that violate the laws of war and amount to war crimes,” Kaiss asserted.

‘War crime’

The October 2023 attack wounded Al Jazeera cameraman Elie Brakhia and reporter Carmen Joukhadar, Reuters journalists Thaer Al-Sudani and Maher Nazeh, and the AFP news agency’s Christina Assi and Dylan Collins.

Assi was seriously wounded and had to have her right leg amputated.

HRW said an investigation by the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) had found that an Israeli Merkava tank had fired two 120mm rounds at the group of clearly identifiable journalists.

The journalists were removed from the hostilities and had been stationary for more than an hour when they came under fire, the report said. No exchange of fire had been recorded across the border for more than 40 minutes before the attack.

The NGO said it had found no evidence of a military target near the journalists’ location and, because the incident appeared to be a deliberate attack on civilians, it constituted a war crime.

‘Premeditated, targeted attack’

Morris Tidball-Binz, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said on Friday that the attack was “a premeditated, targeted and double-tapped attack from the Israeli forces, a clear violation, in my opinion, of [international humanitarian law], a war crime”.

Reporters Without Borders urged Beirut to refer the case to the International Criminal Court, saying on Friday: “Lebanon is finally taking action against impunity for the crime.”

In February, the Committee to Protect Journalists said a record 124 journalists had been killed in 2024 and Israel was responsible for more than two-thirds of those deaths.

Last month, in a special election, voters in southern Arizona chose Adelita Grijalva to succeed her late father in Congress.

The outcome in the solidly Democratic district was never in doubt. The final tally wasn’t remotely close.

Grijalva, a Tucson native and former Pima County supervisor, crushed her Republican opponent, 69% to 29%.

The people spoke, loudly and emphatically, and normally that would have been that. Grijalva would have assumed office by now, allowing her to serve her orphaned constituents by filling a House seat that’s been vacant since her father died in March, after representing portions of Arizona for more than 20 years.

But these are not normal times. These are times when everything, including the time of day and state of the weather, has become politically charged.

And so Grijalva is residing in limbo. Or, rather, at her campaign headquarters in Tucson, since she’s been locked out of her congressional office on Capitol Hill — the one her father used, which now has her name on a plaque outside. She’s been denied entry by Speaker Mike Johnson.

“It’s pretty horrible,” Grijalva said in an interview, “because regardless of whether I have an official office or not, constituents elected me and people are reaching out to me through every social media outlet.

“‘I have a question,’” they tell Grijalva, or “‘I’m afraid I’m going to get fired’ or ‘We need some sort of assistance.’”

All she can do is refer them to Arizona’s two U.S. senators.

House members are scattered across the country during the partial government shutdown and Johnson said he can’t possibly administer the oath of office to Grijalva during a pro forma session, a time when normal business — legislative debate, roll call votes — is not being conducted. “We have to have everybody here,” Johnson said, “and we’ll swear her in.”

But, lo, dear reader, are you sitting down?

It turns out there were two Republican lawmakers elected this year in special elections, each, as it happens from Florida. Both were sworn in the very next day … during pro forma sessions!

Shocked? Don’t be. In the Trump era, rules and standards are applied in flagrantly different ways, depending on which political party is involved.

But partisanship aside, what possible reason would Johnson have to stall Grijalva’s swearing-in? Here’s a clue: It involves a convicted sex trafficker and former buddy of President Trump, whose foul odor trails him like the reeking carcass of a beached whale.

Yes, it’s the late Jeffrey Epstein!

“On my very first day in Congress, I’ll sign the bipartisan discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files,” Grijalva said on the eve of her landslide election. “This is as much about fulfilling Congress’ duty as a constitutional check on this administration as it is about demanding justice for survivors.”

Jeffrey Epstein. Gone but very much unforgotten.

For years, his perversions have been an obsession among those, mainly on the right, who believe a “deep state” cover-up has protected the rich and powerful who partnered with women procured by Epstein. After Trump’s marionette attorney general, Pam Bondi, suggested a client list was sitting on her desk, awaiting release, the Justice Department abruptly reversed course.

There was no such list, it announced, and Epstein definitely committed suicide and wasn’t, as the conspiracy-minded suggest, murdered by those wishing to silence him.

Trump, who palled around with Epstein, urged everyone to move along. Naturally, Johnson fell into immediate lockstep. (Bondi, for her part, tap-danced through a contentious Senate hearing last week, repeatedly sidestepping questions about the Epstein-Trump relationship, including whether photos exist of the president alongside “half-naked young women.”)

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a GOP lawmaker and persistent Trump irritant, and Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna have led the bipartisan effort to force the Justice Department to cough up the government’s unclassified records related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, his former girlfriend and fellow sex trafficker.

