Trump’s new favorite prosecutor is flubbing it big time

On Monday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey dropped two motions to dismiss his criminal case. Both are related to, in part, the antics of one Lindsey Halligan, everyone’s favorite insurance lawyer turned interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

This likely made for a not-fun Monday afternoon for Halligan, but then her day got hilariously worse when Lawfare’s Anna Bower dropped her story that Halligan had texted her out of the blue, via Signal, about the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Bower had tweeted about the Oct. 11 New York Times story revealing that James’s great-niece lives in the Virginia home that is the basis for the mortgage fraud case against James, and that she had testified to a different grand jury that she lived there for many years without paying rent. 

That seems to be what made Lindsey Halligan lose her mind and contact Bower to complain that “your reporting in particular is just way off.” 

New York Attorney General Letitia James, shown in 2019.

This was probably exceedingly confusing for Bower, who does not work for The New York Times, did not write the story, and was doing no reporting. Instead, Bower had merely tweeted about the story.

Nevertheless, every time Bower asked Halligan what was false about the story or her characterization of it, Halligan offered a grievance-fueled response like, “Continue to do what you have been and you’ll be completely discredited when the evidence comes out.” 

Just after Bower contacted the Department of Justice on Monday afternoon for a comment and to confirm the texts were authentic, Bower’s Signal flickered to life with Halligan saying, “By the way—everything I ever sent you is off record. You’re not a journalist so it’s weird saying that but just letting you know.” 

There’s so much to unpack here. 

Halligan referred to Bower as a reporter multiple times in their previous exchanges. More importantly, you can’t declare something off the record retrospectively, much less days after the fact. But when Bower explained this, Halligan came up with a different rationale: “It’s obvious the whole convo is off record. There’s disappearing messages and it’s on signal.”

It is gobsmackingly stupid to think that because you communicate on Signal and set your messages to disappear, it is off the record by default. Even setting that aside, there’s another big problem here: Halligan admitted she had set her phone to automatically delete messages that were official government communications, which are generally supposed to be preserved. (Also, hello? Ever heard of screenshots?)

Is this a good time to mention that Halligan studied broadcast journalism in college and could not feasibly have avoided learning what “off the record” means? Also, did she learn nothing from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Signal fiasco?

Actually, she probably did, which is that Hegseth suffered no consequences whatsoever. 

And Halligan likely won’t lose her job over this, because Trump actually loves this sort of petulant, aggressive weirdness. But she might lose her job over Comey’s motion to dismiss based on asserting that Halligan was unlawfully appointed. Not because Trump cares, but because the courts do.

Two of Trump’s other temporary U.S. attorney appointees, Alina Habba and Sigal Chattah, have already been disqualified because the administration’s attempts to string together temporary appointments to avoid the Senate confirmation process are, well, not legal. Halligan is running up against the same issue and could suffer the same fate. If she does, it could render the indictment against Comey void. If she’s not legally in the job, she can’t legally indict anyone. 

And yes, that would apply to the James case as well, should James go that route. 

Former FBI Director James Comey, shown in 2017.

Comey’s other motion wouldn’t result in Halligan losing her job, at least not as far as a court is concerned. Comey argues the indictment should be dismissed because he is being both vindictively and selectively prosecuted.   

Vindictive prosecution is exactly what it sounds like—that the prosecution is motivated by general animus toward the defendant. And Comey has everything he needs to make that argument. After all, Trump admitted that he fired U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert in favor of Halligan when Siebert wouldn’t bring charges, and then Trump celebrated the indictment on social media, making sure to thank Halligan and FBI Director Kash Patel. So thoughtful! 

To prove selective prosecution, Comey has to show that other similarly situated people were not prosecuted for the same actions. Fortunately for Comey, Trump has multiple past appointees who allegedly lied to Congress.

Let’s roll back to Trump’s first term. As noted in Comey’s motion, there was then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions allegedly making false statements to Congress about his communications with Russia. There was Trump’s then-head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, allegedly lying about his use of a personal email account while he was Oklahoma attorney general. Then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price allegedly fibbed to Congress when he denied getting a sweet discount on buying shares of stock. And remember Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin? He allegedly lied about whether OneWest Bank, where he had been chairman and CEO, had used robo-signing of foreclosure documents.  

It’s tough to get more similarly situated to Comey than these four are. They were all high-level political appointees, all accused of lying to Congress, but only Comey was charged. 

Halligan is wildly overmatched here, but judging by her interactions with Bower, she remains blissfully unaware of that. She clearly thinks she’s running circles around everyone else, that she’s a unique genius who figured out how to indict Trump’s enemies when no one else could. 

In reality, she has no idea what she’s doing and no business doing any of it, which means it will be a delight to see what her office manages to file in response to Comey.  

