Bombshell whistleblower letter reveals 'lawlessness' inside Trump's DOJ

Bombshell whistleblower letter reveals 'lawlessness' inside Trump's DOJ
FILE PHOTO: Attorney Emil Bove, centre, listens as Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by defense attorney Todd Blanche, talks to journalists as he arrives for the day?s proceedings in his criminal trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, New York, on May 10, 2024. Todd Heisler/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Senior Justice Department official Emile Bove told lawyers under him that he was willing to ignore court orders to ensure President Donald Trump got what he wanted, a whistleblower letter to the Senate said.

Bove, Trump's former personal lawyer, has been nominated to a federal judgeship, requiring Senate confirmation. Among those in opposition is a former DOJ prosecutor on the case for Kilmar Ábrego García, an asylum seeker living in Maryland who was captured and sent to an El Salvador prison without due process.

In March, prosecutor Erez Reuveni appeared in court to argue the DOJ's case against Ábrego García — but he revealed to the judge that the deportation was due to a clerical error.

“Our only arguments are jurisdictional. … He should not have been sent to El Salvador," Reuveni told the judge.

He was asked why the U.S. couldn’t simply ask El Salvador to return the man.

Reuveni responded, “The first thing I did when I got this case on my desk is ask my clients the same question." He noted he never got an answer.

A few days later, he was placed on administrative leave and, by April, he was fired.

In a Bluesky post, Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick shared excerpts of the letter from Reuveni, where he walks through "lawlessness at the DOJ around the CECOT deportations."

"Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'f--k you' and ignore any such court order," the whistleblower letter said. "Mr. Reuveni perceived that others in the room looked stunned, and he observed awkward, nervous glances among people in the room. Silence overtook the room. Mr. Reuveni and others were quickly ushered out of the room. Notwithstanding Bove's directive, Mr. Reuveni left the meeting understanding that the DOJ would tell DHS to follow all court orders."

Reuveni said that to his knowledge, "no one in DOJ leadership — in any administration — had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders."

"Reuveni accuses Drew Ensign, the DOJ lawyer appearing for the Trump admin in the CECOT cases and other immigration cases, of lying to Judge [James] Boasberg on March 15 when he said he didn't know planes were taking off. He says Ensign was at a meeting the day before when the flights were planned!" Reichlin-Melnick summarized.

"Ensign had been present in the previous day's meeting when Emil Bove stated clearly that one or more planes containing individuals subject to the AEA would be taking off over the weekend no matter what," the letter continued.

Reuveni goes on to write that on March 15, he emailed the Department of Homeland Security to inform them that the judge was thinking of issuing a court order to block the flights. He said he was concerned Ensign wouldn't act.

Reuveni "supervisor, August Flentje, noted Bove's 'f--k you' line and joked Reuveni might be fired for raising alarm. He was," Reichlin-Melnick noted. "Ensign agreed Judge Boasberg's order required them to turn the planes around."

It was Bove who stepped in, telling DHS to ignore the judge. Senior DOJ leadership also went so far as to directly order DHS to ignore the judge's demand to give information on the deportation flights.

It has a bearing on the Supreme Court ruling issued on Monday that allows DHS to continue deporting migrants to war-torn countries where they have no ties or connections.

After the ruling, NBC News Supreme Court reporter said that the Trump admin is now asking the court to clarify the "third country" immigration order because the lower court noted that the ruling didn't apply to the case involving six individuals DHS wants to send to South Sudan.

The DOJ called it "unprecedented defiance" of the Supreme Court, however, as one legal analyst explained, there were no specifics on the Supreme Court's ruling other than a blanket approval in another case.

Read the full thread with excerpts of the letter here.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

President Donald Trump was nearly banned from appearing on his favorite television channel after he broke its "golden rule," according to a new report.

The Daily Beast reported on Monday that unsealed documents show Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch telling star Fox News host Sean Hannity not to book Trump because he was using his airtime to attack the channel. The exchange followed an appearance by Trump in October 2020, where he attacked two of Fox News' journalists, according to the report.

“Sean, sorry, but the president is not coming back on air if he uses it to attack us,” Murdoch wrote to Hannity, according to the report. “It is the same rule we have with the other side. This is a golden rule."