The discharge petition, overriding the objections of Trump and Johnson and forcing the House to vote on release of the files, needs at least 218 signatures, which constitutes a majority of the 435 members. The petition has been stalled for weeks, just one signature shy of ratification.

Enter Grijalva.

Or not.

Johnson, who may be simply delaying an inevitable House vote to curry Trump’s favor, insists the Epstein matter has “nothing to do with” his refusal to seat Grivalja.

Righto.

And planets don’t revolve around the sun, hot air doesn’t rise and gravity doesn’t bring falling leaves to Earth.

More than 200 Democratic House members have affixed their signatures to the petition, along with four Republicans — Massie and Reps. Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene. The latter three are all MAGA stalwarts who have bravely broken ranks with Trump to stand up for truth and the victims of Epstein’s ravages.

“Aren’t we all against convicted pedophiles and anyone who enables them?” Greene asked in an interview with Axios.

Most are, one would assume. But apparently not everybody.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty Wednesday to face a criminal case that has thrown a spotlight on the Justice Department’s efforts to target adversaries of President Trump.

The arraignment is expected to be brief, but the moment is nonetheless loaded with significance given that the case has amplified concerns the Justice Department is being weaponized in pursuit of Trump’s political enemies and is operating at the behest of a White House determined to seek retribution for perceived wrongs against the president.

Comey entered a not guilty plea through his lawyer at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., to allegations that he lied to Congress five years go. The plea kick-starts a process of legal wrangling in which defense lawyers will almost certainly move to get the indictment dismissed before trial, possibly by arguing the case amounts to a selective or vindictive prosecution.

The indictment two weeks ago followed an extraordinary chain of events that saw Trump publicly implore Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against Comey and other perceived adversaries. The Republican president also replaced the veteran attorney who had been overseeing the investigation with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor. Halligan rushed to file charges before a legal deadline lapsed despite warnings from other lawyers in the office that the evidence was insufficient for an indictment.

What the indictment says

The two-count indictment alleges that Comey made a false statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020, by denying he had authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source to the news media and that he obstructed a congressional proceeding. Comey has denied any wrongdoing and has said he was looking forward to a trial. The indictment does not identify the associate or say what information may have been discussed with the media, making it challenging to assess the strength of the evidence or to even fully parse the allegations.

Though an indictment is typically just the start of a protracted court process, the Justice Department has trumpeted the development itself as something of a win, regardless of the outcome. Trump administration officials are likely to point to any conviction as proof the case was well-justified, but an acquittal or even dismissal may also be held up as further support for their long-running contention the criminal justice system is stacked against them.

The judge was nominated by Biden

The judge randomly assigned to the case, Michael Nachmanoff, was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration and is a former chief federal defender. Known for methodical preparation and a cool temperament, the judge and his background have already drawn Trump’s attention, with the president deriding him as a “Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge.”

Besides Comey, the Justice Department is also investigating other foes of the president, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

Several Comey family members arrived in court Wednesday morning ahead of the arraignment, including his daughter Maurene, who was fired by the Justice Department earlier this year from her position as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, as well as Troy Edwards Jr., a son-in-law of Comey’s who minutes after Comey was indicted resigned his job as a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia — the same office that filed the charges.

Trump and Comey’s fraught relationship

The indictment was the latest chapter in a long-broken relationship between Trump and Comey.

Trump arrived in office in January 2017 as Comey, appointed to the FBI director job by President Obama four years earlier, was overseeing an investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The dynamic was fraught from the start, with Comey briefing Trump weeks before he took office on the existence of uncorroborated and sexually salacious gossip in a dossier of opposition research compiled by a former British spy.

In their first several private interactions, Comey would later reveal, Trump asked his FBI director to pledge his loyalty to him and to drop an FBI investigation into his administration’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Comey said Trump also asked him to announce that Trump himself was not under investigation as part of the broader inquiry into Russian election interference, something Comey did not do.

Comey was abruptly fired in May 2017 while at an event in Los Angeles, with Trump later saying he was thinking about “this Russia thing” when he decided to terminate him. The firing was investigated by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller as an act of potential obstruction of justice.

Comey in 2018 published a memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” that painted Trump in deeply unflattering ways, likening him to a mafia don and characterizing him as unethical and “untethered to truth.”

Trump, for his part, continued to angrily vent at Comey as the Russia investigation led by Mueller dominated headlines for the next two years and shadowed his first administration. On social media, he repeatedly claimed Comey should face charges for “treason” — an accusation Comey dismissed as “dumb lies” — and called him an “untruthful slime ball.”

Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Tucker reported from Washington.