Jay Jones murder texts latest case of Democrats circling the scandal wagons

Virginia attorney general candidate Jay Jones still has the support of some top Democrats, while others have not called for him to drop out after messages showed him envisioning the murder of a former Republican leader.

At the same time, history shows most Republican scandals are met with intraparty calls to drop out, abandonment of support or other more explicit actions.

Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, defended Jones last week, telling reporters there was a double standard in pressing Democrat Abigail Spanberger to finally call for Jones’ ouster, and Republicans’ reaction to President Donald Trump envisioning whether Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney would continue to be a neoconservative if she was put in a warzone with guns pointed at her.

Virginia Senate President L. Louise Lucas, D-Norfolk, similarly declined to call for Jones to drop out and instead has publicly boosted his candidacy.

RESURFACED SOCIAL MEDIA POST COMES BACK TO HAUNT DISGRACED DEM AG NOMINEE: 'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT'

Spanberger has condemned Jones’ comments, but has offered responses to calls for her to push him out that characterize the choice as up to the voters, not her.

Pressed by reporters Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries suggested Jones’ apologies were sufficient for him to retain Democratic support.

The most prominent Democrat to have the party circle its wagons around them was former President Bill Clinton, who, while embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, saw his party largely oppose efforts to impeach or remove him.

First lady Hillary Clinton famously expressed the view that there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband, while congressional Democrats seeking to avoid an impeachment instead argued a formal censure would be a "historic" statement.

In 1998, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., took to the floor to accuse Republicans of "a misuse of their constitutional responsibility" and "a political vendetta."

In 2006, eight-term New Orleans congressman Rep. William Jefferson was investigated by the FBI for allegedly using his official position to solicit hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes from U.S. companies interested in doing business in Africa, according to a bureau release.

Nearly $100,000 was famously found hidden inside a Pillsbury pie crust box in his freezer, and the FBI found at least 11 "distinct" bribery schemes amid their probe.

JAY JONES’ ‘TWO BULLETS’ SCANDAL OVER VIOLENT TEXTS EXPECTED TO DOMINATE VIRGINIA AG DEBATE

As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., opposed efforts to remove Jefferson from the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

He said Jefferson deserves to be presumed innocent and criticized the lack of precedent being purportedly weaponized against a Black man.

One top Democrat broke ranks: Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Jefferson that in the interest of the House Democratic Caucus’ "high ethical standard," she requested his "immediate resignation" from Ways & Means.

Eventually, Democrats voted 99-58 within their ranks to see Jefferson removed, and he was later booted from the panel by a full-House voice vote.

Jefferson’s scandal was so severe, Republican upstart Joseph Cao defeated him in Democratic-supermajority New Orleans in a hurricane-delayed 2008 election by 50-47%.

When a racist group-chat of young Republicans from several states was leaked and reported in the press, Democrats who had declined to call for Jones’ ouster were quick to condemn the situation – but were also joined by Republicans.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has not called for Jones to withdraw, said Wednesday that "too many Republican leaders seem willing to call out violent rhetoric only when it comes from the other side. But these same Republicans never seem willing to denounce it when it comes from their own ranks, and that’s dangerous."

LIBERAL MEDIA DOWNPLAYS SCANDAL OF DEM VIRGINIA AG HOPEFUL JAY JONES' TEXTS FANTASIZING MURDER OF GOP LAWMAKER

However, several prominent Republicans did condemn the chats, including multiple New York lawmakers like Reps. Mike Lawler and Elise Stefanik. Several of the chats allegedly were written by young Republicans from that state.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott also quickly condemned the chat after state Sen. Samuel Douglass of Orleans was entangled in the story:

"Those involved should resign from their roles immediately and leave the Republican Party," Scott said.

The last time Virginia was at the center of a scandal like this, then-Sen. George Allen, R-Va., was a popular incumbent and former governor — and the son and namesake of the Washington Redskins’ legendary coach.

In 2006, Allen was at a rally near Breaks Interstate Park on the Kentucky line when he noticed a young activist of South Asian descent filming him. Allen pointed to him and referred to him by a French-colonial slang referencing monkeys.

"Folks we're going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas, and it’s important that we motivate and inspire people for something," Allen said, before turning to the man.

"This fella here over here with the yellow shirt, [slur] or whatever his name is – he’s with my opponent," Allen said, joking it would be challenger Jim Webb’s only opportunity to see people in rural Virginia secondhand.

JOE SCARBOROUGH TELLS DEM CANDIDATE JAY JONES TO LEAVE RACE OVER VIOLENT COMMENTS AGAINST GOP LAWMAKER

While the left latched onto the incident, some Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona expressed sympathy for the gaffe, criticism was more vocal even if calls to drop out were not as pronounced.

