Steven Harper, Common Dreams

This Trump lackey was set up to fail — but her own incompetence helped

In the service of President Donald Trump, Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s second interim appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, may lose her license to practice law.

Who is Halligan?

Competence is a key requirement for obtaining and retaining a law license. But nothing in Halligan’s education, experience, or training qualified her to prosecute federal crimes, much less lead a US Attorney’s office of more than 300 attorneys and staff in four divisions in Alexandria, Richmond, Norfolk, and Newport News.

For starters, she has never tried a criminal case. But Trump always prefers loyalty over competence.

Halligan attended a private Catholic high school and a Jesuit university where she studied politics and broadcast journalism. She competed in the Miss Colorado USA pageant in 2009 and 2010 and received her law degree from the University of Miami School of Law. Upon graduation, she went to work in a Miami law firm, representing insurance companies against homeowners and businesses.

Halligan met Trump in November 2021 at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. In early 2022, he made her part of his legal team on the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

After the election, she worked on Trump’s project to whitewash US history by cleansing the Smithsonian Institution of historically accurate but unpleasant facts. In August, she co-signed a letter instructing eight of the Smithsonian’s museums to replace exhibits that include “divisive or ideologically driven” material with “unifying, historically accurate” displays.

Answering Trump’s call…

Based on the weakness of the cases against former FBI director James Comey and another Trump target, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump’s first interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Eric S. Siebert, refused his demand to indict them. Trump responded by declaring that he wanted Siebert “out.” Hours later, he resigned.

With the statute of limitations on charges against Comey expiring in days, Trump told Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint 36-year-old Halligan — a senior White House staff secretary and special assistant to the President — as Siebert’s replacement.

“Lindsay Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you a lot,” Trump posted in a public message to Bondi.

Two days later, Halligan was sworn in as the new interim US Attorney. Her singular mission was to secure indictments against Comey and James.

Two days after that, on Sept. 24, she succeeded. Halligan presented the case against Comey personally to the grand jury. Federal judges are now exposing her incompetence.

Nov. 17: A federal magistrate judge found that the government may have violated Comey’s constitutional rights and his attorney-client privilege. The court listed 11 bases upon which the government’s misconduct — including Halligan’s statements to and conduct before the grand jury — may have violated the Constitution and require dismissal of Comey’s indictment.

Nov. 19: Halligan admitted to another federal judge that she never showed the final indictment to the entire grand jury after it had rejected her first submission – a remarkable prosecutorial failure.

Nov. 24: In rulings that invalidated the Comey and James indictments based on Trump’s unlawful appointment of Halligan, a third court began its opinion with this shot:

On Sept. 25, 2025, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just days before, Ms. Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging former FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr….

… and suffering the consequences

Every attorney requires a license to practice law. The bar examiners who issue and renew those licenses promulgate rules of conduct that every lawyer must follow. Even before the latest judicial revelations, Halligan was defending complaints that she had violated those rules. But with the latest court rulings, she is in a whole new world of hurt. And Trump’s pardons won’t help her.

Here’s a partial list of the Model Rules that could pose problems for Halligan:

Rule 1.1: Competence

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.“

[Halligan has never tried a criminal case.]

Rule 3.1: Meritorious Claims and Contentions

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous,….“

[Halligan’s predecessor found that the case against Comey was too weak to pursue.]

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a)refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;….“

[Here, again, her predecessor found that any case against Comey was a loser for the government.]

Rule 8.4: Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;….“

[The circumstances surrounding Trump’s appointment of Halligan and her subsequent indictment of Comey suggest an abuse of power and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.]

Special rules for federal prosecutors echo and reinforce the Model Rules. They too require probable cause for charges, investigations and prosecutions that are conducted fairly and without vindictiveness, and a ban against politicized or partisan prosecutions.

In fact, the Justice Department has a “longstanding threshold requirement that a prosecutor may commence or recommend federal prosecution only if he/she believes that the person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal.”

Even if Halligan manages to keep her law license, she will never recover her professional reputation. It’s the Trump effect.

Maybe she can get Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s old job at Fox News.

Steven J. Harper is an attorney, adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School, and author of books including Crossing Hoffa -- A Teamster's Story and The Lawyer Bubble -- A Profession in Crisis. Follow him at https://thelawyerbubble.com.

These Trump court cases offer a clear roadmap to authoritarian rule

President Donald Trump’s ICE raids in American cities are not simply efforts to deport undocumented immigrants or battle crime. In addition to creating fear and desensitizing law-abiding citizens to a military presence on American streets, Trump wanted to pick a fight.

And he has.

Specifically, Trump wanted a legal fight that he could take to the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. If it accepts his justification for “federalizing” the National Guard over a state governor’s objections, he’ll have unrestrained power to deploy the military on American soil any time, any place, and for any reason.

The implications are staggering. Fear has gripped neighborhoods where armed troops patrol the streets as something akin to an occupying force. During the 2026 midterm elections, deployments would be a powerful voter suppression tool.

Trump’s argument

In the cases challenging Trump’s National Guard deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago, his lawyers have argued that the courts have no power to review the President’s decisions. His claimed factual basis is not subject to challenge. His decision is final. His authority is absolute.

