What does compromising the integrity of a bedrock institution look like?

berg80

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
33,263
Reaction score
27,121
Points
2,820
It looks like this. The link below provides ample examples, more than I expected to find, of how trump has turned the once venerable DoJ in to a farce.


For the purposes of this thread I wanted to focus on a very recent instance with parallels to this.

A. General

Chief Judge James Boasberg (W. Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

On Apr. 3, Judge Boasberg repeatedly asked the government’s counsel for information on the flights the administration was using to transport alleged gang members to El Salvador, and was told that the DOJ had no additional information. In an Apr. 16 memorandum opinion finding probable cause for criminal contempt, Boasberg wrote that he believed “that the Government might be rapidly dispatching removal flights in an apparent effort to evade judicial review while also refusing to provide any helpful information.” He added, “Those later-discovered flight movements, however, were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share.”


Comey case hanging by a thread as judge squeezes DOJ over Halligan’s handling​

Nachmanoff also pressed prosecutors about whether career officials had initially recommended against prosecuting Comey — only to be told by Lemons that the answer could be “privileged.”

Lemons, one of the lead prosecutors in Comey’s case, said the existence of a so-called declination memo — which could outline weaknesses in the case — might be considered internal “work product” material not subject to disclosure. He repeatedly declined to answer questions from Nachmanoff about the existence of a declination memo. Lemons added, however, that he had seen drafts of memos analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the case against Comey.

“I am aware of written correspondence debating whether charges should be brought,” Lemons said as Nachmanoff pressed him.


Judge Nachmanoff obviously wants to see the declination letter written by prosecutors in Halligan's office stating the charges against Comey should not be brought. Those prosecutors are currently refusing to participate in Comey's prosecution which is why Halligan appeared before the grand jury alone. Her inexperience leading to the process being completely botched.

An attorney representing the DoJ, Tyler Lemons.......who is on loan from another office.......eventually admitted "someone" in Deputy AG Todd Blanche's office told him not admit to the existence of the letter.

AI Overview

During a recent court hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney N. Tyler Lemons testified that he was instructed by "someone" in the office of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche not to disclose whether a declination letter or memo, which would have recommended against prosecuting James Comey, existed.

It's just one example of how judges around the country can no longer assume DoJ attorneys have proceeded and or are proceeding in a good faith representation of the truth. trump, he did that.........with a big assist from loyalists Bondi and Blanche.
 
It looks like this. The link below provides ample examples, more than I expected to find, of how trump has turned the once venerable DoJ in to a farce.


For the purposes of this thread I wanted to focus on a very recent instance with parallels to this.

A. General

Chief Judge James Boasberg (W. Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

On Apr. 3, Judge Boasberg repeatedly asked the government’s counsel for information on the flights the administration was using to transport alleged gang members to El Salvador, and was told that the DOJ had no additional information. In an Apr. 16 memorandum opinion finding probable cause for criminal contempt, Boasberg wrote that he believed “that the Government might be rapidly dispatching removal flights in an apparent effort to evade judicial review while also refusing to provide any helpful information.” He added, “Those later-discovered flight movements, however, were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share.”


Comey case hanging by a thread as judge squeezes DOJ over Halligan’s handling​

Nachmanoff also pressed prosecutors about whether career officials had initially recommended against prosecuting Comey — only to be told by Lemons that the answer could be “privileged.”

Lemons, one of the lead prosecutors in Comey’s case, said the existence of a so-called declination memo — which could outline weaknesses in the case — might be considered internal “work product” material not subject to disclosure. He repeatedly declined to answer questions from Nachmanoff about the existence of a declination memo. Lemons added, however, that he had seen drafts of memos analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the case against Comey.

“I am aware of written correspondence debating whether charges should be brought,” Lemons said as Nachmanoff pressed him.


Judge Nachmanoff obviously wants to see the declination letter written by prosecutors in Halligan's office stating the charges against Comey should not be brought. Those prosecutors are currently refusing to participate in Comey's prosecution which is why Halligan appeared before the grand jury alone. Her inexperience leading to the process being completely botched.

An attorney representing the DoJ, Tyler Lemons.......who is on loan from another office.......eventually admitted "someone" in Deputy AG Todd Blanche's office told him not admit to the existence of the letter.