On Saturday, a home belonging to a South Carolina Circuit judge burned to the ground. Three people, including the judge’s husband and son, were hospitalized with serious injuries.

The cause of the fire was not immediately clear. An investigation is underway.

Obviously, the harm and destruction were terrible things. But what turned that particular tragedy into something more frightful and ominous is the fact the judge had been targeted with death threats, after ruling against the Trump administration in a lawsuit involving the state’s voter files.

Last month, the judge, Diane Goodstein, temporarily blocked South Carolina from releasing data to the U.S. Department of Retribution, er, Justice, which is turning over tables in search of “facts” to bolster President Trump’s lies about a stolen 2020 election.

Among those who criticized the decision, which was reversed by South Carolina’s Supreme Court, was Harmeet Dhillon, the San Francisco attorney who now heads the Justice Department’s beleaguered Civil Rights Division.

Here’s a short quiz. Using professional norms and human decency as your guide, can you guess what Dhillon did in the aftermath of the fire?

A) Publicly consoled Goodstein and said the Justice Department would throw its full weight behind an urgent investigation into the fire.

B) Drew herself up in righteous anger and issued a ringing statement that denounced political violence, whatever its form, whether perpetrated by those on the left, right or center.

C) Took to social media to troll a political adversary who raised concerns about the targeting of judges and incendiary rhetoric emanating from the Trump administration.

If you selected anything other than “C,” you obviously aren’t familiar with Dhillon. Or perhaps you’ve spent the last many months in a coma, or cut off from the world in the frozen tundra of Antarctica.

The cause of the fire could very well turn out to be something unfortunate and distinctly nonpolitical. Faulty wiring, say, or an unattended pot left on the stove. South Carolina’s top law enforcement official said a preliminary inquiry had so far turned up no evidence that the fire was deliberately set.

What matters, however, is Dhillon’s response.

Not as someone with a shred of sympathy, or as a dogged and scrupulous seeker of truth and justice. But as a fists-up political combatant.

The timing of the blaze, the threats Goodstein received and the country’s hair-trigger political atmosphere all offered more than a little reason for pause and reflection. At the least, Goodstein’s loss and the suffering of her husband and child called for compassion.

Dhillon, however, is a someone who reacted to the 2022 hammer attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband not with concern but rather cruel and baseless conspiracy claims.

By then, Dhillon — a critic of Trump before he won the 2016 Republican nomination — had shape-shifted into one of his most vocal backers, a regular mouthpiece on Fox News and other right-wing media. Her pandering paid off with her appointment to the Justice Department, where Dhillon is supposed to be protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans — not just those in Trump’s good graces.

There’s plenty of tit-for-tat going around in today’s sulfurous climate. Indeed, the jabbing of fingers and laying of blame have become something of a national pastime.

The administration asserts left-wing radicals are responsible for the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a sniper attack on the ICE field office in Dallas. Those on the left blame Trump and his venomous vassal, Stephen Miller, for the incineration of Goodstein’s home.

When Neera Tanden, a liberal think-tank leader and prolific presence on social media, suggested there might be a connection between the blaze and Miller’s hate-filled rhetoric, Dhillon responded like a juvenile in a flame war. “Clown … grow up, girl,” Dhillon wrote on X.

When a spokesman for Gov. Gavin Newsom pointed a finger at Dhillon and her criticism of the South Carolina judge, Dhillon seized on some over-the-top responses and called in the U.S. Marshals Service. “We will tolerate no such threats by woke idiots, including those who work for @GavinNewsom,” Dhillon said.

All around, a sad display of more haste than good judgment.

That said, there is a huge difference between a press staffer getting his jollies on social media and the assistant attorney general of the United States playing politics with personal calamity.

And, really, doesn’t Dhillon have better things to do — and better ways of earning her pay — than constantly curating her social media feed, like a mean girl obsessing over likes and followers?

Worse, though, than such puerile behavior is what Dhillon embodies: an us-vs.-them attitude that permeates the administration and treats those who didn’t vote for Trump — which is more than half the country — as a target.

It’s evident in the talk of shuttering “Democrat” agencies, as if federal programs serve only members of one party. It’s manifest in the federal militarization of Democratic-run cities and the cutting off of funding to blue states, but not red ones, during the current government shutdown.

It’s revealed in the briefings — on military plans, on operations during the shutdown — given to Republican lawmakers but denied to Democrats serving on Capitol Hill.

Dhillon is just one cog in Trump’s malevolent, weaponization of Washington. But her reflexively partisan response to the razing of Judge Goodstein’s home is telling.

When the person in charge of the nation’s civil rights enforcement can’t muster even a modicum of civility, we’re living in some very dark times indeed.