Then-Iowa GOP leader Mike Mehaffey publicly said Allen needed to "make it clear" that he made a mistake and that he should never have said it.

Allen’s campaign imploded, and a race that was supposed to be a wide-margin win for the GOP ended in a one-point loss to Webb – who in turn cited his Navy secretaryship in the Reagan administration as a reach across the aisle to disaffected Allen fans.

In other Republican cases, however, intraparty comeuppance was more pronounced.

Then-Sen. Larry Craig, R-Wyo., was convicted of lewd conduct after a police officer accused him of potentially soliciting sex in a Minnesota airport bathroom during a June 2009 sting operation.

By late September, Craig had resigned from Congress amid a barrage of intraparty backlash.

"I think he should resign," McCain said at the time, as then-Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., also called for his ouster.

DEMOCRATS UNDER FIRE FOR STANDING BY VIRGINIA AG HOPEFUL WHO JOKED ABOUT SHOOTING GOP RIVAL

House Republican leaders also criticized Craig, with Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., saying his conduct was "inappropriate for a U.S. Senator." Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee also issued condemnations, while the Bush White House was also reportedly disappointed.

Former Rep. Mark Foley’s career also imploded in similar fashion in 2006 after the Florida Republican was found to have sent sexually inappropriate messages to Capitol Hill pages.

While outlets like the UK Guardian at the time reported that some Republicans tried to "cover up" the scandal before it broke, the White House swiftly condemned Foley when the texts came to light.

"The White House and the president were just as shocked as everyone else," Bush adviser Dan Bartlett told CNN, suggesting there should or would be a criminal investigation to come.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., took to the "Rush Limbaugh Show" to condemn talk that he or other top GOP leaders had not acted swift enough or knew previously of Foley’s texts.

Hastert and House Republican leaders John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Roy Blunt, R-Mo., later called Foley’s texts "unacceptable and abhorrent."

Meanwhile, "quit or be expelled" was the message from the GOP to Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio in 2006 after he was implicated in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Abramoff, a powerful Republican lobbyist, had been accused of bribing lawmakers with trips and luxury gifts.

The late Tony Snow – a former Fox News anchor and later Bush White House press secretary – called for Ney’s resignation and called the allegations "not a reflection of the Republican Party," according to The Seattle Times at the time.

Hastert and multiple other Republicans quickly called for Ney to resign and offered similar advice to other lawmakers caught up in Abramoff’s web.

Hochul’s office silent when pressed if she sticks by ‘no one is above the law’ belief amid AG’s indictment

New York Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul offered her support of Empire State Attorney General Letitia James when she was first indicted on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution, following years of the New York governor celebrating legal challenges originating in her home state and elsewhere against President Donald Trump. 

"New Yorkers know @NewYorkStateAGJames for her integrity, her independence, and her relentless fight for justice," Hochul posted to X following James' indictment. "What we're seeing today is nothing less than the weaponization of the Justice Department to punish those who hold the powerful accountable." 

A grand jury in Virginia indicted James Thursday, months after Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte said in a criminal referral to the Department of Justice in April that James allegedly falsified mortgage records to obtain more favorable loans. She faces charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Pulte alleged in his criminal referral that James purchased a home in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2023, but identified it as her primary residence on mortgage documents and a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac form. James is legally required to live in New York as a statewide elected official in that state. 

LEGAL EXPERT CALLS OUT 'IRONIC' TWIST AS NY AG WHO PROSECUTED TRUMP FACES FEDERAL BANK FRAUD CHARGES

"No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust," U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan said when James was indicted. "The facts and the law in this case are clear, and we will continue following them to ensure that justice is served."

Hochul, as well as other prominent Democrats, have pointed to the indictment as alleged "political weaponization" and political persecution of a Trump foe at the hands of the administration. 

James and Trump have long traded barbs, with James campaigning for the attorney general job in 2018 by vowing to pursue legal charges against Trump if elected. Her office ultimately filed nearly 100 legal challenges against the first Trump administration and vowed to continue the legal battles upon his re-election in November 2024. 

MAMDANI ASSAILS TRUMP FOR 'POLITICAL RETRIBUTION' AGAINST LETITIA JAMES IN SWEEPING DEFENSE OF EMBATTLED AG

Trump accused Democrats of waging lawfare — which is understood as leveraging the courts to gain political advantage — as a last-ditch attempt to prevent him from running for the Oval Office again in the 2024 cycle and securing another federal election win. Trump, for example, was indicted and found guilty in a New York case that accused him of falsifying business records, he was indicted on racketeering charges in Georgia, faced federal criminal cases claiming he mishandled sensitive government documents after his first presidency, and another claiming he attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. 

Trump also faced civil cases, including James accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of inflating asset values in a lawsuit that found Trump and his companies liable. 

