Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
March 7, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-reportedly-refer-cassidy-hutchinson-to-doj-over-jan-6-testimony
Cassidy Hutchinson did nothing wrong
MaddowBlog-Republicans reportedly refer Cassidy Hutchinson to DOJ over Jan. 6 testimony
Four years after the former White House aide delivered stunning revelations about Donald Trump, GOP lawmakers appear focused on bringing her down.
Republicans reportedly refer Cassidy Hutchinson to DOJ over Jan. 6 testimony
— Jim Nicholas (@jrnbs.bsky.social) 2026-03-06T21:38:01.374Z
www.yahoo.com/news/article...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-reportedly-refer-cassidy-hutchinson-to-doj-over-jan-6-testimony
At the time, there didn’t appear to be any point to asking a failed committee to fail again, but it now appears the partisan exercise still has some scores to settle. CNN reported:
.....CNN’s report also followed similar reporting from 2024 about Loudermilk and his committee specifically focusing its energies on Hutchinson, a former aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. (Relatedly, Kash Patel, before the podcast personality became the FBI director, included Hutchinson on his notorious “government gangsters” enemies list.)
Based on the publicly available information, there’s no reason to believe Hutchinson, who delivered stunning Jan. 6 testimony nearly four years ago, did anything wrong. What’s more, there’s no reason to believe the criminal referral will amount to anything: In the last Congress, the same Republican-led panel asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into former House GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney for foolish reasons that collapsed under scrutiny, and the referral was ignored.
But given the degree to which the Trump DOJ is (a) controlled by the president; and (b) determined to punish the president’s perceived political foes, it’s probably best not to dismiss these developments out of hand. Watch this space
Republicans on Capitol Hill are asking the Justice Department to consider bringing criminal charges against Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in President Donald Trump’s first administration who became a star congressional witness about the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, according to two sources familiar with recent developments.
GOP Rep. Barry Loudermilk made a criminal referral of Hutchinson to the Justice Department in recent days, the sources said. He accused Hutchinson of lying to Congress in her summer 2022 testimony when she alleged Trump was aware of the potential for violence on January 6, 2021, and forged ahead with his attempts to rile up his supporters.
.....CNN’s report also followed similar reporting from 2024 about Loudermilk and his committee specifically focusing its energies on Hutchinson, a former aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. (Relatedly, Kash Patel, before the podcast personality became the FBI director, included Hutchinson on his notorious “government gangsters” enemies list.)
Based on the publicly available information, there’s no reason to believe Hutchinson, who delivered stunning Jan. 6 testimony nearly four years ago, did anything wrong. What’s more, there’s no reason to believe the criminal referral will amount to anything: In the last Congress, the same Republican-led panel asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into former House GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney for foolish reasons that collapsed under scrutiny, and the referral was ignored.
But given the degree to which the Trump DOJ is (a) controlled by the president; and (b) determined to punish the president’s perceived political foes, it’s probably best not to dismiss these developments out of hand. Watch this space
Cassidy Hutchinson did nothing wrong
March 7, 2026
MaddowBlog-Pentagon's Hegseth slams journalists for emphasizing U.S. troop deaths in Iran war
The Trump administration is still trying to figure out how to talk about service members’ fatalities — and its efforts are not going well.
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pentagons-hegseth-slams-journalists-for-emphasizing-u-s-troop-deaths-in-iran-war
The comments generated immediate criticism for their apparent callousness, but that didn’t stop Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from making matters worse. With regard to weapons that killed American service members abroad, the former Fox News host said Monday: “Every once in a while, you might have a squirter that makes its way through.”
On Wednesday, the Pentagon chief kept going. The New Republic reported:
In other words, the beleaguered secretary believes that independent news organizations covered the war deaths of American service members not because the fatalities were important, but as part of a plot on the part of journalists to undermine the president......
Soon after, during a White House press briefing, a reporter asked press secretary Karoline Leavitt: “Is it the position of this administration that the press should not prominently cover the deaths of U.S. service members?”
The president’s chief spokesperson replied that the Republican administration expects journalists to “report on the success” of the mission. Leavitt added that she believes it’s “a fact” that the nation’s free press “does only want to make the president look bad.”