Trump bases his argument on language in an 1827 case involving Jacob Mott, a state militiaman. Mott refused to report for duty when President James Madison called up the New York militia during the War of 1812. The Supreme Court ruled that Mott had no right to dispute the president’s judgment.

Extrapolating the language of that case involving a subordinate militiaman during a time of war to foreclose all judicial review of the factual basis for Trump’s deployments is a stretch. But one appellate court judge in the ongoing ICE cases has embraced Trump’s position.

California

In June, Trump mobilized the National Guard over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom. The president invoked the statute authorizing him to “federalize” the Guard, which permits such action only if:

(1) theUnited States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” (10 U.S.C. Sec. 12406)

Trump claimed that the factual circumstances entitled him to invoke subsections (2) and (3).

The trial court granted Newsom’s request for a temporary restraining order, and the Trump administration appealed. Trump’s primary argument was that he had unrestrained discretion to make the required statutory determinations (i.e., whether there was a rebellion, danger or rebellion, or inability with regular forces to execute federal law). Whatever he decided should be the beginning and the end of the inquiry. Actual facts contradicting his claims were out of bounds. Judges couldn’t scrutinize his justifications. No one could.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (including two Trump appointees on the three-judge panel) rejected Trump’s argument. The court ruled that the president’s power is not absolute, but he is entitled to “a great level of deference” in making the required factual determinations.

Portland

When Trump deployed troops in Portland, Oregon, the city and the state sued to block him, and he made the same argument. Federal District Court Judge Karin Immergut — a Trump appointee — followed the appellate court’s earlier California decision and rejected it.

Judge Immergut’s 31-page opinion set forth her factual findings and legal conclusions. She outlined the evidence that rebutted Trump’s claimed “facts.” The court acknowledged that “the President is certainly entitled ‘a great level of deference’... But ’a great level of deference’ is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground… The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”

Judge Immergut granted the motion to prevent the deployment.

Reversed on appeal

Under well-settled law, Judge Immergut’s ruling could be reversed on appeal only if it was an “abuse of discretion” — which it wasn’t. The appellate court had to accept her factual findings as true, unless they were “clearly erroneous” — which they weren’t.

But in a two-to-one vote, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Immergut’s ruling. Rather than respect the trial court’s detailed factual findings, the Trump-appointed majority discarded them in favor of its own characterization of the record.

Ironically, the court concluded, “[T]he district court erred by placing too much weight on statements the President made on social media.”

Judge Ryan Nelson — one of two judges comprising the majority that reversed Judge Immergut — accepted Trump’s primary argument. In his concurring opinion Judge Nelson wrote that “the President’s decision in this area is absolute.”

Facts and evidence don’t matter. Everyone has to take Trump at his word — a remarkable empowerment of a serial liar.

The dissenting opinion of Judge Susan Graber, a Clinton appointee, returned to the facts:

Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd.

But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions.

Judge Graber pleaded for additional scrutiny of the majority’s errant decision:

By design of the Founders, the judicial branch stands apart. We rule on facts, not on supposition or conjecture, and certainly not on fabrication or propaganda. I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.

That process — a request for en banc review by 11 randomly-selected judges in the Ninth Circuit — is underway.

Chicago

Meanwhile, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed unanimously a trial judge’s order blocking Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Chicago. As in Los Angeles and Portland, Trump argued that the courts had no role in reviewing his factual determinations. The court — including a George H. W. Bush appointee, a George W. Bush appointee, and an Obama appointee — rejected Trump’s argument.

Unlike the majority in the Portland appeal, the court accepted the lower court’s factual findings and applied them:

Political opposition is not rebellion. A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the US government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows.

Nor did the activity surrounding the ICE facility render federal officers incapable of executing the laws of the United States.

Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority has a track record of giving him anything he wants.

As of Sept. 22, he had won 21 cases on the Court’s “shadow docket” where little or no reasoning accompanied quick decisions granted on a “preliminary” basis (even though the impact often is profound and enduring).

His administration had lost only two, with two others pending. Two were withdrawn and was one dismissed.

In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, Trump’s lawyers called the Seventh Circuit’s ruling part of a “disturbing and recurring pattern” that “improperly impinges on the President’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.”

None of that is true. The only “disturbing and recurring pattern” is Trump’s false assertions to justify deploying the military on American soil. And now he wants to prevent anyone challenging him — ever.

Steven J. Harper is an attorney, adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School, and author of several books, including Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster's Story and The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis. He has been a regular columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather's News and Guts, and The American Lawyer. Follow him at https://thelawyerbubble.com.

This Trumper wants the truth? He can't handle the truth!

On Sept. 30, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pontificated before his captive audience of 800 admirals and generals whom he had summoned from locations around the globe. The media reports of the event focused on soundbites: new physical fitness requirements, grooming standards (“no more beardos” — but don’t tell Vice President JD Vance or the president’s son), eliminating “woke” policies, and other elements of his department’s new “warfighting culture.”