Fox News Digital took a look back at Hochul's previous comments on Trump and the legal cases that plagued the president during his first administration through his interim as the 45th and 47th president, and found the governor frequently celebrated cases that conservatives identified as "lawfare." 

Fox News Digital reached out to Hochul's office for comment on her past remarks on legal cases against Trump as she promotes the narrative that the administration is weaponizng the justice system against political foes, but did not immediately receive a reply. Fox Digital specifically asked if Hochul stands by her previous comments that "no one is above the law," considering James' indictment, but did not receive replies. 

Trump is the first and only president to be impeached twice by the House, with Hochul remaking during his first impeachment in 2019 — which accused him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to allegedly seeking foreign interference from Ukraine to boost his re-election efforts in 2020 — that no one is above the law.

LETITIA JAMES' OWN WORDS COME BACK TO HAUNT HER AFTER FEDERAL BANK FRAUD CHARGES FILED

"It’s really quite simple — NO ONE is above the law. Not now, not ever," she posted to Facebook. "Speaker Pelosi & Democrats in Congress are holding the president accountable because they have a patriotic duty to uphold our Constitution, not play partisan politics."

As Trump stood trial for the civil fraud case launched by James that accused Trump and Trump Organization of financial fraud, Hochul commented that she had "full confidence" that he would be held accountable, while also remarking that he had "temper tantrums" in court. 

"Former President Donald Trump is testifying in an unprecedented civil trial brought by our own Attorney General, Tish James. So far from telling the truth as he's required to do, he's throwing temper tantrums from the witness stand and verbally attacking judges and courtroom staff,"  she said in November 2023. "His conduct has been a disgrace and I have full confidence that Donald Trump will be held accountable for his actions." 

A month later, the Democratic governor appeared to throw her support behind a lawsuit that aimed to prevent Trump's name from appearing on voting ballots for the 2024 election. 

NEW YORK AG LETITIA JAMES' INDICTMENT SPARKS SHARP PARTISAN DIVIDE

A group of Colorado voters brought forth a lawsuit in 2022 arguing Trump should be deemed ineligible from holding political office under a Civil War-era insurrection clause. The lawsuit argued Trump's action on Jan. 6, 2021 — when supporters breached the U.S. Capitol — violated a clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents officers of the United States, members of Congress or state legislatures who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution from holding political office.

"Jan. 6 will live in infamy. Shame on us if we forget that," Hochul said in December 2023, when the Colorado Supreme Court declared him ineligible to run for president. "Shame on us what happened to this country when a Capitol that I used to proudly walk in as a member of Congress was literally under siege, people died, people were injured, and if he doesn’t take responsibility for that, then the American people ought to hold him accountable. So that’s what’s starting in Colorado."

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in March 2024 to keep Trump on the ballot.

After Trump was found liable in James' civil fraud case in 2023 and ordered to pay $355 million fine, Hochul worked to calm other business leaders' concerns that they could face similar trials, citing that Trump and "his behavior" set him apart. 

"I think that this is really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior," Hochul said on the radio show "The Cats Roundtable" in February 2024. 

An appeals court threw out the monetary penalty in the case earlier in 2025. 

Later that same year, Hochul celebrated that "no one is above the law" when Trump was found guilty in NY v. Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. 

"Today's verdict reaffirms that no one is above the law," Hochul said in a statement in May 2024. "In preparation for a verdict in this trial, I directed my Administration to closely coordinate with local and federal law enforcement and we continue to monitor the situation. We are committed to protecting the safety of all New Yorkers and the integrity of our judicial system."

As the election came down to the wire in 2024, Hochul slammed Trump as a "fraud" and "philanderer" who lacked New York values, while pointing to the New York v. Trump case. 

"Donald Trump was born a New Yorker but ended up a fraud, a philanderer, and a felon. He wasn’t raised with the New York values that I know," Hochul declared during her Democratic National Convention speech in Chicago in 2024. "Trust me, America, if you think you’re tired of Donald Trump, talk to a New Yorker. We’ve had to deal with them for 78 long years, the fraud, the tax dodging, the sham university, the shady charities."

DOJ OPENS GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION INTO LETITIA JAMES TIED TO TRUMP CIVIL CASE

Trump won the Republican primary in the 2024 election cycle, and swept the seven battleground states on Election Day, defeating then-Vice President Kamala Harris to succeed then-President Joe Biden in the Oval Office. 

Hochul and James held a press conference the day after the election, and vowed to battle the Trump agenda while honoring the results of the election. 

"I want to be very clear that while we honor the results of this election and will work with anyone who wants to be a partner in achieving the goals of our administration in our state, that does not mean we'll accept an agenda from Washington that strips away the rights that New Yorkers have long enjoyed," Hochul said on Nov. 6, 2024. 