The White House’s focus, in other words, isn’t solely on a foreign war. Closer to home, it’s also about pushing a falsehood about independent news organizations that prioritize coverage of fallen American soldiers.
On Wednesday, the Pentagon chief kept going. The New Republic reported:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took time from his Wednesday briefing to complain about the media coverage of President Donald Trump’s unauthorized war on Iran.
‘When a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front-page news,’ Hegseth said. ‘I get it — the press only wants to make the president look bad, but try for once to report the reality.’
In other words, the beleaguered secretary believes that independent news organizations covered the war deaths of American service members not because the fatalities were important, but as part of a plot on the part of journalists to undermine the president......
Soon after, during a White House press briefing, a reporter asked press secretary Karoline Leavitt: “Is it the position of this administration that the press should not prominently cover the deaths of U.S. service members?”
The president’s chief spokesperson replied that the Republican administration expects journalists to “report on the success” of the mission. Leavitt added that she believes it’s “a fact” that the nation’s free press “does only want to make the president look bad.”
The White House’s focus, in other words, isn’t solely on a foreign war. Closer to home, it’s also about pushing a falsehood about independent news organizations that prioritize coverage of fallen American soldiers.
March 6, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/maybe-trumps-emphasis-on-gas-prices-wasnt-such-a-good-idea-after-all
MaddowBlog-Maybe Trump's emphasis on gas prices wasn't such a good idea after all
As costs climb and Americans are introduced to the idea of “warflation,” the concept of “The Trump Effect” is taking on a very different kind of meaning.
Remember last week, when Trump emphasized gas prices in his State of the Union address and suggested Americans should judge him on this issue?
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-06T16:09:27.739Z
That wasn’t smart.
Yesterday, however, he managed to make things worse with false claims about “stabilizing†prices.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/maybe-trumps-emphasis-on-gas-prices-wasnt-such-a-good-idea-after-all
In hindsight, the political calculus was misguided: The president knew he was poised to start a war in Iran, and he was almost certainly warned that the conflict would push oil prices higher. But Trump stuck his neck out anyway, effectively telling Americans to judge him on this issue.
Consumers are seeing gasoline prices 27 cents higher since last week, up to $3.25 per gallon on average as of today, according to AAA.
Less than a week into the war, gas prices were up 11% as of late Thursday, and as Friday gets underway the news is no better......
What’s more, when the president wasn’t peddling nonsense, he was expressing indifference. “I don’t have any concern about it,” Trump told Reuters when asked about the higher prices at the pump. “They’ll drop very rapidly when this is over, and if they rise, they rise, but this is far more important than having gasoline prices go up a little bit.”
Whether American consumers find this persuasive remains to be seen.
Behind the scenes, Politico reported that administration officials are desperate to find ways to lower prices. But at this point, they appear short on ideas.....
As costs climb, and Americans are introduced to the idea of “warflation,” the concept of “The Trump Effect” is taking on a very different kind of meaning.
A week later, it’s increasingly clear how not smart that was. MS NOW noted Thursday as part of the network’s live blog coverage:
Oil prices have risen about 20% this week, with U.S. crude oil at $82 per barrel this afternoon.
Consumers are seeing gasoline prices 27 cents higher since last week, up to $3.25 per gallon on average as of today, according to AAA.
Less than a week into the war, gas prices were up 11% as of late Thursday, and as Friday gets underway the news is no better......
What’s more, when the president wasn’t peddling nonsense, he was expressing indifference. “I don’t have any concern about it,” Trump told Reuters when asked about the higher prices at the pump. “They’ll drop very rapidly when this is over, and if they rise, they rise, but this is far more important than having gasoline prices go up a little bit.”
Whether American consumers find this persuasive remains to be seen.
Behind the scenes, Politico reported that administration officials are desperate to find ways to lower prices. But at this point, they appear short on ideas.....
As costs climb, and Americans are introduced to the idea of “warflation,” the concept of “The Trump Effect” is taking on a very different kind of meaning.
March 6, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/u-s-economy-lost-92000-jobs-in-february-as-trump-era-job-market-continues-to-suffer
MaddowBlog-U.S. economy lost 92,000 jobs in February as Trump-era job market continues to suffer
The more the president insists the economy is amazing, the more we’re confronted with evidence to the contrary.