Observing that the military’s policy on “hazing, bullying, and harassment is overly broad,” Hegseth also said that the inspector general’s office “has been weaponized, putting complainers, ideologues, and poor performers in the driver’s seat.”

He dealt with that problem too.

Hegseth’s New Rules of Engagement, No. 1 — Avoid Accountability

As with all IGs, the Defense Department’s inspector general operates independently to assure government accountability. The office pursues waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, mismanagement, whistleblower complaints, and more. With Hegseth in charge, its plate is full.

As Hegseth railed against the IG, it was investigating Signalgate — his massive national security breach. On March 15, he used the Signal app to discuss with top Pentagon leaders detailed plans for an imminent attack on Houthis in Yemen. But the chat mistakenly included the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic. Another Signal chat that day involving similarly sensitive information included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer.

On Sept. 30, Hegseth published new rules for inspector general investigations, including:

Within seven days of a complaint, an investigation must be initiated or the complaint closed.
An investigation can “be initiated only if the complaint meets credible-evidence standard [sic].”
The subjects of an investigation must receive status reports every 14 days.
“Command directed investigations must be closed within 30 days of initiation.”

The Signalgate investigation itself is evidence that thorough investigations of complex issues cannot occur before the 30-day deadline. That will kill them.

The new timelines and reporting requirements are part of the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to curtail oversight of legally questionable moves, according to Sen. Jack Reed (R-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But there’s more.

Hegseth’s New Rule of Engagement, No. 2 — Suppress Facts

On Sept. 19, Hegseth issued a new policy that every reporter in the Pentagon had to sign: They could access the building only if they agreed to publish information that was “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”

Any reporter who violated the policy would face punishment ranging from the denial of press privileges to criminal prosecution. Reporters who failed to sign the new agreement by Oct. 14 were required to turn in their press passes.

On Oct. 6, Hegseth revised the policy so that it didn’t appear to be such a plainly unconstitutional prior restraint on a free press. The 21-page document clarified that reporters need not submit their materials in advance of publication. But it shifted the focus from punishing journalists who publish information that Hegseth doesn’t want disseminated to: 1) undermining journalists’ ability to gather it in the first place; and 2) inhibiting Defense Department employees from providing it.

Specifically, the policy warned that journalists who “solicit” federal employees to disclose information that has not been approved for release may lose their press credentials. And according to the revised memo, “Solicitation may include direct communications with specific (Defense) personnel or general appeals, such as public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging (Defense) employees to share non-public (Defense) information.”

The Pentagon Press Association represents more than 100 news organizations. In a powerful statement, it said Hegseth and his department were trying to “stifle a free press” with the new policy that “conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone within the DOD, warning against any unapproved interactions with the press and even suggesting it’s criminal to speak without express permission — which plainly, it is not.”

As Politico reported, it was “an unprecedented move that demands media outlets hand the department vast control over what they publish … The new rules give the Pentagon wide latitude to label journalists as security threats and revoke passes for those who obtain or publish information the agency says is unfit for public release.”

Every major news organization, including the conservative outlets Newsmax and Fox News (Hegseth’s former employer), refused to sign Hegseth’s document. Only the far-right, pro-Trump One America News agreed.

Here’s Fox News’ statement:

Today, we join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree to the Pentagon’s new requirements, which would restrict journalists’ ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.

The Lessons

Two themes emerge from this sequence of events:

First, because Pete Hegseth can’t handle accountability or criticism, transparency is his enemy.
Second, collective action to resist Trump administration assaults on the Constitution is possible.

Never give in. Never give up.

Talk of war leaves the right with only one place left to go

In the final minutes of FBI Director Kash Patel’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 16, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) acknowledged the obvious: Individuals on the left should not have celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination, but influential voices on the right were inflaming the situation.

The bottom line, Tillis observed, was that escalation of the rhetoric on the right was making the FBI’s job of law enforcement more difficult.

Trump disagrees

Sen. Tillis’s analysis would have come as a shock to President Donald Trump, who blamed the episode on the “radical left.” Speaking from the Oval Office only hours after Kirk’s death on Sept. 10 — before the identity or motives of the assassin were known — he issued a video message:

“My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Listing recent attacks against himself and other conservative figures, he didn’t mention violence against Democrats, including the assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband; the shooting of another Minnesota legislator and his wife; the arson attack on Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-PA) residence; or the attack on Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) husband.

Those omissions were an important tell: Trump is going after Democrats and what he otherwise considers the left — and them only.

On Sept. 11, he confirmed the identity of his targets: “We have a radical left group of lunatics out there, just absolute lunatics, and we’re going to get that problem solved.”

And then, with an appearance the next day on Fox & Friends, Trump resumed his rant:

“I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime. Worried about the border. They’re saying, We don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.”

“The radicals on the left are the problem,” Trump continued his series of non sequiturs, “and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy, although they want men and women sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders.”

Meanwhile on the right

Here’s a sample of what Sen. Tillis was talking about:

Steve Bannon on his War Room broadcast: “We have to have steely resolve. Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war. We are at war in this country. We are.”

Fox News host Jesse Watters: “They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. What are we gonna do about it? Everybody’s accountable … the politicians, the media, and all these rats out there. This can never happen again. It ends now. This is a turning point and we know which direction we’re going.”