"We did not expect this result, but we are prepared to respond to this result," James said during the same press conference. "And my office has been preparing for several months because we've been here before," James said. "We faced this challenge before, and we used the rule of law to fight back. And we are prepared to fight back once again because, as the attorney general of this great state, it is my job to protect and defend the rights of New Yorkers and the rule of law. And I will not shrink from that responsibility."

Trump slammed the onslaught of court cases against him in recent years, denying wrongdoing and identifying them as attempts from his political foes as tools to prevent him from seeking and winning re-election. 

"They're playing with the courts, as you know, they've been playing with the courts for four years," Trump said in January, just days before he was sworn back into office. "Probably got me more votes because I got the highest number of votes ever gotten by a Republican by far, actually, by a lot. And, you know, we had a great election, so I guess it didn't work. But even to this day, they're playing with the courts and they're friendly judges that like to try and make everybody happy. … It's called lawfare, it's called weaponization of justice." 

Can Maine’s governor topple Susan Collins?

Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills officially launched her campaign to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins on Tuesday, with a video highlighting her opposition to President Donald Trump, who she characterized as a “bully.”

In the campaign video, Mills highlighted her comment of “see you in court” to Trump at a February meeting in the White House. The statement was in response to Trump attempting to berate Mills for opposing his administration’s attempt to ban transgender children from participating in school sports.

Trump attempted to withhold federal funding from Maine over the issue but in April a federal judge ordered the Department of Agriculture to pay out the money to the state.

Related | ‘See you in court’: Governor refuses to bow to Trump’s bigoted ban

“We stood up to Trump and stopped him from cutting the school lunch program for Maine kids,” Mills says in her ad, before going on to criticize Collins for letting “bullies like Trump have their way.”

Collins has long presented herself as a moderate representing Maine’s mix of Democratic and Republican voters but has often allied herself with the right wing. She declined to vote to remove Trump from office in 2020 despite the House majority agreeing that he had committed high crimes. Collins also voted to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote led to the eventual repeal of Roe v. Wade and the loss of abortion rights for millions of Americans.

Mills is not alone in challenging Collins. Oyster farmer Graham Platner is also running for the Democratic Party’s Senate nomination and has attracted the support of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

A Zenith Research poll of Maine voters conducted Oct.7-10 found both Mills and Platner polling ahead of Collins, with Platner ahead by 14 and Mills up 8.

In Morning Consult’s tracking poll of governors around the country, Mills was the most unpopular Democratic governor—but her approval rating of 49% to 46% disapproval is leagues ahead of Collins, who has a 38% approval rating and 54% disapproval.

Maine is traditionally considered a Democratic-leaning state and former Vice President Kamala Harris won it in the 2024 election. Collins has been one of the top targets of the Democratic Party and the party’s Senate campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has been criticizing Collins for siding with her fellow Republicans to shut down the federal government.

“Collins is shutting down the government instead of working to address the health care crisis she helped create, and in 2026 Mainers will hold her accountable at the ballot box,” DSCC spokesperson Maeve Coyle said in a September statement.

Instead of impeachment, Dems are using Article II challenges to impede Trump this time

Democrats tenaciously working to thwart the second Trump administration seemingly have thrown out their playbook from the president's first administration — abandoning repeated attempts to impeach President Donald Trump in favor of broadening their focus on leveraging Article II of the Constitution to impede MAGA policies. 

Democrats, since the early days of Trump's second presidency, have accused him of taking steps that amount to a "gross overreach of presidential authority" or launching "illegal power grabs," most notably in response to some of the more than 200 executive orders the president has signed this term. Lawsuits challenging the administration also have focused language on claims Trump is exceeding his executive authority, sparking some policies to get tied up in the courts. 

Article II of the Constitution lays out the foundation for the balance of power between the office of the president and other branches of the government, including establishing the executive branch. Section II of Article II details the duties and powers of a president. 

WHITE HOUSE REBUKES ‘EGREGIOUS’ COURT ORDER BLOCKING TROOP DEPLOYMENTS AMID PORTLAND UNREST

Political foes have turned to Article II in their legal battles against Trump, repeatedly claiming he has exceeded his authority.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome takes on many forms — despite the Democrats’ failure to stop President Trump’s incredibly popular agenda in his first term, they’re trying a new strategy this time and failing again," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital Thursday when asked about the increase in claims and cases claiming Trump is overstepping his presidential bounds. 

"The Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings from far-left liberal activist judges," she continued. "The president will continue implementing the policy agenda that the American people voted for in November and will continue to be vindicated by higher courts when liberal activist judges attempt to intervene." 

Trump's first administration was underscored by two impeachment efforts, which landed Trump as the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice. Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times. 

The first impeachment effort in 2019 accused Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to allegedly seeking foreign interference from Ukraine to boost his re-election efforts in 2020. 