AI Overview

During a recent court hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney N. Tyler Lemons testified that he was instructed by "someone" in the office of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche not to disclose whether a declination letter or memo, which would have recommended against prosecuting James Comey, existed.

It's just one example of how judges around the country can no longer assume DoJ attorneys have proceeded and or are proceeding in a good faith representation of the truth. trump, he did that.........with a big assist from loyalists Bondi and Blanche.
I suspect this has been a combination of two things: (1) this inexplicable disease that lawyers get that make them want to enter his orbit despite all the danger signs, and (2) Trump's spectacular ignorance of law, the Constitution, and fundamental decency.

So Trump hires someone, they take the job, he instructs them to launch an absurd case, and they do what they can. This has happened over and over and over. Ultimately the lawyer is crucified by the judge (even Trump judges), and then sanctions and disbarrments may follow.

It's inexplicable how anyone -- especially a lawyer -- wouldn't know that anyone who enters the orange orbit is likely to exit it, stained and soiled.
 
I suspect this has been a combination of two things: (1) this inexplicable disease that lawyers get that make them want to enter his orbit despite all the danger signs, and (2) Trump's spectacular ignorance of law, the Constitution, and fundamental decency.

So Trump hires someone, they take the job, he instructs them to launch an absurd case, and they do what they can. This has happened over and over and over. Ultimately the lawyer is crucified by the judge (even Trump judges), and then sanctions and disbarrments may follow.

It's inexplicable how anyone -- especially a lawyer -- wouldn't know that anyone who enters the orange orbit is likely to exit it, stained and soiled.
I don't know how Halligan, or any DoJ attorney willing to associate themselves with the Comey prosecution, comes out of this either not being disbarred or having their reputation in legal circles ruined.

Because their behavior goes beyond participating in a bogus prosecution. It includes disrespect for the authority of the court. And it's just one example.

11. “Flip-flopping—in sworn declarations—rais[ing] severe concern,” “consistently refused to give … the full story,” providing “cagey answers,” “omitting key information,” and “repeated[ ] represent[ations]” that “strain credulity.”

Judge Royce C. Lamberth (Reagan appointee), Abramowitz. v. Lake,1:25-cv-00887 (D.D.C.) and Widakuswara. v. Lake, 1:25-cv-01015 (D.D.C.) (related cases)

This cases involve the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the firing of journalists from the Voice of America (VOA) media outlet.

In a Jul. 30 show-cause order addressing both cases, Judge Lamberth wrote that the government had

“consistently refused to give the Court the full story regarding personnel actions. … the defendants continue to provide cagey answers and omit key information. … And perhaps more shockingly, on July 8—the day this Court ordered a second round of supplemental briefing, and a full ten days before the defendants filed the second supplemental memorandum—the defendants informed Plaintiff Michael Abramowitz that he would be removed from his position as Director of VOA. … However, the defendants made no mention of this monumental personnel decision in their filings to this Court.” (emphasis added).
Lamberth further wrote that the government was

“providing misleading and contradictory information … The defendants’ descriptions of their activities are cryptic and even misleading … And troublingly, the crumbs of data provided suggest the defendants are ignoring several statutory mandates. … [T]he defendants have also made contradictory representations to the Court. … This sort of flip-flopping—in sworn declarations— raises severe concern and provides yet another basis for entering a show cause order for the defendants to provide a truthful, accurate, and detailed plan regarding VOA’s ongoing operations.”
Update 1:

In a Sept. 29 memorandum order addressing enforcement of the Apr. 22 PI, Judge Lamberth wrote that defendants and DOJ counsel “repeatedly represented”—both on paper and at the Aug. 25 hearing—that any reduction in force (RIF) was only a “possibility” and subject to “uncertainty.” Given what followed, he concluded those representations “strain credulity.”
 

Judges Openly Doubt Government as Justice Dept. Misleads and Dodges Orders​

Justice Department lawyers have long enjoyed a professional benefit when they appear in court. As a general rule, judges tend to take them at their word and assume they are telling the truth.