Podcaster Matt Walsh: “We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell. This is existential. A fight for our own existence and the existence of our country.”

Elon Musk: “If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is to fight or die.”

Conservative actor James Woods: “Dear leftists: we can have a conversation or a civil war. One more shot from your side, and you will not get this choice again.”

What’s Next?

Seeing the world through Trump’s hyper-political lens leaves no room for doubt, ambiguity, facts, or reasoned discussion. Everyone is either friend or foe, ally or enemy, angel or devil. War requires battling the opposition. And the opposition is anyone who opposes or criticizes Trump.

But a war against evil — which some voices on the right now suggest is under way — means a fight to the death. In a democracy, that’s an ominous approach to political disagreement. Trump fosters it.

The day after Kirk’s assassination, Sen. Tillis told the National Journal: “What I was really disgusted by yesterday is a couple of talking heads that see this as an opportunity to say we’re at war so that they could get some of our conservative followers lathered up over this. It seems like a cheap, disgusting, awful way to pretend like you’re a leader of a conservative movement.”

It’s remarkable how Republicans in Congress acquire wisdom after they have announced that they’re not seeking re-election.

Steven J. Harper is an attorney, adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School, and author of several books, including Crossing Hoffa: A Teamster's Story and The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis. He has been a regular columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather's News and Guts, and The American Lawyer. Follow him at thelawyerbubble.com.

This timeline of Trump's Epstein cover-up reveals so much

Drip, drip, drip…

For months, Donald Trump has tried to divert public attention from the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell files. But he can’t shake the story, and it keeps getting worse.

Reversal

Trump campaigned on the promise to release all of the files relating to Epstein’s sex trafficking in minors. To supercharge his MAGA base, he fueled conspiracy theories that the files contained something sinister involving prominent Democrats.

February 2025: Trump’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, told a Fox News interviewer that Epstein’s client list was sitting on her desk, awaiting her review before its release.

May: Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche informed Trump that his name appeared in the Epstein files, the New York Times later reported.

July 7: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel — who pushed conspiracy theories about the files during Trump’s campaign — issued a two-page memo stating that there was no Epstein client list and that the Justice Department would not release any additional materials relating to the matter.

July 16: Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Maurene Comey was fired. Comey was a lead prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of Epstein and his coconspirator, Maxwell. She was also the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey and chief of the Violent and Organized Crime Unit. The memo gave no reason for Comey’s abrupt termination.

July 17: The Wall Street Journal published Trump’s alleged birthday note to Epstein that included his sketch of a naked woman.

Blowback

Trump’s MAGA base erupted in anger over his refusal to release the Epstein files. Trying to appease his followers, Trump directed Bondi to ask that the courts release grand jury transcripts. This was disingenuous because: 1) the courts were not likely to release the material; and 2) even if they did, the transcripts would constitute a small fraction of the Epstein-Maxwell files.

July 23: A Florida judge denied Bondi’s motion to release the files relating to Epstein investigations in 2005 and 2007 that resulted in a non-prosecution agreement. Trump’s first-term Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, negotiated the agreement with Epstein’s high-powered lawyers while serving as US attorney for the Southern District of Florida during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Blunder

July 24: Deputy Attorney General (and former Trump attorney) Todd Blanche flew to Tallahassee and met with Maxwell for two days — an unprecedented visit for a No. 2 official in the Justice Department. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.

July 31: Contrary to prison assignment policies for sex offenders, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons transferred Maxwell from a Tallahassee prison to a “Club Fed” camp in Texas.

Boomerang

August 11: A federal judge in New York denied Bondi’s motion to unseal Maxwell’s grand jury files. The court observed that anyone “who reviewed these materials expecting, based on the Government’s representations, to learn new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes and the investigation into them, would come away feeling disappointed and misled. There is no ‘there’ there.”

The entire exercise was a farce — another Trump con job:

The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at “transparency” but at diversion — aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such.

August 20: A different federal judge in New York blasted Bondi’s motion to unseal the grand jury transcripts. Describing the “trove” of materials that the Justice Department had assembled but withheld from the public, the court observed:

The Government’s 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials dwarf the 70-odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials.

Trump’s directive that Bondi seek the release of the grand jury materials was always a ruse. As the court continued:

The Government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein files. By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a “diversion” from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession.

The court specifically called out Trump’s about-face on releasing the files:

In February 2025, the Government, as noted, was prepared to release the “Epstein Files” to the public. See DOJ Press Release. But then, on July 6, 2025, the Government announced that it would not make the files available to the public.

And the judge concluded: “The information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales in comparison to the Epstein investigation and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.”

New scam

On August 5, several Republicans voted with Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to force chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) to subpoena the Justice Department for Epstein-Maxwell materials. Comer also issued subpoenas to former Attorneys General William Barr, Merrick Garland, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, and Alberto Gonzales; former FBI Director James Comey; former special counsel and FBI Director Robert Mueller III; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and former President Bill Clinton.

That’s superficially impressive, but purely performative. Notably missing are the frontline prosecutors and investigators who actually know something meaningful about the Epstein-Maxwell cases.

