Senior DC prosecutor quits rather than get to bottom of fishy funding decision by Biden EPA
A career prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., abruptly tendered her resignation this week after a tug-of-war with Trump officials regarding a questionable Environmental Protection Agency grant issued under the Biden administration.
Denise Cheung, head of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office, announced her resignation Tuesday after interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin and others asked her to conduct a grand jury investigation into the unidentified multibillion-dollar grant.
Trump officials apparently suspect that the grant may be associated with wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States. However, after rifling through documents provided by the deputy attorney general's office, Cheung and colleagues determined that they did not have sufficient evidence to justify a grand jury probe, Reuters reported.
'Based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe there is sufficient evidence ... to tell the bank there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified.'
Trump officials then ordered Cheung to freeze the assets associated with the grant. After consulting with the FBI field office in D.C., Cheung wrote to the bank and recommended a "30-day administrative freeze on certain assets," she said in her resignation letter to Martin.
However, Martin and others were not satisfied. Martin then called Cheung Monday, "yelling at her for failing to do what acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove’s office had asked," according to the Washington Post, citing one unnamed source.
Trump officials then demanded that Cheung send a second letter to the bank to freeze more assets as part of a criminal investigation. Rather than comply, Cheung quit.
"When I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed that there was sufficient evidence," she wrote to Martin.
"Based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified."
In a letter to colleagues revealing her resignation after 24 years, Cheung struck the same self-important tone evident in other resignation letters. "This office is a special place," she wrote, according to the Post. "I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and I have executed this duty faithfully."
The U.S. attorney's office and Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
Just last week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that his office had uncovered $20 billion in taxpayer dollars that EPA officials had allegedly scurried to toss "off the Titanic" before President Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20. This money was "parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA" and subjected to little oversight, Zeldin claimed.
Though Zeldin noted that the bank is not suspected of any wrongdoing, he called for the bank to terminate its financial agent agreement and for the EPA to reassume responsibility for all of that money.
"The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over," Zeldin assured viewers of his X video.
— (@)
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Hiding the details, methodology and results of scores of safety investigations from public view does not build public confidence; it undermines it.'
Image source: Letcher County Sheriff's Office Facebook page (left); letchercounty.ky.gov (right)
A new grand jury report contains damning information about how the 'expert' class did not, in fact, 'follow the science' on Covid.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
Will THIS little-known legal defense strategy RESCUE Trump?
As his four criminal cases get closer to trial, former President Donald Trump could likely use some help.
And Mark Levin claims a certain legal defense strategy could be just what rescues him.
This legal defense strategy is called an anti-suit injunction, which could cease litigation being brought in D.C.
According to Levin, an anti-suit injunction is “when a judge issues an order telling the prosecution or another party, the plaintiff, to cease from prosecuting their case until the case in her courtroom is completed. After that, they can pursue their case.”
In this instance, it’s crucially important for several reasons.
The first reason is because the first federal indictments were brought related to the documents case.
“Now the documents case was brought before the wrong grand jury, in the wrong venue in Washington D.C. Why? Because Jack Smith is a sleazeball. Because Merrick Garland is a sleazeball,” Levin explains.
“The special counsel wanted an indictment, and he might not have gotten one in Florida, so he used the D.C. grand jury to do just that,” because otherwise “Trump and the other defendants will have a very strong case of prosecutorial misconduct here and this violates the Department of Justice rules — which it does.”
Levin believes that because of this, Trump’s lawyers should “be bringing a motion over jury misconduct.”
Levin’s second reason applies to what’s happening in Georgia, which is “very critical as well.”
“You have due process procedures in Georgia that mimic what’s in the federal Constitution. But the federal Constitution also applies to what happened in Georgia,” Levin explains.
“It was very weird, wasn’t it? We wake up, we’re told that the president is going to be facing grand jury, possible indictments,” he continues, adding that something really weird happened that morning.
“The indictment with all the charges, 98 pages, had already been posted on the official government website of the clerk of the court.”
That’s when Fani Willis “desperately” rushed through the rest of the process, before indicting him late at night.
“She violated the due process rights of 19 individuals,” which included the former president, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and Jenna Ellis.
“Why? Because the grand jury indicted those people based exactly on what was posted that morning. So, the question is, what did that prosecutor tell that grand jury?” Levin asks.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.