But in the past several months, as members of President Trump’s Justice Department have repeatedly misled the courts, violated their orders and demonized judges who have ruled against them, some jurists have started to show an angry loss of faith in the people and the institution they once believed in most.

The dissolution of these traditional bonds of trust — known in legal circles as the presumption of regularity — goes well beyond judges’ use of blunt words — “egregious,” “brazen,” “lawless” — to describe the various parts of Mr. Trump’s power-grabbing policy agenda.

Ultimately, legal experts say, the actions that caused such doubts among judges about the department and those who represent it could have a more systemic effect and erode the healthy functioning of the courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/04/...3269&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc
 
Putin, and all the world's despots, would be thrilled to see trump has succeeded in getting you to believe the lies he has endlessly repeated about the DoJ. Because it had the audacity to attempt prosecuting him for his many crimes.
Youre a fuckin moonbat bro.
 
You aren't the first trumple to resort to gratuitous insults due to an inability to defend Dear Leader.

I've never seen Harley defend Trump.

I'm not fan but for some reason I'm a "Trumpster"
 
I cant stand that fat ****, dumb ass.

15. Failing to “to offer any explanation, let alone one supported by the record;” court saying “can’t get a straight answer from you”

Judge Amir H. Ali (Biden appointee), AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State, 1:25-cv-00400 (D.D.C.) and Global Health Council v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00402 (D.D.C.)

These cases involve the Trump administration’s freeze on Congressionally-allocated humanitarian assistance and other foreign aid. Following the court’s Feb. 13 TRO, Judge Ali voiced frustration at apparent noncompliance, telling the government: “I don’t know why I can’t get a straight answer from you.” In a Mar. memorandum opinion granting in part a preliminary injunction requiring the administration to pay for aid work already completed by contractors and foreign assistance groups, Judge Ali wrote that the government had “yet to offer any explanation, let alone one supported by the record, for why a blanket suspension . . . was a rational precursor to reviewing programs.” Ali wrote that the government had “not proffered any evidence” to support their assertion that waivers offered by the Department of State “provided any meaningful relief from the blanket freeze.
 
It looks like this. The link below provides ample examples, more than I expected to find, of how trump has turned the once venerable DoJ in to a farce.


For the purposes of this thread I wanted to focus on a very recent instance with parallels to this.

A. General

Chief Judge James Boasberg (W. Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

On Apr. 3, Judge Boasberg repeatedly asked the government’s counsel for information on the flights the administration was using to transport alleged gang members to El Salvador, and was told that the DOJ had no additional information. In an Apr. 16 memorandum opinion finding probable cause for criminal contempt, Boasberg wrote that he believed “that the Government might be rapidly dispatching removal flights in an apparent effort to evade judicial review while also refusing to provide any helpful information.” He added, “Those later-discovered flight movements, however, were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share.”


Comey case hanging by a thread as judge squeezes DOJ over Halligan’s handling​

Nachmanoff also pressed prosecutors about whether career officials had initially recommended against prosecuting Comey — only to be told by Lemons that the answer could be “privileged.”

Lemons, one of the lead prosecutors in Comey’s case, said the existence of a so-called declination memo — which could outline weaknesses in the case — might be considered internal “work product” material not subject to disclosure. He repeatedly declined to answer questions from Nachmanoff about the existence of a declination memo. Lemons added, however, that he had seen drafts of memos analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the case against Comey.

“I am aware of written correspondence debating whether charges should be brought,” Lemons said as Nachmanoff pressed him.


Judge Nachmanoff obviously wants to see the declination letter written by prosecutors in Halligan's office stating the charges against Comey should not be brought. Those prosecutors are currently refusing to participate in Comey's prosecution which is why Halligan appeared before the grand jury alone. Her inexperience leading to the process being completely botched.

An attorney representing the DoJ, Tyler Lemons.......who is on loan from another office.......eventually admitted "someone" in Deputy AG Todd Blanche's office told him not admit to the existence of the letter.

AI Overview

During a recent court hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney N. Tyler Lemons testified that he was instructed by "someone" in the office of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche not to disclose whether a declination letter or memo, which would have recommended against prosecuting James Comey, existed.