One is Maurene Comey.

August 22: The FBI’s surprise search of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s home and office dominated the media. The Justice Department also released a transcript of Blanche’s interview with Maxwell during which she asserted that no one connected with Epstein’s alleged crimes had done anything wrong — including her and, of course, Trump, upon whom she lavished praise.

Sharing the news cycle was the Justice Department’s production of documents to the House Oversight Committee. It provided a fraction of the DOJ’s Epstein file, and only 3 percent was new.

August 25: The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed materials from Epstein’s estate and announced that it will depose Alex Acosta on September 19.

Drip, drip, drip…

Ghislaine Maxwell seems to have new friends in high places

On July 24 and 25, convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — the number two official in the Department of Justice. At the time, Maxwell was three years into her 20-year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institute in Tallahassee, Florida (FCI Tallahassee). A week later, the Bureau of Prisons — an agency of the Department of Justice — confirmed that she’d been transferred to the Federal Prison Camp at Bryan, Texas (FPC Bryan).

It’s not a pardon, but it’s a big improvement in her quality of life.

On the outside, it’s the difference between double-fenced barbed wire and a wrought iron fence akin to that of a gated community. On the inside, the differences are more dramatic.

FCI Tallahassee

After Maxwell’s conviction in 2021, her legal team requested that she serve her sentence at FCI Danbury — known as a “Club Fed” for its reputation as one of the more hospitable penitentiaries. But the Bureau of Prisons sent her to the low-security prison in Florida. Her incarceration began in July 2022.

Maxwell’s quarters were in an area of the facility known as the “snake pit” where “violence wasn't just common, but expected.” According to news reports, she was “living in fear of experiencing it first hand after she tattled on two other inmates.” In November 2024, Maxwell was promoted to the “honor dorm” — the prison's supposedly “cushier living quarters” reserved for 30 to 40 of the best-behaved inmates.

But “cushier” has little meaning at FCI Tallahassee. Two years ago, it was the subject of a damning inspector general’s report: The facility had “several serious operational deficiencies … Among the most concerning were the alarming conditions of its food service and storage operations … ”

In particular:

Contaminated food: A food preparation refrigerator contained “moldy bread” along with “discolored and rotting vegetables.” In the food storage warehouses, the inspection revealed “likely evidence of rodent droppings, as well as bags of cereal with insects in them….”

Decaying infrastructure: “Many female inmates live in housing units in which water frequently leaks from ceilings and windows on or near their living spaces. Additionally, we observed worn bedding, rusted inmate storage lockers, issues with showers and toilets, and black substances on walls and ceilings.”

Inadequate Health Services: Staffing shortages “have negatively affected healthcare treatment and caused staff to modify the time of day it distributes insulin and drugs to female inmates, which may limit the therapeutic benefit of these drugs for certain inmates.”

At age 60 and not eligible for parole until 2037, Maxwell’s future was bleak.

FPC Bryan

After Maxwell’s meeting with Blanche, the Bureau of Prisons moved her from the Florida low-security prison to an all-female minimum-security camp in Texas. Her experience there will be dramatically different.

Fellow inmates are mostly non-violent and white-collar criminals considered low-risk, including former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes and "Real Housewives of Salt Lake City" star Jennifer Shah. Violence in FPCs is rare. Inmates can walk the grounds, work out in the gym, and generally have greater freedom of movement in a camp than in any other federal correctional institution.

Wait, what?

But here’s the kicker: Sex offenders typically aren’t eligible for federal prison camps. According to Forbes, “The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) classifies individuals with sex offense convictions using a Public Safety Factor (PSF) designation, which automatically excludes them from placement in minimum-security camps — the lowest custody level. While the BOP employs a point-based system to determine appropriate placement, sex offenders are assigned a PSF regardless of their score.”

In Federal Prison Guidebook – Sentencing and Post-Conviction Remedies (Revision 5), noted criminal defense attorney Alan Ellis and former high-level Bureau of Prisons official J. Michael Henderson explain:

SEX OFFENDER PUBLIC SAFETY FACTOR

Regardless of what a person is incarcerated for, if their history indicates sexual misconduct (in the pre-sentence report or other official documentation), they will receive a “sex offender” Public Safety Factor (PSF).

[1] Sexual misconduct includes evidence of non-consensual sexual contact, child pornography offenses, any sexual conduct with a minor, or any aggressive or abusive sexual acts.

This PSF means that the person is disqualified from placement in a minimum-security placement, and will thus be placed in at least a low-security institution. They will most likely be housed in standard general prison populations…

Perks of power

With power comes the ability to reward friends — and punish enemies. Maxwell’s transfer could be the inverse of what the Bureau of Prisons did to Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen. As Trump completed his first term in July 2020, Cohen arrived at a Manhattan courthouse to complete routine paperwork. It allowed him to finish his prison sentence at home because of the pandemic.

But probation officers asked Cohen to sign a document barring him from speaking to reporters or publishing a book for the remainder of his three-year sentence. With his tell-all book nearing publication, he refused on First Amendment grounds. Federal marshals took him into custody and back to prison.