Job growth over 14 months of Trump’s second term: 150,000 jobs
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-06T14:04:46.620Z
The previous 14 months: 1.74 million jobs
Under Biden: 0 months of job losses
Trump’s second term: losses in two of the last three months, three of the last five months, and five of the last nine months.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/u-s-economy-lost-92000-jobs-in-february-as-trump-era-job-market-continues-to-suffer
Expectations heading into this week showed projections of about 50,000 new jobs being created in the United States in February. As it turns out, according to the new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the totals fell far short of those expectations. CNBC reported:
There is no good news here. In fact, during Joe Biden’s four years in the White House, there wasn’t a single month in which the U.S. economy actually lost jobs. It’s become far more common lately: The economy not only shed jobs in February, it also lost jobs in two of the last three months, three of the last five months and five of the last nine months.
All told, Donald Trump has been in the White House for 14 months, and during that time the cumulative total is 150,000 jobs. Over the 14 months preceding the Republican president’s return to power, the American economy added 1.74 million jobs.....
To contextualize the data, I put together this chart to show month-to-month totals since the 2020 election. The blue columns point to Biden’s presidency, while the red columns point to Trump’s.
It remains to be seen whether the president responds to the developments by firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (again).
The question for the White House remains simple: If Trump has created the greatest economy in history, why has American job growth slowed to its lowest pace since the Great Recession?
Nonfarm payrolls fell by 92,000 for the month, compared to the estimate for 50,000 and below the downwardly revised January total of 126,000. February marked the third time in the past five months that payrolls declined, following a sharp revision showing a drop of 17,000 in December.
At the same time, the unemployment rate edged higher to 4.4% as jobs declined across key areas.
There is no good news here. In fact, during Joe Biden’s four years in the White House, there wasn’t a single month in which the U.S. economy actually lost jobs. It’s become far more common lately: The economy not only shed jobs in February, it also lost jobs in two of the last three months, three of the last five months and five of the last nine months.
All told, Donald Trump has been in the White House for 14 months, and during that time the cumulative total is 150,000 jobs. Over the 14 months preceding the Republican president’s return to power, the American economy added 1.74 million jobs.....
To contextualize the data, I put together this chart to show month-to-month totals since the 2020 election. The blue columns point to Biden’s presidency, while the red columns point to Trump’s.
It remains to be seen whether the president responds to the developments by firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (again).
The question for the White House remains simple: If Trump has created the greatest economy in history, why has American job growth slowed to its lowest pace since the Great Recession?
March 6, 2026
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/markwayne-mullin-now-romantically
The Borowitz Report-Markwayne Mullin Now Romantically Linked to Corey Lewandowski
Markwayne Mullin Now Romantically Linked to Corey Lewandowski
— (@nippynewman.bsky.social) 2026-03-06T14:49:18.259Z
open.substack.com/pub/borowitz...
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/markwayne-mullin-now-romantically
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Since being nominated to replace Kristi Noem as head of DHS on Thursday, Senator Markwayne Mullin has suddenly found himself romantically linked to her former chief of staff, Corey Lewandowski.
After receiving a barrage of late-night texts from Lewandowski, a flustered Mullin reportedly told associates, “This isn’t what I signed up for.”
At the White House, Donald J. Trump said that Mullin needs to give the relationship with Lewandowski “some time,” adding, “Corey can be a little rough around the edges, but Markwayne will learn to love him.”
After receiving a barrage of late-night texts from Lewandowski, a flustered Mullin reportedly told associates, “This isn’t what I signed up for.”
At the White House, Donald J. Trump said that Mullin needs to give the relationship with Lewandowski “some time,” adding, “Corey can be a little rough around the edges, but Markwayne will learn to love him.”
March 6, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/pete-hegseth-2675597881/
Hegseth fired all of the senior JAG officers because he wanted to have free hand to conduct his attacks without having those darn lawyers telling him that he is breaking international law
Hegseth's 'quiet death' strike may constitute a war crime: analysis
Hegseth is bragging about committing a war crime. Hegseth sank an unarmed ship in international waters. That is a war crime
Hegseth's 'quiet death' strike may constitute a war crime: analysis
— #TuckFrump (@realtuckfrumper.bsky.social) 2026-03-06T00:50:20.000Z
https://www.rawstory.com/pete-hegseth-2675597881/
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's latest "quiet death" strike may amount to a war crime, according to one analysis.
