University’s Blueprint To Increase Diversity And Sidestep SCOTUS Ruling Could Make It ‘Prime Target’ For Trump DOJ
'Inviting a legal challenge'
After President Joe Biden announced a sweeping pardon for his son Hunter Biden, several lawmakers from his own party came out against him.
Despite repeatedly asserting that he would not pardon his son, Biden is now allowing Hunter to evade legal repercussions for crimes committed from January 1, 2014, to December 1, 2024. This pardon was issued amid Hunter's most recent felony conviction on gun charges as well as his scandalous background surrounding felony tax offenses and his role in the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.
'This was an improper use of power, it erodes trust in our government, and it emboldens others to bend justice to suit their interests.'
Biden previously insisted that he would not pardon Hunter, reaffirming that "no one is above the law." Over the weekend, Biden announced the decision to pardon Hunter, claiming that he was being "selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted."
"The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election," Biden said in a statement released Sunday.
"No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong," Biden continued.
However, lawmakers from Biden's own party were not convinced.
"President Biden’s pardon of his son confirms a common belief I hear in Southwest Washington: that well-connected people are often gifted special treatment by a two-tier justice system," Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who just narrowly won re-election in Washington state, said in a Monday post on X. "The President made the wrong decision. No family should be above the law."
"I respect President Biden, but I think he got this one wrong," Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton said in a Monday post on X. "This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution. Hunter committed felonies, and was convicted by a jury of his peers."
Biden also faced backlash from Democrats on the Senate side.
"President Biden’s decision put personal interest ahead of duty and further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all," Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said in a Monday post on X.
"President Biden’s decision to pardon his son was wrong," Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan said in a Monday post on X. "A president's family and allies shouldn't get special treatment. This was an improper use of power, it erodes trust in our government, and it emboldens others to bend justice to suit their interests."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Joe Biden's Department of Justice is still targeting Donald Trump's co-defendants in the classified documents case despite ending its lawfare against the president-elect.
Special counsel Jack Smith, who has led two federal indictments against Trump, requested on Tuesday that the case be dismissed against "Trump only."
'Just because you can doesn't mean you should.'
The case out of Florida, which accused Trump of mishandling classified documents after the government led a raid on his Mar-a-Lago estate, was previously dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida in the summer. Cannon ruled that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional because it circumvented Congress.
Smith then moved to appeal her ruling but pulled part of his request after Trump secured the presidency. Smith has continued to pursue an appeal in the case against Trump's co-defendants: longtime aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira.
Nauta faces eight criminal charges, while De Oliveira is charged with four counts. Before the case was dropped against Trump, the president-elect was charged with 38 counts.
"The appeal concerning the other two defendants will continue because, unlike defendant Trump, no principle of temporary immunity applies to them," Smith wrote in his motion to dismiss the appeal against Trump, citing the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity.
In a separate filing, Smith called Cannon's ruling to dismiss the case over his appointment a "flawed analysis."
"The Supreme Court held more than 50 years ago that Congress vested the Attorney General with the power to appoint special prosecutors like the Special Counsel," Smith claimed.
John Irving, De Oliveira's lawyer, told the New York Post that Smith's decision to pursue the charges against a Mar-a-Lago employee was "poor judgment."
"The special counsel's decision to proceed in this case even after dismissing it against President Trump is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place," Irving said. "Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that's fine with us."
Nauta's lawyer did not respond to a request for comment from the Post.
Smith has reportedly already wasted at least $50 million in taxpayer funds to pursue the lawfare against Trump and his allies.
Trump pledged to fire Smith "within two seconds" of taking office. Sources also reportedly told the New York Times that Smith was planning to wrap up the cases and retire ahead of Inauguration Day.
In a statement to the Post, a spokesperson for Smith's office explained that upon the office's closure, its duties and ongoing matters can be transferred to "other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Biden-Harris administration reportedly spent at least $50 million in taxpayer funds to go after President-elect Donald Trump in two federal criminal cases.
Fox News Digital reviewed Department of Justice expenditure reports, indicating that the Special Counsel Office, led by Jack Smith, incurred costs of $9.25 million from November 2022 to March 2023. A subsequent report showed an additional $14.66 million spent over the next six months. From October 2023 to March 2024, there was another $11.84 million in expenses. The expenditures from April 2024 to September 2024 have not yet been reported, but based on the average of the previous reported periods, it is estimated to be approximately $12 million.
'Empty and lawless.'
Therefore, since Smith's appointment in late 2022, the office has reportedly spent an estimated total of approximately $47.5 million.
The news outlet stated that the expenditures included both direct and indirect costs related to the two federal indictments overseen by Smith.
Newsweek reported earlier this month that the total is likely "well past" $50 million when including expenditures from September 30 onward.
Ultimately, the Biden administration's relentless lawfare against Trump came to a screeching halt following the outcome of the presidential election.
In the summer, Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida dismissed one of Smith's federal cases against Trump, where the president-elect was accused of mishandling classified documents. In her dismissal, Cannon ruled that Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. Smith filed an appeal but moved to place that request on hold earlier this month.