President Trump has tapped a career government attorney who worked behind the scenes for years to root out misconduct in federal law enforcement to serve as the Justice Department’s next internal watchdog.

The White House on Friday named Don R. Berthiaume to serve as the department’s acting inspector general, a high-profile position that oversees internal investigations into fraud, waste and abuse in the department and its component agencies, including the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons.

Berthiaume is taking the oversight role at a time the Justice Department is in tumult. Prosecutors, agents and other employees have endured waves of firings and resignations as part of the Republican administration’s purge of those suspected of being disloyal to the president. The department has also dropped several high-profile criminal cases, including the indictment of New York Mayor Eric Adams, and Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people charged and convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, the most sprawling investigation in the department’s history.

Concerns deepened last month that Trump has weaponized the Justice Department to pursue investigations of his perceived enemies following the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.

Berthiaume’s appointment, which takes effect at the end of the month, comes amid Trump’s upending of the federal government, including his firing of more than a dozen IGs on his fourth full day in office. Several of those former watchdogs filed a federal lawsuit seeking reinstatement, saying their dismissals violated the law. That case is pending.

Berthiaume, 51, worked as an attorney in the Justice Department inspector general’s office for 10 years until 2020. Among his highest-profile assignments was detailing errors in the use of wiretaps in the federal investigation into alleged ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The last Senate-confirmed inspector general was Michael Horowitz, a former boss of Berthiaume and one of the few inspectors general who was not fired by Trump. In June, Horowitz was appointed to lead the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General.

Created by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal, inspectors general serve as the first line of defense within agencies to stop waste, fraud and abuses of power. Their findings often lead to policy changes. Their investigators can also spearhead criminal probes.

Though inspectors general are presidential appointees, some have served presidents of both major political parties. Federal law requires they be hired “without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability.”

“It’s a very important job, but Trump’s firings have created a threat environment the likes of which IGs have never seen before,” said former Justice Department inspector general Michael Bromwich, who served in the role from 1994 to 1999. “IGs need to be prepared to investigate credible allegations of waste, fraud, and misconduct. If they are too afraid to do so, IGs are no longer fulfilling their mission.”

Given the recent turmoil, Department of Justice employees could perceive the inspector general’s office as “hostile territory,” said Stacey Young, a former department attorney who founded Justice Connection, an organization supporting the agency’s employees.

“Responsible oversight of DOJ’s actions has never been more important,” Young said, “and I hope the next inspector general will exercise the independence and fortitude required to do it.”

The department’s inspector general handles some of the most explosive and politically sensitive inquiries in Washington.

In 2019, for example, Horowitz released a report faulting the FBI for surveillance warrant applications in Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign had coordinated with Russia to interfere in the election. The IG determined the investigation had been opened for a legitimate purpose and did not find evidence that partisan bias had guided investigative decisions.

Special counsel Robert Mueller determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through hacking and a covert social media offensive and that the Trump campaign embraced the help and expected to benefit from it against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. But Mueller found no evidence that Trump’s campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Moscow to influence the election.

Berthiaume had a role in the inspector general’s review of Crossfire Hurricane and helped write a 2013 report on dysfunction and deep partisan divisions inside the Justice Department’s Civil Rights unit. His other work at the Office of Inspector General included exposing improper hiring of relatives and friends by senior leaders of the U.S. Marshals Service and probing a botched investigation into U.S. firearms traffickers suspected of selling grenades to Mexican cartels, according to his LinkedIn page.

Since 2023, Berthiaume has served as senior counsel to the inspector general at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he oversees attorneys investigating housing fraud and runs the agency’s whistleblower protection program.

Before joining HUD, Berthiaume spent three years at the Drug Enforcement Administration, managing the narcotics agency’s relationship with the Justice Department. He began his legal career prosecuting bank and credit card fraud cases at the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Goodman and Mustian write for the Associated Press. Goodman reported from Miami, Mustian from New York.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker living legally in Maryland when he was wrongly deported to his home country, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown and mass deportation agenda.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

That statement by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was indicted May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him back from a prison in El Salvador. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes. The government has provided no clear evidence of gang affiliation, and Abrego Garcia denies the allegation.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador — in a notorious lockup with a documented history of human rights abuses — he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

New York – Members of the Rohingya community who fled violence in Myanmar have addressed a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) conference seeking to bring attention to the suffering of the persecuted Muslim minority, as fighting continues in Myanmar’s Rakhine state.

Maung Sawyeddollah, the founder of the Rohingya Student Network, addressed his fellow Rohingya in a livestreamed speech in the vast UNGA hall in New York City on Tuesday, telling them: “Dear brothers and sisters, you are not forgotten. You might feel that the world doesn’t see your suffering. Rohingya see you.”