This week, it was revealed that the U.S. torpedoed an Iranian warship called the "IRIS Dena" off the coast of Sri Lanka while it was returning home from planned military exercises with India. The torpedo killed more than 80 Iranian soldiers. It was the first time in 80 years that the U.S. had sunk an enemy warship in international waters, according to reports, and sparked outrage from Iranian officials like foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, who described it as an "atrocity."
In the wake of the operation, Hegseth described it as "quiet death" during his public remarks on Wednesday, Time Magazine reported.
Mary Trump, a psychologist and author, argued in a new Substack essay that Hegseth's comments revealed the "reckless and deeply troubling mentality guiding the Trump regime’s military decisions."
"Legal experts have noted that sinking a ship in international waters, particularly one reportedly unarmed and returning from a training exercise, could constitute a war crime under international law," she wrote.
This week, it was revealed that the U.S. torpedoed an Iranian warship called the "IRIS Dena" off the coast of Sri Lanka while it was returning home from planned military exercises with India. The torpedo killed more than 80 Iranian soldiers. It was the first time in 80 years that the U.S. had sunk an enemy warship in international waters, according to reports, and sparked outrage from Iranian officials like foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, who described it as an "atrocity."
In the wake of the operation, Hegseth described it as "quiet death" during his public remarks on Wednesday, Time Magazine reported.
Mary Trump, a psychologist and author, argued in a new Substack essay that Hegseth's comments revealed the "reckless and deeply troubling mentality guiding the Trump regime’s military decisions."
"Legal experts have noted that sinking a ship in international waters, particularly one reportedly unarmed and returning from a training exercise, could constitute a war crime under international law," she wrote.
Hegseth fired all of the senior JAG officers because he wanted to have free hand to conduct his attacks without having those darn lawyers telling him that he is breaking international law
March 6, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-iran-2675593623
'Unconscionable': Fury as investigation finds US likely killed 175 in Iran school strike
It was US bombs that killed all of these young girls.
Political analysts and observers were outraged on Thursday after an investigation determined that the U.S. was likely responsible for a Feb. 28 strike on a girls' school in Iran that killed 175 civilians, many of whom were children.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-03-05T23:55:15Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-iran-2675593623
Political analysts and observers were outraged on Thursday after an investigation determined that the U.S. was likely responsible for a Feb. 28 strike on a girls' school in Iran that killed 175 civilians, many of whom were children.
The New York Times reported on Thursday that the strike on the girls' school in Minab was "severely damaged" around the same time that U.S. forces were conducting an attack against an "adjacent naval base operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps." The Times added that "official statements ... suggest they were most likely to have carried out the strike."
"In the several days since the attack, U.S. officials have neither confirmed nor denied responsibility," according to the report. "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday that an investigation was underway. Nadav Shoshani, an Israeli military spokesman, told reporters on Sunday that 'as of now,' he was not aware of any Israeli military operation 'in that area' at the time."
"U.S. officials in public statements have indicated that on the day in question, U.S. planes were conducting operations in the region where the school was located," it added.
Political analysts and observers expressed outrage on social media.
"It is unconscionable that there has still been no attempt by either the US or Israel to account, let alone apologise, for the killing last Saturday of more than 150 people at the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab, southern Iran," Peter Westmacott, former British Ambassador to Turkey, posted on X.
The New York Times reported on Thursday that the strike on the girls' school in Minab was "severely damaged" around the same time that U.S. forces were conducting an attack against an "adjacent naval base operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps." The Times added that "official statements ... suggest they were most likely to have carried out the strike."
"In the several days since the attack, U.S. officials have neither confirmed nor denied responsibility," according to the report. "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday that an investigation was underway. Nadav Shoshani, an Israeli military spokesman, told reporters on Sunday that 'as of now,' he was not aware of any Israeli military operation 'in that area' at the time."
"U.S. officials in public statements have indicated that on the day in question, U.S. planes were conducting operations in the region where the school was located," it added.
Political analysts and observers expressed outrage on social media.
"It is unconscionable that there has still been no attempt by either the US or Israel to account, let alone apologise, for the killing last Saturday of more than 150 people at the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab, southern Iran," Peter Westmacott, former British Ambassador to Turkey, posted on X.