The focus of that impeachment focused on a July 2019 phone call in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, including Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Burisma holdings company. Biden was under federal investigation at the time. 

NEWSOM WARNS AMERICANS 'YOU WILL LOSE YOUR COUNTRY' UNDER TRUMP AT CALIFORNIA SUMMIT

The House impeached Trump on both articles of impeachment in December 2019, with the Senate voting to acquit Trump on both articles of impeachment in February 2020. 

Months later, Democrats teed up another Trump impeachment after the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Trump notched another first, when the Senate tried a former president after the House voted to impeach him just a week before Joe Biden was inaugurated as the nation's 46th president. The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in the case. 

The second impeachment focused on the breach of the U.S. Capitol by throngs of Trump supporters when the Senate and House convened to certify Biden's 2020 election win. Trump was accused of working to overturn the results of the election and that he incited an insurrection with rhetoric regarding the election ahead of the Capitol breach. 

"I will never forgive the people who stormed the Capitol for the trauma that they caused in our young people, our members of the press who were covering that day, our staffers, the maintenance crew, the people who keep the Capitol neat and clean," then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in an interview on MSNBC in 2022.  

"This was a disgrace. And the president instigated an insurrection, refused to stop it and as those films show, would not, in a timely fashion, allow the National Guard to come in and stop it. And that is sinful," she continued.

The Senate acquitted Trump of the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection in February 2021. 

The impeachment efforts followed Democrats threatening and vowing to impeach Trump at various points throughout his first administration. 

"I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America for obstruction of justice. I do not do this for political purposes, Mr. Speaker. I do this because I believe in the great ideals that this country stands for — liberty and justice for all, the notion that we should have government of the people, by the people, for the people," Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green declared in May 2017 in regard to former FBI Director James Comey's investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

TRUMP HAS NOW BEEN IN OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS, FOR THE SECOND TIME. HERE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS

"The time has come to make clear to the American people and to this president that his train of injuries to our Constitution must be brought to an end through impeachment," Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen said in November 2017 over claims Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey in May 2017. 

Trump's four years after his first administration were riddled with a handful of civil and criminal cases, including standing trial in New York when he was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024. 

District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump falsified the business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged 2006 affair with Trump. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case, and was sentenced after his election win to an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no prison time or fines. 

Trump also was indicted in Georgia on racketeering charges over claims he attempted to overturn the state's 2020 election results, which the president denied. That case was put on hold after District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting it. 

A pair of federal criminal cases were dismissed, including one that alleged Trump mishandled sensitive government documents at his Florida Mar-a-Lago home after his presidency, as well as another claiming Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. Special counsel Jack Smith oversaw both cases. 

Trump also faced civil cases, including New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of inflating asset values. In another case, E. Jean Carroll, a former columnist who alleges Trump raped her in a New York City department store dressing room in the 1990s, accused Trump of defamation in a 2022 case. 

Trump railed against the accusations and cases as examples of lawfare to prevent him from winning a second presidency, taking a victory lap upon his 2024 win that the efforts failed. 

"These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought," Trump wrote on Truth Social in November 2024, when Smith announced he would drop the felony cases. 

TRUMP IS ‘UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO AVOID’ FATE OF MOST TWO-TERM PRESIDENTS, WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL EXPLAINS

"It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump added.

Trump's second administration has been his with more than 400 lawsuits, according to Just Security's lawsuit tracker targeting the administration, with many disputing Trump's executive orders and policies as they relate to slimming down the size of the federal government, his policies removing diversity, equity and inclusion language and initiatives from the federal government, protecting girls' sports from the inclusion of biological male players, and his various directives to remove the millions of illegal immigrants who have flooded the U.S. in recent years. 

Trump and his administration are in the midst of cleaning up U.S. cities that have historically been rocked by crime, including working to remove illegal immigrants residing in the cities. Most recently, Trump ordered the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, in response to "radical left terrorism" in the city, specifically members of the recently-designated domestic terrorism organization, Antifa. 

"The Radical Left’s reign of terror in Portland ends now, with President Donald J. Trump mobilizing federal resources to stop Antifa-led hellfire in its tracks. While Democrat politicians deny reality, it’s obvious what’s happening in Portland isn’t protest; it’s premeditated anarchy that has scarred the city for years — leaving officers battered, citizens terrorized, and property defaced," the White House said in an announcement that Trump was deploying federal resources to Portland on Sept. 30. 

WHITE HOUSE SAYS ‘THE REAL CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS TAKING PLACE WITHIN OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH’

"What President Trump is trying to do is an abuse of power," Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said in September of Trump's order to deploy the troops to Portland. "And it is a threat to our democracy. Governors should be in command of their National Guards, our citizens soldiers who sign up to stand up in an emergency to deal with real problems."