“Now this message is for the world leaders and the United Nations: It has already been more than eight years since the Rohingya genocide was exposed. Where is justice for the Rohingya? Where?” Sawyeddollah asked.

He then held up a photograph of the bodies of several people lying in a river, who he said had been killed in a drone attack by Myanmar’s rebel Arakan Army in August 2024.

“These are not isolated cases; they are part of a systematic campaign,” said Sawyeddollah, a student who spent seven years in Cox’s Bazar refugee camp in southeastern Bangladesh after fleeing Myanmar in 2017.

“Why is there no prevention of these inhumane atrocities by Arakan Army?” he asked.

Wai Wai Nu, the executive director of the Women’s Peace Network-Myanmar, who also addressed the high-level UNGA meeting, told Al Jazeera that the event was a “historic moment”, which she hoped would “draw the attention back to the UN on the issue of Rohingya”.

Wai Wai Nu used her speech to highlight several pressing priorities, including that humanitarian aid has been blocked from flowing to Rakhine State, where Rohingya communities are located, an issue she said was discussed on the sidelines of the conference.

“If we get this, the conference is worth it,” she said.

“We need to save Rohingya inside Rakhine state.”

I delivered opening remarks at the #UN General Assembly conference on the Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar this morning.

I urged ending impunity, immediate action to protect the #Rohingya, advancing justice,& addressing root causes for lasting solutions.#UNGA80 #Myanmar pic.twitter.com/PtSqCf2afM

— Wai Wai Nu (@waiwainu) September 30, 2025

Nu also told Al Jazeera that “many member states also emphasised or highlighted addressing the root causes, and advancing justice and accountability”, in their speeches.

However, she added, the UN event also illustrated that a “coherent and cohesive approach” to finding a solution to the Rohingya crisis is “lacking leadership and coordination, including in the ASEAN region“, a grouping of states in Southeast Asia.

She also told Al Jazeera that it was important for countries to implement targeted sanctions on Myanmar and “all the perpetrators, including military and other armed sectors, including Arakan Army”, as well as a “global arms embargo” to protect the Rohingya.

‘Massive aid cuts’

Speaking on behalf of the UN secretary-general, Chef de Cabinet Earle Courtenay Rattray, told the meeting of UN member states that “massive aid cuts” have further worsened conditions for the Rohingya, including more than 1 million who fled ethnic cleansing by the military in Myanmar and who have sought refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh.

“In the past 18 months alone, 150,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh, which has generously kept its borders open and given them refuge,” Rattray said.

Yet, while Rattray said Bangladesh has shown “remarkable hospitality and generosity”, the chief adviser of Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus, said his country is struggling to continue assisting Rohingya refugees, eight years into the crisis.

“Eight years since the genocide began, the plight of the Rohingya continues,” said Yunus, who jointly convened the meeting as well as another similar summit in Cox’s Bazar last month, to try to bring attention back to the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar and Bangladesh.

“Bangladesh is a victim of the crisis,” said Yunus.

“We are forced to bear huge financial, social and environmental costs,” he said.

“As funding declines, the only peaceful option is to begin their repatriation.”

“The Rohingya have consistently pronounced their desire to go back home”, he said, adding that “as an immediate step, those who recently crossed into Bangladesh escaping conflict must be allowed to repatriate”.

Yunus also told the meeting that, unlike Thailand, Bangladesh could not offer work rights to Rohingya, given his own country’s “developmental challenges, including unemployment and poverty”.

Charles Harder, the United States special envoy for best future generations, was among several speakers to thank Bangladesh and Thailand for hosting Rohingya refugees.

He also announced that the US would “provide more than $60m in assistance for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh”, which he said would be tied to Bangladesh making “meaningful” changes to allow access to work.

But funding refugees in Bangladesh was “not a burden the United States will bear indefinitely”, he said.

“It is long past time for other governments and actors in the region to develop sustainable solutions for Rohingya,” Harder said.

About 50 other UN member states also addressed the meeting on Tuesday, although few announced specific measures they were taking, aside from the United Kingdom, which announced $36m in aid for Rohingya refugees.

Dawda Jallow, The Gambia’s minister of justice, also addressed the meeting, saying that his country hopes to see a judgement from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) “soon after” an oral hearing scheduled for January next year on its case accusing Myanmar of perpetrating genocide against its Rohingya population.

“We filed our case in November 2019, almost six years ago. Now, we are preparing for the oral hearing on the merits in this case, which the court has scheduled for mid-January 2026,” Jallow said.