Two weeks later, a federal judge ruled that the government’s actions were retaliation and ordered Cohen’s return to home confinement. On September 8, 2020, he published Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump. Cohen completed his sentence in November 2021.

The Bureau of Prisons hasn’t provided a reason for Maxwell’s transfer. Maybe that’s because there isn’t a good one.

Steven J. Harper is an attorney, adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School, and author of several books, including Crossing Hoffa -- A Teamster's Story and The Lawyer Bubble -- A Profession in Crisis. He has been a regular columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather's News and Guts, and The American Lawyer. Follow him at https://thelawyerbubble.com.

This Epstein timeline reveals so much about Trump

On August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein — accused of sex trafficking in minor girls — killed himself in his jail cell while awaiting trial, and a new conspiracy theory was born: Powerful forces silenced him. Releasing the Justice Department’s files on Epstein would reveal a “client list” of high-profile individuals, including prominent Democrats, who had a motive to kill him.

Then-President Donald Trump jumped aboard the conspiracy bandwagon. Six years later, he’s trying desperately to stop it.

Setting the stage

Hours after Epstein’s death, Trump retweeted a post alleging that former U.S. President Bill Clinton was connected to Epstein’s death. Trump’s supporters dutifully followed his lead:

When he was a Senate candidate in 2021, JD Vance posted on Twitter: “Remember when we learned that our wealthiest and most powerful people were connected to a guy who ran a literal child sex trafficking ring? And then that guy died mysteriously in a jail? And now we just don’t talk about it.”

In 2023, before Dan Bongino became Trump’s deputy director of the FBI, he told his podcast audience, “Listen, that Jeffrey Epstein story is a big deal. Please do not let that story go. Keep your eye on this... [W]hat the hell are they hiding with Jeffrey Epstein?” — without specifying who “they” were. Shortly before joining the Trump administration, he added, “Who’s on those tapes? Who’s in those black books? Why have they been hiding it?”

In December 2023, a right-wing podcaster asked Kash Patel — a fierce Trump loyalist who is now FBI director—why the government was blocking the Epstein client list. Patel answered, “Simple, because of who’s on that list — Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.”

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he would declassify the Epstein files: “It’d be interesting to find out what happened there, because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn’t happen to be working, etc., etc. But yeah, I’d go a long way toward that one.”

On a podcast during the 2024 campaign, Vice-Presidential candidate Vance asserted, "We need to release the Epstein list."

In February 2025, Fox News reporter John Roberts asked Attorney General Pam Bondi whether the Justice Department would release Epstein’s list of clients: “Will that really happen?” Bondi responded: “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That’s been a directive by President Trump. I’m reviewing that.”

During a podcast in June, Patel said repeatedly that the administration would be forthcoming in its review of documents related to Epstein: “I’ve said it, Bongino has said it. We’ve reviewed all the information, and the American public is going to get as much as we can release … We’re going to give you every single thing we have and can.”

Trump set the stage. With his loyalists now running the FBI and the Justice Department, the public would finally see the Epstein files.

Oops – nothing to see here

The conspiracy flames that Trump fanned are now blowing back on him:

On July 7, the FBI released an unsigned, two-page memo stating that its “systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list’,” “investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell,” and “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

Bondi now says that when she said that the client list was sitting on her desk, she wasn’t actually referring to a client list.

Vance has assumed his familiar role — reversing a fervently held position to defend anything Trump does.

Blowback

Some of Trump’s most dedicated allies were outraged at Trump’s stonewalling. He lashed out with diversions, distractions, and attacks. He accused former President Barack Obama of treason. He derided followers who “bought into this ‘bullshit’” as “PAST supporters.” And he blamed Democrats for starting the conspiracy theory in the first place:

“It was a hoax. It’s all been a big hoax. It’s perpetrated by the Democrats and some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net. And so they try and do the Democrats work. The Democrats are good for nothing other than these hoaxes.”

But then:

July 17: The Wall Street Journal reported Trump’s alleged birthday note to Epstein that included his sketch of a naked woman. Trump sued the paper and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, for defamation. He asserted that he doesn’t draw pictures, but copies of his earlier sketches soon swamped the internet. Some were auctioned for charity.

Later that evening, Trump tried to quell the continuing uproar by ordering Bondi to seek the release of grand jury testimony related to Epstein. But that was a head fake toward transparency because: 1) grand jury materials are a tiny slice of the Justice Department’s files on Epstein; and 2) the courts might not agree to release anything. In fact, on July 23 a federal judge in Florida denied the DOJ’s request. Another request is pending in New York.

July 22: To avoid a House vote on a resolution urging the release of the Epstein files, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent lawmakers home early for the August recess.

July 23: In a surprise show of defiance against Speaker Johnson, a Republican-controlled House Oversight subcommittee voted 8-to-2 to subpoena the Justice Department’s Epstein files.

The unraveling

Also on July 23: The New York Times reported that in May, Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche informed Trump that his name appeared in the Epstein files. The bureau had gone through more than 100,000 pages of materials four times — including once to flag any references to Trump and other prominent figures.