March 6, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/for-kristi-noems-many-critics-her-ouster-is-the-first-step-not-the-last
MaddowBlog-For Kristi Noem's many critics, her ouster is the first step, not the last
“Turns out lawlessness is not a winning strategy,” one Democratic senator said. “See you at Nuremberg 2.0.”
As Kristi Noem exits DHS, many of her critics see this as the first step, not the last.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-05T21:06:46.634Z
The list of Democrats eyeing post-DHS “accountability†for the hapless secretary is not short.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/for-kristi-noems-many-critics-her-ouster-is-the-first-step-not-the-last
It’s been obvious for months that Donald Trump’s White House Cabinet is filled with highly controversial and unqualified loyalists who have no business leading federal departments and agencies. But 14 months into the president’s tenure, he refused to fire any of them.
That is, until now. MS NOW reported:
In an announcement posted to his social media platform, the president said Noem “has served us well.” There’s ample evidence to the contrary......
In the meantime, there are a couple of angles to keep in mind going forward. The first is that congressional Democrats demanded Noem’s ouster as part of the negotiations over funding for DHS, and the latest developments might actually help move policymakers closer to a deal to end the ongoing shutdown.
The second, however, is that for Noem’s many critics, her departure is the first step, not the last.
At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, for example, Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont told Noem, “You’re the secretary of DHS — for now — and you think you’re immune from accountability. But I promise you this: One day, he [Trump] is not going to be president anymore. He is not going to be in charge. And when that day comes, we will still be here, and we will still be seeking accountability. And in hearings like this, we are going to continue to prove your guilt.”
A day later, responding to the president’s announcement, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote online, in reference to Noem: “Turns out lawlessness is not a winning strategy. See you at Nuremberg 2.0.”
That is, until now. MS NOW reported:
Kristi Noem, the face of some of the Trump administration’s most high-profile immigration controversies over the past year, was ousted Thursday as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a day after she faced intense grilling from lawmakers in Congress.
President Donald Trump said he would nominate Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin to replace her at the end of the month.
In an announcement posted to his social media platform, the president said Noem “has served us well.” There’s ample evidence to the contrary......
In the meantime, there are a couple of angles to keep in mind going forward. The first is that congressional Democrats demanded Noem’s ouster as part of the negotiations over funding for DHS, and the latest developments might actually help move policymakers closer to a deal to end the ongoing shutdown.
The second, however, is that for Noem’s many critics, her departure is the first step, not the last.
Balint to Noem: "You're the secretary of DHS -- for now. And you think you're immune from accountability. But I promise you this: one day he is not gonna be president anymore. And when that day comes, we will still be here. And in hearings like this, we are going to continue to prove your guilt."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-03-04T19:13:40.737Z
At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, for example, Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont told Noem, “You’re the secretary of DHS — for now — and you think you’re immune from accountability. But I promise you this: One day, he [Trump] is not going to be president anymore. He is not going to be in charge. And when that day comes, we will still be here, and we will still be seeking accountability. And in hearings like this, we are going to continue to prove your guilt.”
A day later, responding to the president’s announcement, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote online, in reference to Noem: “Turns out lawlessness is not a winning strategy. See you at Nuremberg 2.0.”
March 6, 2026
Bondi and the DOJ do not want State Bar Associations investigation the unethical and incompetent attorneys now working at the DOJ. Halligan should be disbarred
Lindsey Halligan Is Under Investigation by the Florida Bar (NYT gift link)
The actions of Ms. Halligan, who as a U.S. attorney brought criminal cases against President Trump’s enemies, are under review by the organization that licensed her to practice law.
https://x.com/DarAlderson/status/2029662134821367886
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/05/us/politics/lindsey-halligan-investigation-florida-bar.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Q1A.q4l-.DE_3RGfJbitt&smid=nytcore-ios-share
Lindsey Halligan, the former U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia who brought criminal cases against President Trump’s enemies over the objections of career prosecutors, is under investigation by Florida’s bar association, according to a letter the organization sent last month......