“The Gambia will present its case as to why Myanmar is responsible for the Rohingya genocide and must make reparations to its victims,” he added.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, claiming the department violated county gunowners’ 2nd Amendment rights by delaying thousands of concealed carry permit application decisions for “unreasonable” periods of time.

In a statement, the DOJ claimed that the Sheriff’s Department “systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home — not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

The complaint, filed in the Central District of California, the federal court in Los Angeles, cites data provided by the Sheriff’s Department about the more than 8,000 concealed carry permit applications and renewal applications it received between Jan. 2, 2024, and March 31.

During that period, the DOJ wrote, it took an average of nearly 300 days for the Sheriff’s Department to schedule interviews to approve the applications or “otherwise” advance them.

As a result, of the nearly 4,000 applications for new concealed carry licenses it received during those 15 months, “LASD issued only two licenses.” Two others were denied, the DOJ said, while the rest remained pending or were withdrawn.

The Sheriff’s Department did not immediately provide comment Monday. In March, when the Trump administration announced its 2nd Amendment investigation, the department said it was “committed to processing all Concealed Carry Weapons [CCW] applications in compliance with state and local laws.”

The department’s statement said it had approved 15,000 applications for concealed carry licenses but that because of “a significant staffing crisis in our CCW Unit” it was “diligenty working through approximately 4,000 active cases.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said Monday that the DOJ was working to safeguard the 2nd Amendment, which “protects the fundamental constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.”

“Los Angeles County may not like that right, but the Constitution does not allow them to infringe upon it,” Bondi said. “This Department of Justice will continue to fight for the Second Amendment.”

The federal agency’s complaint alleged that the practice of delaying the applications effectively forced gun permit applicants “to abandon their constitutional rights through administrative exhaustion.”

In December 2023, the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. sued the Sheriff’s Department over what it alleged were improper delays and rejections of applications for concealed carry licenses. In January, U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn P. Garnett ordered the department to reduce delays.

In the new complaint, the DOJ called on the court to issue a permanent injunction.

Gun rights groups heralded the move by the Trump administration.

“This is a landmark lawsuit in that it’s the first time the Department of Justice has ever filed a case in support of gun owners,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement. “We are thrilled to see the federal government step up and defend the Second Amendment rights of citizens and hope this pattern continues around the country.”

Sept. 27 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to rule on the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision following adverse rulings in lower courts.

President Donald Trump on the first day of his second term in office signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for anyone who does not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, but lower courts have blocked the order’s implementation, according to NBC News.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” the DOJ said in its appeal to the Supreme Court, as reported by USA Today.

“Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” the appeal said.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in July ruled in favor of a challenge filed by officials for Washington state and three others.

In a separate case, U.S. District Court of New Hampshire Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a case filed by individuals, which enabled that court’s ruling against the president’s executive order to have national impact.

President George W. Bush appointed Laplante to the federal court in 2007.

The DOJ wants the Supreme Court to review the New Hampshire case and Laplante’s ruling despite the matter being appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

The federal appellate court has not ruled on that case.

WASHINGTON — The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey is only two pages and alleges he falsely testified to Congress in 2020 about authorizing someone to be an anonymous source in news stories.

That brevity belies a convoluted and contentious backstory. The events at the heart of the disputed testimony are among the most heavily scrutinized in the bureau’s history, generating internal and congressional investigations that have produced thousands of pages of records and transcripts.

Those investigations were focused on how Comey and his agents conducted high-stakes inquiries into whether Russia had unlawfully colluded with Republican Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

Here are some things to know about that period and how they fit into Comey’s indictment:

What are the allegations?

The indictment alleges that Comey made a false statement in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The single quote from the indictment appears to be from an interaction with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Prosecutors contend that Comey lied when he denied having authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source to the media, alleging he had done so by telling someone identified as “Person 3” in the indictment to speak to reporters.

“It’s such a bare-bones indictment,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor and now a defense attorney in private practice. “We do not know what the evidence is going to be” at trial, he said.

What did Comey say to Congress?

Wisenberg said the testimony in question appears to have come when Cruz was pressing Comey over the role that his deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, played in authorizing a leak to the Wall Street Journal for a story examining how the FBI handled an investigation into Clinton’s use of the private email server.

Cruz’s question was complicated, but it boiled down to pitting Comey against McCabe. The senator noted that Comey told Congress in 2017 he had not authorized anyone to speak to reporters. But Cruz asserted that McCabe had “publicly and repeatedly said he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it.”

“Who’s telling the truth?” Cruz asked.

Comey answered: “I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.”

At that time, Comey had been put on the spot by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Comey was asked whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.”

Comey answered, “No.”

The indictment says Comey falsely stated that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports,” but Comey appears not to have used that phrasing during the 2020 hearing at issue, potentially complicating efforts to establish that he made a false statement.