Oregon sued the Trump admistration over the order, claiming Trump lacked the authority to deploy the National Guard. 

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s plan to deploy 200 Oregon National Guard troops, then again on Sunday expanded the order to bar the administration from deploying any National Guard units from any state to Oregon pending further proceedings. Immergut determined Trump's order likely exceeded his presidential authority. 

The White House has hit back that Trump is within his presidential limits. 

"I think her opinion is untethered in reality and in the law," Leavitt told reporters at a White House press briefing. "The president is using his authority as commander in chief, U.S. code 12 406, which clearly states that the president has the right to call up the National Guard and in cases where he deems it's appropriate. … The ICE facility has been really under siege. And, by these anarchists outside, they have been, disrespecting law enforcement. They've been inciting violence."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted Immergut's ruling that blocked the Oregon National Guard troops from deploying to Portland, but the other ruling baring any National Guard troops from deploying to Portland remains in effect. 

Musk’s big mouth, and the DOJ’s unlawful meme obsession

Injustice for All is a weekly series about how the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the justice system—and the people who are fighting back.

Last week was … a lot, legally speaking. While much of the Trump administration’s efforts have shifted to trying to get courts to agree that President Donald Trump can deploy troops from red states to bring blue cities to heel, there are still many other terrible developments. 

We’ve got a throwback to Elon Musk’s idiotic actions, the Fifth Circuit is likely going to decide it’s totally groovy to force religion into the classroom, James Comey’s attorney is taking a page from Trump’s playbook, and the Supreme Court looks primed to strike down conversion therapy bans—because why not hurt trans kids more. Oh and last—but never least—is the Department of Justice’s meme antics undermining its own case against Luigi Mangione. 

Musk and the Trump administration FAFO

Well, well, well. If it isn’t the consequences of Musk’s own actions. 

The New York Times recently prevailed in its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit over the Trump administration’s refusal to provide a list of Musk’s security clearances when he was a government contractor prior to 2025. Now the administration will have to cough it up.

Elon Musk stands beside President Donald Trump.

They tried to say that it would violate Musk’s privacy, but the court noted that Musk bragged publicly of his “top secret clearance” in 2024, making it not really all that private to begin with. 

The Times did not request additional information—like Musk’s application for clearances or any investigative materials—but the government still claimed that it couldn’t provide the form because it would show whether clearances were subject to any conditions, even if the conditions themselves were redacted.

This is where Musk’s boasts about his ketamine use, his cringe-worthy blunt rotation with Joe Rogan, and his chats with Vladimir Putin came back to bite him. 

To grant a security clearance, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency must review foreign influences and drug use. The court said that, while Musk has not publicly discussed any conditions, he has publicly addressed his drug use and contacts with foreign leaders. And since the DCSA is supposed to consider those things, the public has an interest in the DCSA’s performance of its duties. 

You can expect the Trump administration to continue fighting this because it would likely crack open the door for FOIA requests about Musk’s clearances at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency—and they desperately don’t want that

The Fifth Circuit will keep hearing Ten Commandment cases until they get the desired result

In another horrible development, the Fifth Circuit has ordered a full court review of the three-judge panel decision in Roake v. Brumley—and it’s not an exaggeration to say that we should all be worried. 

Both the Louisiana lower court and the three-judge panel ruled that the law requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional, because it so obviously is. 

The fact that they agreed to a review and requested new briefs and oral arguments is a sign that there’s an appetite to reverse it. This would mean getting a decision on the books holding that the government can force the display of the Ten Commandments—but only the Protestant version chosen by the state. 

Next stop will be the Supreme Court because, much like they did with abortion, states are going to keep passing objectively unconstitutional laws, shoving them up to the Supreme Court to bless them. Terrific system we have here.

Unlawful appointments giveth, but they may also taketh away

One of the challenges James Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, has said he will raise—and file a motion to dismiss the case—is an unlawful appointment claim. 

Former FBI Director James Comey

Basically, that would be that Lindsey Halligan, installed as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia for the sole purpose of indicting Trump’s enemies, is not legally allowed to be in her role. Her predecessor, Erik Siebert, served the limit of 120 days in the interim position, allowing the federal judges to appoint him

The issue is whether that created a new vacancy or not. If it did not, then that 120-day interim use is gone forever, which is why the court ruled that Alina Habba isn’t legally in her role in New Jersey. In that case, the Trump administration argued that the 120-day clock starts over with each interim appointment, but that would make the 120-day interim limit entirely useless. 

There would be a sort of grimly hilarious symmetry if the Comey prosecution falls apart because a judge decides that Halligan was not properly in her role. Trump hit a stroke of luck when his all-time favorite lower-court judge Aileen Cannon ruled, wildly incorrectly, that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and threw out the entire classified documents case. 