July 24: Blanche — who was Trump’s personal lawyer in the Stormy Daniels “hush money” trial that culminated in his conviction on 34 felony counts — began a mission that was extraordinary for the Justice Department’s number two official. He went to Tallahassee and interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking as Epstein’s procurer.

July 25: After questioning Maxwell for two days, Blanche declared that the federal criminal investigation into targets beyond Maxwell and Epstein remained closed.

If the investigation into targets was closed, why was Blanche interviewing Maxwell?

The next act

On his way to Europe on July 25, Trump was asked whether he would consider pardoning Maxwell. Trump responded, “I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I haven’t thought about.”

After landing in Scotland, he denied that Bondi had briefed him on the Epstein matter in May: “No, I was never, never briefed, no.” He added, “I’m focused on making deals. I’m not focused on conspiracy theories.”

Ghislaine Maxwell is focused on making a deal too. Trump is her ticket out of prison. The question is what she can offer that will prompt him to punch it.

Paramount and CBS must answer one simple question

Timing is everything.

The news that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert will end in May 2026 has focused on whether his termination was part of a “deal” (implicit or explicit) to get Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval of the pending merger between CBS parent company Paramount and Skydance Media. If so, it was another “bend-the-knee” moment in the media’s ongoing capitulation to U.S. President Donald Trump’s attack on democracy’s foundational institutions.

But the timing of the announcement itself is raises a critical unanswered question: Why now? It was either pandering to Trump, management’s incompetence, or both.

The cast of characters

Skydance owner David Ellison is the son of Oracle billionaire founder Larry Ellison, Trump’s friend and supporter.

Through her family’s holding company National Amusements, Sheri Redstone owns a controlling interest in Paramount and is a member of its board of directors.

If the FCC approves the Skydance-Paramount merger announced in July 2024, Skydance will pay National Amusements $2.4 billion.

Colbert has become one of Trump’s fiercest TV critics. Beginning in 2016 and continuing for nine consecutive seasons, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has been the highest-rated program in its time slot.

The timeline

In September 2024, Trump urged CBS to fire Colbert.

Days before the 2024 election, Trump filed a frivolous lawsuit accusing CBS of bias in broadcasting a 60 Minutes interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. The complaint alleged that the edited interview and associated programming were “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference” intended to “mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales” in Harris’ favor.

Prominent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said that “the First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from just such litigation.” Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet called it “ridiculous junk and should be mocked.” Attorney Charles Tobin warned, “This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media.”

February 6, 2025: Redstone told the Paramount board she wanted to settle Trump’s lawsuit.

April 13: Trump said CBS “should lose their license” and he hoped that his appointed FCC chair Brendan Carr “will impose the maximum fine and punishment.”

April 22: Bill Owens, the producer of 60 Minutes — a 30-year veteran of CBS — resigned with this warning: “[O]ver the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience.”

April 27: 60 Minutes co-anchor Scott Pelley praised Owens and offered an unprecedented on-air rebuke of Paramount: “Stories we’ve pursued for 57 years are often controversial — lately, the Israel-Gaza war and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair — he was tough that way. But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways. None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”

May 4: 60 Minutes aired a segment quoting prominent attorneys criticizing Trump for unlawfully targeting Big Law firms. In response, Trump threatened to sue CBS for defamation again, but he never did.

July 1: CBS settled Trump’s frivolous 60 Minutes lawsuit regarding the Harris interview by contributing $16 million toward Trump’s future presidential library.

July 14: In Colbert’s first appearance after a two-week vacation, he returned to The Late Show and joked that Paramount’s settlement with Trump was “a big fat bribe.”

July 15: Skydance’s David Ellison was in Washington to meet with FCC chairman Carr and other FCC officials. Later the company said Ellison “discussed Skydance’s commitment to unbiased journalism and its embrace of diverse viewpoints, principles that will ensure CBS’ editorial decision-making reflects the varied ideological perspectives of American viewers.”

July 17: During the taping of The Late Show, Colbert informed his audience that CBS had informed him the prior evening that he and his program had been terminated, effective May 2026.

July 18: Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings…”

The other possibility

Already swirling in controversy over the departure of 60 Minutes producer and settling the Trump case, Paramount and CBS anticipated the outrage and skepticism that terminating Colbert and The Late Show would generate.

Contemporaneously with Colbert’s firing, George Cheeks (co-CEO of Paramount Global and president and CEO of CBS), Amy Reisenbach (president of CBS Entertainment), and David Stapf (president of CBS Studios) issued a statement declaring: “This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content, or other matters happening at Paramount.”

Following the announcement, “leaked” reports from anonymous CBS sources and “sources close to the network” suggested that The Late Show was losing millions of dollars yearly.

Maybe it was. But that argument proves too much.

“[T]wo people familiar with the show’s finances” told The New York Times anonymously that the show “was racking up losses of tens of millions of dollars a year.”

If true, the losses weren’t a new problem. And there’s no evidence that CBS gave Colbert, who produces the top-rated show, an opportunity to explore less expensive production possibilities.

So why announce cancellation of the program 10 months before it would leave the air in mid-2026?