What may have sparked the questions?

“Person 3” is not identified in the indictment, but appears to have been discussing an investigation related to Clinton, based on a clearer reference in a felony charge that grand jurors rejected. Comey figured in several inquiries into alleged leaks in the Clinton investigation, all of which generated extensive paper trails.

One involved McCabe and the Journal story. McCabe told the Justice Department’s inspector general that he had authorized a subordinate to talk to the Journal reporter and had told Comey about that interaction after the fact.

It’s unlikely the indictment is focused on that episode because McCabe never told investigators that Comey had authorized him to talk to the media, only that the FBI director was aware that McCabe had done so.

Two other leak investigations involved a friend of Comey’s who served for a time as a paid government advisor to the director. That advisor, Daniel Richman, has told investigators he spoke to the media to help shape perceptions of the embattled FBI chief.

Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, was interviewed by FBI agents in 2019 about leaks to the media that concerned the bureau’s investigation into Clinton. Richman said Comey had never authorized him to speak to the media about the Clinton investigation but he acknowledged Comey was aware that he sometimes engaged with reporters.

Comey has acknowledged using Richman as a conduit to the media in another matter. After Comey was fired by Trump in 2017, he gave Richman a memo that detailed his interactions with the president. Comey later testified to Congress that he had authorized Richman to disclose the contents of the memo to journalists with the hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel who might investigate Trump.

How did we get here?

Trump and Comey have been engaged in a long-running feud. Trump blames Comey for having started an investigation into Russia’s election meddling on behalf of Trump’s 2016 campaign that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller. Mueller spent the better part of two years investigating whether Trump’s campaign illegally colluded with the Kremlin.

In the end, Mueller uncovered no evidence that Trump or his associates criminally colluded with Russia, but found that they had welcomed Moscow’s assistance and that Trump had obstructed justice during the investigation. Those findings were largely adopted by bipartisan congressional reports on the matter.

Trump, who was convicted of felony fraud last year, has long vented about the “Russia hoax,” which shadowed and defined the early years of his first term. He has spent the ensuing years bashing Comey and saying he should be charged with treason.

Just days before the indictment, Trump publicly urged his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to act against Comey and two other perceived Trump enemies: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump posted on social media last week. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW.”

Within hours of the indictment being returned, Trump turned again to social media to gloat: “JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey.”

Comey has remained resolute in his defense, while criticizing Trump on a host of matters. In a 2018 memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey compared Trump to a mafia don and said he was unethical and “untethered to truth.”

Like Trump, Comey took to social media after his indictment.

“My family and I have known for years there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump,” he said. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So, let’s have a trial.”

Tau writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The FBI has fired agents who were photographed kneeling during a racial justice protest in Washington that followed the 2020 murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, three people familiar with the matter said.

The bureau last spring had reassigned the agents but has since fired them, said the people, who insisted on anonymity to discuss personnel matters with the Associated Press. The number of FBI employees terminated was not immediately clear, but two people said it was roughly 20.

The photographs at issue showed a group of agents taking the knee during one of the demonstrations after the May 2020 killing of Floyd, a death that led to a national reckoning over policing and racial injustice and sparked widespread anger after millions of people saw video of the arrest. The kneeling had angered some in the FBI but was also understood as a possible deescalation tactic during a period of protests.

The FBI Agents Assn. confirmed in a statement late Friday that more than a dozen agents had been fired, including military veterans with additional statutory protections, and condemned the move as unlawful. It called on Congress to investigate and said the firings were another indication of FBI Director Kash Patel’s disregard for the legal rights of bureau employees.

“As Director Patel has repeatedly stated, nobody is above the law,” the agents association said. “But rather than providing these agents with fair treatment and due process, Patel chose to again violate the law by ignoring these agents’ constitutional and legal rights instead of following the requisite process.”

An FBI spokesman declined to comment Friday.

The firings come amid a broader personnel purge at the bureau as Patel works to reshape the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

Five agents and top-level executives were known to have been summarily fired last month in a wave of ousters that current and former officials say has contributed to declining morale.

One of those, Steve Jensen, helped oversee investigations into the Jan. 6, 2021, riot by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol. Another, Brian Driscoll, served as acting FBI director in the early days of the second Trump administration and resisted Justice Department demands to supply the names of agents who investigated Jan. 6.

A third, Chris Meyer, was incorrectly rumored on social media to have participated in the investigation into President Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. A fourth, Walter Giardina, participated in high-profile investigations like the one of Trump advisor Peter Navarro.