On Monday, Smith requested to dismiss the other federal case against Trump, which alleged that he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Smith cited a longstanding DOJ policy that prevents the agency from filing criminal charges against a sitting president. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan approved Smith's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, thereby allowing the option to reinstate the charges in the future.
However, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig explained on Tuesday why he believes the federal cases will not be revived after Trump's presidency despite being dismissed without prejudice.
"Yes, technically the cases were dismissed without prejudice, which means technically someone could come back in four years and reinstitute these charges," Honig said. "It's not mathematically eliminated. That's not gonna happen for a lot of reasons. First of all, four years from now is an eternity. Whoever the next president is in 2029, the next attorney general is gonna have no appetite in bringing this case back."
Honig also stated that "there are moves Donald Trump's DOJ could make" to eliminate that possibility.
"They can go back to the court and say, 'We want to switch this from without prejudice to with prejudice,' meaning it cannot be brought back. Who knows, Donald Trump may try to issue himself a pardon, something we've never seen before," he continued. "So I wouldn't hold out any expectation that this case ever gets charged in 2029."
Trump now faces only two state-level indictments, one in New York and the other in Georgia. However, the judge overseeing his New York criminal case, where he was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records, has agreed to review the defense's request to dismiss the case. The Georgia case remains tied up in the courts, with some speculating it may also be thrown out over Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' potential disqualification.
On Monday, Trump posted a statement on Truth Social responding to the recent case dismissal.
"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. Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party's fight against their Political Opponent, ME. Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before," he wrote.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
On Monday, special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion to dismiss the Washington, D.C., case filed against President-elect Donald Trump.
Trump was initially charged last year with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
'Today's decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law.'
Smith wrote in the motion, "As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant, Donald J. Trump, will be inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025. It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President."
Smith noted the "unprecedented situation" and, after consulting with the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that the "prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated."
"The Government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed. But the circumstances have," he added.
Smith led the Washington, D.C., case as well as another federal indictment against Trump out of Florida, where Trump was accused of mishandling classified documents. That case was dismissed in the summer by Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.
Smith's move to drop the Washington, D.C., case on Monday would mark the end of all the federal indictments against Trump.
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump, responded to Smith's decision to file the motion to dismiss.
Cheung said, "Today's decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law. The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country."
Trump had previously vowed to terminate Smith "within two seconds" of taking office. The New York Times reported earlier this month that sources revealed Smith was planning to wrap up the federal cases and retire before Trump had the opportunity to remove him as special counsel.
Trump is still facing a criminal conviction in the New York court system, where he was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. However, last week, Judge Juan Merchan granted the defense's request to file a motion to dismiss. Merchan will receive that motion and the prosecution's response in early December. The Georgia case lodged against Trump, also a state-level indictment, is still tied up in the court and has not gone to trial.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
NBC's Kristen Welker likely regrets trying to paint Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt (R) into a corner Sunday on "Meet the Press." Rather than make the Republican senator squirm, Welker received an earful about some of the ways that President Joe Biden and other Democrats weaponized the Department of Justice against President-elect Donald Trump and other perceived political opponents.
Schmitt expressed support early in the interview for Trump's second pick to run the Department of Justice, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, noting that she's "smart" and "tough."
"It's a great pick."
Welker insinuated that Trump's proposed attorney general would engage in the same conduct the senator has previously criticized, alluding to Bondi's suggestion last year that elements of the DOJ that waged lawfare against Trump in the lead-up to his re-election will eventually face accountability: "The prosecutors will be prosecuted — the bad ones," and the "investigators will be investigated."
'There has to be accountability for these kinds of abuses.'
The NBC talking head noted that Schmitt previously said the DOJ should go "back to fighting crime and not settling scores," then posed the question, "How do you square those two different views?"
Unwilling to accept the premise that the two views were irreconcilable, Schmitt instead suggested that the reckoning to come isn't more weaponization but rather the return of accountability.
"Everybody's seen this weaponization of the Justice Department over the last four years. It really is a tragedy for a once-respected agency that has gone after Catholics; it's gone after parents who showed up to school board meetings under the auspices of the Patriot Act. This is in the United States of America," said Schmitt.
The senator suggested that Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland "clearly weaponized that department ... to go after their chief political opponent. I'll tell you, Kristen, the arc of that story's really terrifying if you care about the republic."
"After the midterms, Joe Biden said that there was no way President Trump would ever be back in the White House. After that speech, these zombie cases were resurrected. The number three person from DOJ went to New York, and you had the Alvin Bragg case," said Schmitt, referencing Matthew Colangelo's migration from a senior position in the Biden DOJ — acting associate attorney general, then principal deputy associate attorney general — to a supporting role trying to kneecap Trump, this time in New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office.
"The number two prosecutor in Atlanta went to the White House and coordinated," continued Schmitt, apparently alluding to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' onetime lover Nathan Wade. Wade, whom Willis made top prosecutor in Trump's Georgia election interference case, admitted to having extensive communications with the Biden White House in an Oct. 15 testimony to Congress.