It's just one example of how judges around the country can no longer assume DoJ attorneys have proceeded and or are proceeding in a good faith representation of the truth. trump, he did that.........with a big assist from loyalists Bondi and Blanche.


Looks like this.....................


Donald Trump has been charged in four separate criminal indictments brought between March and August 2023, comprising roughly 88–91 criminal counts across federal and state jurisdictions; reporting and trackers give totals like 88 (Ballotpedia) and 91 (CREW/indivisible) counts while noting some counts were dismissed and at least 34 convictions occurred in New York before later sentence actions <a href="Donald Trump indictments, 2023-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1]</a> <a href="Trump's 88 criminal charges and where they stand - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[2]</a> <a href="Indictments against Donald Trump - Wikipedia" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3]</a>. The four cases include: New York state falsified‑business‑records charges (34 counts), a federal classified‑documents indictment in Florida (dozens of counts, many about willful retention of national defense information), a federal Jan. 6 election‑related indictment in D.C. (originally 4 counts, later revised), and a Georgia state indictment about election interference (initially up to 13 counts, later 8) <a href="Donald Trump indictments, 2023-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1</a>
 
If you dont buy into his retarded political dogma, you are a trump supporter. How stupid can you be?

2-c. “Willful and bad faith refusal” to comply with expedited discovery obligations, with DOJ “counsel stubbornly refus[ing] to provide any basis for” “non-particularized” privilege claims

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

This case involves the government’s admission that the administration unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

On Apr. 22, addressing DOJ’s objections to discovery, Judge Xinis wrote that its position “reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations” (emphasis added). She found that “Defendants and counsel stubbornly refuse to provide any basis for” their privilege claims—which she said were being used “as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court’s orders”—and that they relied on “boilerplate, non-particularized objections” which the court deemed “presumptively invalid” and “reflect a willful refusal to comply.” Their refusal to identify all individuals involved in Garcia’s removal and detention, she added, “reflects a deliberate evasion of their fundamental discovery obligations” and “can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance” (emphasis added).

On May 7, the court ordered the government to file a privilege log by May 12. On May 13, Judge Xinis noted that “evidently missing from Defendants’ filing is a privilege log,” directed the government to cure the “deficiency,” and warned that continued failure “will be construed as an intentional refusal to comply with this Court’s orders.” During the May 16 hearing on discovery motions, Judge Xinis underscored that “this Court has found more than once that you haven’t complied, and you haven’t in bad faith,” adding, “The whole reason we’re here is because I’ve said repeatedly you’ve done nothing, and now you tell the world you’re not going to do anything.” She further remarked that the court-ordered depositions from key officials had yielded a “goose egg.”
 

2-c. “Willful and bad faith refusal” to comply with expedited discovery obligations, with DOJ “counsel stubbornly refus[ing] to provide any basis for” “non-particularized” privilege claims

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

This case involves the government’s admission that the administration unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

On Apr. 22, addressing DOJ’s objections to discovery, Judge Xinis wrote that its position “reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations” (emphasis added). She found that “Defendants and counsel stubbornly refuse to provide any basis for” their privilege claims—which she said were being used “as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court’s orders”—and that they relied on “boilerplate, non-particularized objections” which the court deemed “presumptively invalid” and “reflect a willful refusal to comply.” Their refusal to identify all individuals involved in Garcia’s removal and detention, she added, “reflects a deliberate evasion of their fundamental discovery obligations” and “can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance” (emphasis added).

On May 7, the court ordered the government to file a privilege log by May 12. On May 13, Judge Xinis noted that “evidently missing from Defendants’ filing is a privilege log,” directed the government to cure the “deficiency,” and warned that continued failure “will be construed as an intentional refusal to comply with this Court’s orders.” During the May 16 hearing on discovery motions, Judge Xinis underscored that “this Court has found more than once that you haven’t complied, and you haven’t in bad faith,” adding, “The whole reason we’re here is because I’ve said repeatedly you’ve done nothing, and now you tell the world you’re not going to do anything.” She further remarked that the court-ordered depositions from key officials had yielded a “goose egg.”
you just dont get it do you?...
 
15th post

Judges Openly Doubt Government as Justice Dept. Misleads and Dodges Orders​

Justice Department lawyers have long enjoyed a professional benefit when they appear in court. As a general rule, judges tend to take them at their word and assume they are telling the truth.