A lawsuit filed by Jensen, Driscoll and another fired FBI supervisor, Spencer Evans, alleged that Patel communicated that he understood that it was “likely illegal” to fire agents based on cases they worked but was powerless to stop it because the White House and the Justice Department were determined to remove all agents who investigated Trump.

Patel denied at a congressional hearing last week taking orders from the White House on whom to fire and said anyone who has been fired failed to meet the FBI’s standards.

Trump, who was twice impeached and is the only U.S. president with a felony conviction, was indicted on multiple criminal charges in two felony cases. Both cases were dismissed after he was elected, following long-standing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — On a Phoenix tarmac in 2016, former President Clinton and U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch had a serendipitous meeting on a private jet. The exchange caused a political firestorm. At a time when the Justice Department was investigating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, the appearance of impropriety prompted a national scandal.

“Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes,” Donald Trump, her Republican rival that year, would later write of the meeting on Twitter. “Totally illegal!”

It was the beginning of a pattern from Trump claiming political interference by Democrats and career public servants in Justice Department matters, regardless of the evidence.

Now, Trump’s years-long claim that it was his opponents who politicized the justice system has become the basis for the most aggressive spree of political prosecutions in modern American history.

“What Trump is doing now with the U.S. attorneys is really in complete opposition to how the people who created those offices imagined what those officials would do — the Founders simply did not envision the office in this way,” said Peter Kastor, chair of the history department at Washington University in St. Louis.

“From the inception of the Justice Department,” he added, “one of the most remarkable things is how it was never used in this way.”

On Thursday, at Trump’s express direction, federal charges were filed against James Comey, the former FBI director, alleging he gave false testimony before Congress and attempted to obstruct a congressional proceeding five years ago.

The indictment was secured from a federal grand jury after Trump fired a U.S. attorney with doubts about the strength of the case — replacing him with a loyalist, and telling Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi openly on social media to pursue charges against him and others.

“JAMES COMEY IS A DIRTY COP,” Trump wrote on social media after the charges were filed. “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Comey, who was fired by Trump in 2017, denies the charges.

“My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way,” Comey said in a statement posted online. “We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either.

“My heart is broken for the Department of Justice. But I have great confidence in the federal judicial system,” Comey continued. “And I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

Behind the charges against Comey, legal experts see a weak case wielded as a cudgel in a political persecution of Trump’s perceived enemy. Comey is accused of lying about authorizing a leak to the media about an FBI investigation through an anonymous source.

It is only the latest example. Over the summer, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Pulte, used his position to accuse three of the president’s political foes of mortgage fraud, referring the cases to the Justice Department for potential charges — actions actively encouraged by Trump online.

“It’s not a list,” Trump said Thursday, asked whether more prosecutions are coming. “I think there will be others. They’re corrupt. These were corrupt radical left Democrats. Comey essentially was Dem — he’s worse than a Democrat.”

The president’s overt use of the Justice Department as a partisan tool threatens a new era of political persecutions that could well backfire on his own allies. The Supreme Court has made clear that presidents enjoy broad immunity for their actions while in office. But their aides do not. Bondi, Pulte and others, just like Comey, are obligated to provide occasional testimony to House and Senate committees under oath.

“The Comey indictment is notable for its personalized politicization being so open,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College. “The same actions carried out clandestinely would seem scandalous, because they are — and the fact they were so blatantly advertised does not make them less corrupt.”

But the Comey case can also be seen as a test of the viability of a prosecution based purely on politics. Already, lawyers for Trump’s other legal targets have said they plan on using his overt threats against them to get cases against their clients thrown out in court.

This week, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, defended Trump’s vocal advocacy for criminal charges against political foes as a matter of “accountability.”

“We are not going to tolerate gaslighting from anyone in the media, from anyone on the other side who is trying to say that it’s the president who is weaponizing the DOJ,” Leavitt said.

“You look at people like [California Sen.] Adam Schiff, and like James Comey, and like [New York Atty. Gen.] Letitia James, who the president is rightfully frustrated with,” she continued. “He wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abused their power, who abused their oath of office to target the former president.”

But Trump’s accusations against Democrats have routinely failed the tests of inspectors general, journalistic inquiry and public scrutiny.

When Trump was investigated over potential coordination between his campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 race, he claimed a liberal, “deep state” cabal was behind an inquiry based on, as the special prosecutor’s report concluded, “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.”

And when charged with federal crimes over his handling of highly classified material, and his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, he dismissed the charges as a witch hunt choreographed by President Biden and his attorney general, a claim that had no basis in fact.

The special counsel investigations against Trump, Kastor said, were “prosecutions, not persecutions.”

“His claims that the investigations surrounding him are specious — the investigations were appropriate,” Kastor added. “These investigations are not.”