"You saw all these cases resurrected. They all fell apart under the weight of the law," continued Schmitt. "And so, I do think there needs to be accountability. I think that getting it back to crime-fighting is important, but there has to be accountability for these kinds of abuses."
Welker, who appeared frazzled throughout much of Schmitt's response, pressed the senator to explain what the accountability pursued by the Trump DOJ might look like.
"I think accountability means, first and foremost, the people involved in this should be fired immediately," responded the senator. "Anybody part of this effort to keep President Trump off the ballot and to throw him in jail for the rest of his life because they didn't like his politics and to continue to cast him as a 'threat to democracy' was wrong. And so, we'll see where that goes."
Schmitt reiterated that Bondi is "a smart, capable, tough person," noting she "is going to restore respect in that department."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Andrew McCabe, the former FBI deputy director who shut down investigations into the Clinton Foundation in 2016 then undermined the Trump presidency with Crossfire Hurricane, told CNN Thursday that former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers would be a "totally reasonable, logical selection" for President-elect Donald Trump's FBI director.
McCabe said that Rogers' "strongest qualification ... is the respect and awareness and knowledge that he has for the intelligence community, for the work they do, for the seriousness of that work, for how those secrets and that sensitive information needs to be protected."
To the likely displeasure of McCabe and other exponents of the Washington security establishment, Trump has apparently joined Michigan voters in rejecting Rogers.
Trump adviser Dan Scavino indicated Friday morning — shortly after Fox News' Brian Kilmeade sung Rogers' praises — that where FBI Director Christopher Wray's replacement is concerned, Rogers is "not happening."
Scavino quoted President-elect Donald Trump as saying, "I have never even given it a thought."
This came as great news to those alternatively keen to see former National Security Council official Kash Patel named Wray's successor.
"Winning," tweeted Donald Trump Jr.
"Boom," wrote Revolver News editor Darren Beattie.
Rumors that Trump was considering Rogers for the position began to circulate last week after the former congressman met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.
The prospect of a defense lobbyist associated with censorious groups antagonistic to Trump and historically supportive of mass surveillance programs running the FBI rankled Trump loyalists and other critics of the dysfunctional administrative state, particularly those keen to see Patel nominated.
Mike Benz, the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, told former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon that Rogers' involvement with the Atlantic Council — "probably the number-one apex predator in the entire censorship industry" — and his help advancing Russiagate were disqualifying.
'There is a lot of damage someone like Kash Patel could do.'
Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted, "There's literally no worse appointment possible than choosing Mike Rogers for FBI Director, or for any government position. He's the single most devoted loyalist to the US Security State and all of its multi-faceted abuses. It doesn't get worse than Mike Rogers."
Wikileaks highlighted that Rogers, favored by Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and John Cornyn (Texas), not only pushed for the suppression of a Republican memo critical of the FBI's spying on the Trump campaign but was involved with the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy initiative and its Hamilton 68 Dashboard. Wikileaks noted that the dashboard's "true purpose appeared to be casting suspicion on Trump supporters and reinforcing claims that his presidency was illegitimate."
McCabe — whom Trump fired in March 2018 after the Justice Department's inspector general concluded McCabe had authorized an information leak to a liberal reporter then lied about it — expressed horror Thursday at the prospect of Patel taking power.
"It's inconceivable to me that an outsider with no experience in the organization, no knowledge of the work and the scope of authority that’s involved there could perform adequately," he told CNN. "If you enter into that position with nothing more than a desire to disrupt and destroy the organization, there is a lot of damage someone like Kash Patel could do."
McCabe is hardly the only establishmentarian fearful of Patel taking over the bureau.
'I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on Day One.'
Former FBI Special Agent Daniel Brunner told CNN's Jessica Dean on Sunday, "Putting someone like Kash Patel in the position of director of the FBI is, I believe, extremely, extremely dangerous."
"He has clearly stated that he wants to exact revenge upon those that have investigated President Trump and those who have investigated those that are around him. He will conduct a massive amount of damage to the interior of the FBI," added Brunner.
The leftist blog New Republic called Patel an "intellectual lightweight" and warned that "if Trump installs Patel at the FBI, it would certainly further Trump and his MAGA allies' goal of purging the federal workforce of disloyal employees."
Patel wrote in his book "Government Gangsters" that "government tyranny" within the FBI must be eliminated and called for the removal of anyone who "in any way abused their authority for political ends."
"The FBI has become so thoroughly compromised that it will remain a threat to the people unless drastic measures are taken," wrote Patel.
Patel recently told "The Shawn Ryan Show," "I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on Day One and reopen it the next day as a museum of the deep state."
Blaze News previously reported that despite his characterization as inexperienced, Patel has served as chief of staff to former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller; as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council; principal deputy to the acting director of national intelligence; as national security adviser for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; as a terrorism prosecutor at the Department of Justice; as a public defender; and as a hockey coach.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!