But in the past several months, as members of President Trump’s Justice Department have repeatedly misled the courts, violated their orders and demonized judges who have ruled against them, some jurists have started to show an angry loss of faith in the people and the institution they once believed in most.

The dissolution of these traditional bonds of trust — known in legal circles as the presumption of regularity — goes well beyond judges’ use of blunt words — “egregious,” “brazen,” “lawless” — to describe the various parts of Mr. Trump’s power-grabbing policy agenda.

Ultimately, legal experts say, the actions that caused such doubts among judges about the department and those who represent it could have a more systemic effect and erode the healthy functioning of the courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/04/us/politics/trump-justice-department-judges-courts.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20250805&instance_id=159904&nl=today's-headlines&regi_id=65145149&segment_id=203269&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc
Like other blind loyalist attorneys Trump has used, Halligan is in completely over her head. Isn't she an insurance lawyer?

Swearing obedience and wearing Mar-A-Lago-level makeup does not a competent attorney make. Trump just can't get that obvious fact through his thick skull and disordered mind.
 
Like other blind loyalist attorneys Trump has used, Halligan is in completely over her head. Isn't she an insurance lawyer?

Swearing obedience and wearing Mar-A-Lago-level makeup does not a competent attorney make. Trump just can't get that obvious fact through his thick skull and disordered mind.
His back was to the wall since the statute of limitations was going to expire. So Dotard grabbed the only attorney loyal enough to get the charges filed in time while making a fool of herself, a mockery of justice, and the DoJ's fidelity to the law.
 
It looks like this. The link below provides ample examples, more than I expected to find, of how trump has turned the once venerable DoJ in to a farce.


For the purposes of this thread I wanted to focus on a very recent instance with parallels to this.

A. General

Chief Judge James Boasberg (W. Bush appointee; Obama appointee), J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.)

This case involves the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

On Apr. 3, Judge Boasberg repeatedly asked the government’s counsel for information on the flights the administration was using to transport alleged gang members to El Salvador, and was told that the DOJ had no additional information. In an Apr. 16 memorandum opinion finding probable cause for criminal contempt, Boasberg wrote that he believed “that the Government might be rapidly dispatching removal flights in an apparent effort to evade judicial review while also refusing to provide any helpful information.” He added, “Those later-discovered flight movements, however, were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share.”


Comey case hanging by a thread as judge squeezes DOJ over Halligan’s handling​

Nachmanoff also pressed prosecutors about whether career officials had initially recommended against prosecuting Comey — only to be told by Lemons that the answer could be “privileged.”

Lemons, one of the lead prosecutors in Comey’s case, said the existence of a so-called declination memo — which could outline weaknesses in the case — might be considered internal “work product” material not subject to disclosure. He repeatedly declined to answer questions from Nachmanoff about the existence of a declination memo. Lemons added, however, that he had seen drafts of memos analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the case against Comey.

“I am aware of written correspondence debating whether charges should be brought,” Lemons said as Nachmanoff pressed him.


Judge Nachmanoff obviously wants to see the declination letter written by prosecutors in Halligan's office stating the charges against Comey should not be brought. Those prosecutors are currently refusing to participate in Comey's prosecution which is why Halligan appeared before the grand jury alone. Her inexperience leading to the process being completely botched.

An attorney representing the DoJ, Tyler Lemons.......who is on loan from another office.......eventually admitted "someone" in Deputy AG Todd Blanche's office told him not admit to the existence of the letter.

AI Overview

During a recent court hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney N. Tyler Lemons testified that he was instructed by "someone" in the office of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche not to disclose whether a declination letter or memo, which would have recommended against prosecuting James Comey, existed.

It's just one example of how judges around the country can no longer assume DoJ attorneys have proceeded and or are proceeding in a good faith representation of the truth. trump, he did that.........with a big assist from loyalists Bondi and Blanche.

The left has had this playbook for years.

OIP.uyHbWaXTA3PoQrSEqVruQAHaEj
 

What does compromising the integrity of a bedrock institution look like?​


Like Democrats since the 1960s.
 
Back
Top Bottom