It’s possible — but unlikely — that Colbert’s contract required 10-months’ advance notice of termination. But if so, CBS’ failure to include such context to blunt the otherwise apparent connection to the merger was a profound management failure.

On the other hand, if Colbert’s contract did not require 10 months advance notice prior to termination, the announcement was either: 1) one more effort to grease the Paramount-Skydance merger skids by “bending the knee” to Trump; or 2) a different management failure that intensified the preexisting cloud over CBS’ integrity.

Either way, Paramount and CBS owe shareholders and viewers an answer to a simple question: Why now?

Their first press release was an exercise in obfuscation.

Steven J. Harper is an attorney, adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School, and author of several books, including Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster's Story and The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis. He has been a regular columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather's News and Guts, and The American Lawyer. Follow him at https://thelawyerbubble.com.

Thom Tillis had a chance to serve his country – he blew it

The incompetence of U.S. President Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense is painfully obvious. Former Fox & Friends weekend host Pete Hegseth was never qualified for the job.

Belatedly, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) — who became the key vote to confirm the nominee — admits it.

Tillis squandered a unique opportunity to protect the nation from Hegseth. The country is now paying the price for his cowardice.

Tillis’ reversal

In a phone call with Trump just before Christmas, Tillis promised to support all of Trump’s cabinet picks. But he developed strong reservations about Hegseth — strong enough to participate in a secret effort to kill the nomination. Serious issues about character, statements about barring women in combat, and allegations of sexual misconduct dogged Hegseth. He had none of the qualifications necessary to run the defense department of more than 2 million military and civilian personnel.

Other Republicans — including Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — had similar concerns. And to confirm Hegseth, Trump could afford to lose only three Republican senators. Ernst, a combat veteran who survived a sexual assault, capitulated to pressure from Trump’s supporters who threatened a primary challenge in her upcoming reelection. The other three — Murkowski, Collins, and McConnell — held firm.

That left Tillis. After weeks of coordinating with fellow senators to oppose the nomination, he caved. As with Ernst, the threat of a Trump-endorsed primary challenger lurked. But Tillis attributed his earlier resistance to “vetting” and said that he decided to support Hegseth after conducting “due diligence.”

Even so, his abrupt, 11th-hour reversal from “no” to “yes” surprised Murkowski and Collins. And it positioned Vice President JD Vance to cast a tie-breaking vote that put Hegseth in charge at the Pentagon by one of the narrowest margins of any defense secretary in modern history: 51 to 50.

Hegseth’s scandals

Before long, Hegseth’s incompetence revealed itself.

In his first major overseas appearance on Feb. 12, he “made a rookie mistake,” according to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Hegseth told NATO and Ukrainian ministers that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders was “an unrealistic objective” and ruled out NATO membership for Kyiv. Hegseth’s comments gave away Ukraine’s negotiating leverage before cease-fire negotiations with Russia had even begun.

“I don’t know who wrote the speech,” Wicker continued. “[I]t is the kind of thing Tucker Carlson could have written, and Carlson is a fool.”

Then came the “Signalgate” scandal. Hegseth was on a group chat from March 13-15 that inadvertently included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The chat detailed sensitive information describing the United States’ imminent attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Shortly after that scandal became public came Signalgate II. The New York Times reported that Hegseth himself had shared detailed information about the forthcoming strikes in Yemen on March 15 in a private Signal group chat that included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer.

According to the Times, “Mr. Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, a former Fox News producer, is not a Defense Department employee, but she has traveled with him overseas and drawn criticism for accompanying her husband to sensitive meetings with foreign leaders.”

“Mr. Hegseth’s brother Phil and Tim Parlatore, who continues to serve as his personal lawyer, both have jobs in the Pentagon, but it is not clear why either would need to know about upcoming military strikes aimed at the Houthis in Yemen.”

There’s more. Recently, the public learned that Hegseth paused U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine without informing Trump. A week later, Trump resumed the shipments.

Tillis’s lamentations

At long last, Tillis found his spine — but only after announcing that he would not seek reelection in 2026. In a July 9 interview on CNN, he admitted the truth about Hegseth: “With the passing of time, I think it’s clear he’s out of his depth as a manager of a large, complex organization.”

As for Hegseth’s unilateral pause on weapons to Ukraine without informing Trump, Tillis said, “That’s just amateurish. That’s from somebody who doesn’t understand large organization dynamics.”

Would Tillis vote to confirm Hegseth today? “Now, I have the information of him being a manager, and I don’t think his probationary period has been very positive.”

In the same interview, Tillis also commented on his affirmative vote for another Trump cabinet member whose incompetence is likewise becoming clear and deadly: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“Quite honestly, the main reason I supported Kennedy was because [Sen.] Bill Cassidy [R-La.] thought that we should see how it plays out,” Tillis said.

That cabinet pick is not playing out very well either. Just ask Sen. Cassidy.

Steven J. Harper is an attorney, adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School, and author of several books, including Crossing Hoffa -- A Teamster's Story and The Lawyer Bubble -- A Profession in Crisis. He has been a regular columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather's News and Guts, and The American Lawyer. Follow him at https://thelawyerbubble.com