An investigation by Florida’s bar association could lead to disbarment, but the process is rigorous and often takes years. Though the bar can open investigations and act as a fact-finder, its recommendations go to an organization called a grievance committee, which has to determine whether there is probable cause to believe an attorney is guilty of misconduct. That recommendation then goes to the state’s courts, which have the power to disbar lawyers.
Still, the prospect of Ms. Halligan losing her license could serve as a check on administration lawyers who have been accused by judges of pushing the boundaries of the law or intentionally misleading the courts, which has happened frequently in recent months. It could also deter attorneys considering working for the Justice Department, which is eagerly looking to hire to replace the many employees who quit or were fired last year.
On Wednesday, the administration posted a notice in the Federal Register that suggested it was seeking to intervene in state bar associations’ disciplinary proceedings.
The Justice Department has no apparent legal authority over state bar disciplinary organizations, and its proposal suggested that it would request that a state bar association “suspend any parallel investigations” until the department completes its own review. But legal experts said that even a request like that by the administration could be interpreted by bar associations as a threat.....
The Florida bar’s investigation into Ms. Halligan centers on her conduct as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, when she went before grand juries to seek indictments against two of Mr. Trump’s longtime targets. Her predecessor was forced out after he determined that there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against those targets, the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and New York’s attorney general, Letitia James.
An investigation by Florida’s bar association could lead to disbarment, but the process is rigorous and often takes years. Though the bar can open investigations and act as a fact-finder, its recommendations go to an organization called a grievance committee, which has to determine whether there is probable cause to believe an attorney is guilty of misconduct. That recommendation then goes to the state’s courts, which have the power to disbar lawyers.
Still, the prospect of Ms. Halligan losing her license could serve as a check on administration lawyers who have been accused by judges of pushing the boundaries of the law or intentionally misleading the courts, which has happened frequently in recent months. It could also deter attorneys considering working for the Justice Department, which is eagerly looking to hire to replace the many employees who quit or were fired last year.
On Wednesday, the administration posted a notice in the Federal Register that suggested it was seeking to intervene in state bar associations’ disciplinary proceedings.
The Justice Department has no apparent legal authority over state bar disciplinary organizations, and its proposal suggested that it would request that a state bar association “suspend any parallel investigations” until the department completes its own review. But legal experts said that even a request like that by the administration could be interpreted by bar associations as a threat.....
The Florida bar’s investigation into Ms. Halligan centers on her conduct as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, when she went before grand juries to seek indictments against two of Mr. Trump’s longtime targets. Her predecessor was forced out after he determined that there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against those targets, the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and New York’s attorney general, Letitia James.
Bondi and the DOJ do not want State Bar Associations investigation the unethical and incompetent attorneys now working at the DOJ. Halligan should be disbarred
March 5, 2026
Section 122 on its face does not apply. This case will be fun to watch
Democratic state attorneys general sue Trump over tariffs
The lawsuit accuses the president of trying to “sidestep” a Supreme Court ruling that overturned many of his previous levies.
https://x.com/washingtonpost/status/2029672064773194139
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/05/tariffs-lawsuit-democrats
A coalition of Democratic-led states sued President Donald Trump on Thursday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing that his newly imposed across-the-board tariffs are illegal.
The suit is led by the Democratic attorneys general from Oregon, New York, California and Arizona along with attorneys general from 18 other states.
They accused Trump of trying to “sidestep” a February Supreme Court ruling that overturned many of his tariffs by using a different statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, as justification for new tariffs.
“The President is attempting to use an obscure law as a tool for his tariffs, and is yet again, going about it illegally,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.....
Trump turned to Section 122 after the Supreme Court struck down his original slate of widespread tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In a 6-3 ruling, the court determined there was nothing in the 1977 law to authorize Trump’s tariffs.
The suit is led by the Democratic attorneys general from Oregon, New York, California and Arizona along with attorneys general from 18 other states.
They accused Trump of trying to “sidestep” a February Supreme Court ruling that overturned many of his tariffs by using a different statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, as justification for new tariffs.
“The President is attempting to use an obscure law as a tool for his tariffs, and is yet again, going about it illegally,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.....
Trump turned to Section 122 after the Supreme Court struck down his original slate of widespread tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In a 6-3 ruling, the court determined there was nothing in the 1977 law to authorize Trump’s tariffs.
Section 122 on its face does not apply. This case will be fun to watch
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 178,495