What’s good for the goose, etc.

SCOTUS tips its hand, and it’s not great

Tuesday’s oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar made it clear that the Supreme Court is going to strike down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. Doing so would also knock out similar laws throughout almost half of the country. 

There’s no credible argument for conversion therapy, which tries to force minors to be heterosexual and cisgender. Major health care organizations have denounced it, and people forced to undergo it report high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. 

The right-wing argument in Chiles is that it violates the free speech of therapists if they can’t compel children to listen to how their identity is bad and wrong. 

It’s an absolute sham of a lawsuit, with no evidence that the plaintiff ever intended to offer conversion therapy or received any complaints. Her lawyer, with the rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ group Alliance Defending Freedom, told the court that Chiles was the subject of “anonymous complaints” that they declined to provide. 

This is just another case where the plaintiff is nothing but a straw man standing in to get the desired conservative result—which is to protect the free speech of bigots at the expense of the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ kids. 

Trump and the DOJ are going to tweet Luigi Mangione right out of jail

The DOJ is in trouble over how hyped it is to talk about Mangione’s guilt while in the midst of prosecuting him, with the public affairs deputy director posting on X interviews of Trump saying that Mangione “shot someone in the back as clear as you’re looking at me.” 

Luigi Mangione is seen in a courtroom wearing a bulletproof vest.

This is pretty much a textbook example of prejudicial pretrial statements, which are not allowed, as pretty much every DOJ prosecutor knows. But the DOJ is being steered by people whose main interests are creating cool meme content and hurting people, so they might not be so familiar.

When the court ordered the Trump administration to explain what happened here, they said that, since the person who made the post wasn’t part of the prosecution team, they weren’t violating the rule. 

This is nonsense, of course, as it would basically mean that the DOJ could pop off with these statements any time as long as the actual prosecutor on the case isn’t the one to say it. 

But this isn’t the first time that the attention-hungry, meme-driven administration ran into trouble with Mangione, who’s now moving to block the DOJ from seeking the death penalty because of the highly televised perp walk they made him do.

Republicans cheer Trump’s despicable prosecution of another enemy

Republican lawmakers are ecstatic about the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James, cheering on President Donald Trump's corrupt and vindictive prosecutions of his perceived enemies as he slides the country further into autocracy.

Career prosecutors had refused to seek an indictment against James, saying there was not enough evidence that James committed mortgage fraud and that the case was unlikely to end in a conviction.

But Trump fired the prosecutor who wouldn’t go along with his corrupt demand to indict his enemies and installed  unqualified sycophant Lindsey Halligan as Virginia's top federal prosecutor, who went on to follow Trump's orders to seek out the indictment.

“The enemy within” by Mike Luckovich

Now, Republicans are gleefully mocking James, whose indictment mirrors that of the civil fraud case James successfully brought against Trump, and are lauding the Trump administration for indicting her.

"Crooked NY AG Letitia James, used taxpayer money to maliciously prosecute President Trump over non-crimes, has now been INDICTED based on legitimate bank fraud allegations," Rep. Claudia Tenney (D-NY) wrote in a post on X.

"Back in 2024, Letitia James posted, 'No one is above the law. Even when you think the rules don’t apply to you.' Here's the reality: 1–No one is above the law 2–You cannot commit mortgage fraud 3–She thought the rules didn't apply to her 4–She got indicted. Law & order is back," Rep. Byron Donalds (D-FL) wrote in a post on X.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)—who is running a likely unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign in New York—cheered what she called James' "long overdue indictment" calling it a "critical step toward restoring accountability and the rule of law."

Actual legal experts say, however, that James is unlikely to be convicted, as the charges are even less than thin gruel.

Former FBI director James Comey

"It’s hard to imagine a worse case than the one against James Comey—until you see the one against the attorney general of New York," Molly Roberts, a senior editor at the legal outlet Lawfare, wrote in an article on the site in which she laid out all of the reasons why the evidence does not exist that James committed fraud.

Democrats condemned the Trump DOJ for seeking the indictment, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries saying that the "baseless indictment ... is part of Donald Trump's corrupt weaponization of the criminal justice system against anyone who has sought to hold him accountable."

"This is what tyranny looks like. President Trump is using the Justice Department as his personal attack dog, targeting Attorney General Tish James for the ‘crime’ of prosecuting him for fraud—and winning," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote in a post on X. "One U.S. Attorney already refused this case. So, Trump hand-picked an unqualified hack that would go after another political enemy. This isn't justice. It's revenge. And it should horrify every American who believes no one is above the law."

James, for her part, vowed to fight the charges.

"This is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system," James said in a statement. "I am not fearful—I am fearless. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights."

And given that the prosecutor who sought the charges couldn’t even fill out the indictment form correctly, she’s likely to beat them.