The document obtained by The Daily Beast redacted Hannity's response, the report adds. Trump was invited back on-air about a month later after Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan's father, told him in an email that the channel is "getting killed" in terms of audience numbers.

The documents were unsealed as part of the $2.7 billion defamation suit against Fox News for claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

They arrive at a politically vulnerable time for Trump. He recently faced a stinging rebuke by his party after they overwhelmingly voted to support legislation forcing him to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Trump had sought to prevent the files from being released and even tried to pressure Republicans like Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) into voting against the bill.

Read the entire report by clicking here.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

President Donald Trump and his administration's Department of Justice got a brutal tongue-lashing by the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board on Monday for the failure of their "revenge lawfare" scheme, branding them as the "gang that couldn't indict straight."

This follows a federal judge's move to dismiss the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey for false statements and New York Attorney General Letitia James for bank fraud, because the inexperienced and ill-equipped prosecutor Trump installed, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed to the U.S. attorney's office.

"In its rush for retribution, the Trump Administration cut corners," wrote the board, a frequent critic of Trump's policies, particularly on tariffs. "In January, after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the Administration named Erik Siebert as interim prosecutor for Eastern Virginia. Once his three-month lease was set to expire, the judges of the district chose to retain him. But Mr. Siebert was reluctant to charge Mr. Comey and Ms. James, as Mr. Trump demanded, and he stepped down in September. Then the Administration purported to install Ms. Halligan, who had no experience as a prosecutor."

The vacancy law that lets presidents fill prosecutor offices on a 120-day basis, wrote the board, "is designed for a temporary fill-in, not Senate circumvention" — and the judge called out the DOJ on their misuse of the law.

The upshot, the board wrote, is that "This is what happens when officials don’t follow legal procedure. They lose cases. Mr. Trump was so eager to indict his enemies, and Attorney General Pam Bondi was so quick to go along, that it all unraveled at the pull of one legal thread."

"The Trump Administration could refile the charges, though the statute of limitations may have expired in Mr. Comey’s case," the board concluded. "If Mr. Trump tries again, he might end up with cases that are two-time legal losers."

Speaker Johnson defends Crenshaw after he was reportedly banned from congressional overseas travel

WASHINGTON — Speaker Mike Johnson is defending U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, in the wake of a report that his behavior on a congressional delegation trip to Mexico in August was inappropriate.

The dispute stems from an incident in which Crenshaw, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the chair of a now-dissolved cartel task force, reportedly toasted a Mexican official who had made a crude joke that made a woman in the room uncomfortable, according to anonymous sources in Punchbowl News.

Following the trip, Punchbowl reported that House Intelligence Committee chair Rick Crawford, R-Arkansas, banned Crenshaw from taxpayer-funded travel outside the country for 90 days. Crawford saw that decision “as being authorized by the GOP leadership,” Punchbowl reported.

The outlet went on to report Monday that Central Intelligence Agency officials in Mexico City sent a cable to CIA headquarters in Langley raising concerns about Crenshaw’s behavior.

In a statement shared with The Texas Tribune, Johnson said he stands by Crenshaw and trusts his leadership on cartels.

“Dan Crenshaw has always been and still is our point man in Congress when it comes to addressing the threat of the drug cartels,” Johnson said. “His insights and expertise in these and other matters regarding intelligence and national security are invaluable. As a former Navy SEAL, he has earned his large platform. Despite recent media attacks by his political opponents, we know Dan, we stand by his record, and we have full confidence he will continue to deliver results.”

Crenshaw has disputed the merits of Punchbowl’s story, including that he was banned from traveling. He argued that the outlet’s portrayal of the incident was overblown, writing on X that the allegedly offensive toast happened in the middle of the day, at the end of a meeting with Mexican officials about dealing with cartels.

“Anyone shocked by guys in uniform making a crass joke over a toast has never spent more than five minutes around the military,” a Crenshaw spokesperson told Punchbowl. “The only story here is a pathetic political hit job.”

Punchbowl also reported that Crawford had tried to remove Crenshaw from his panel, but that Johnson allowed Crenshaw to retain his seat.

This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}