The FBI is assigning 260 investigative analysts to examine 2020 election records in Fulton County, Georgia, a sign that the Trump administration is not letting up on investigating unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the presidential election he lost, The New York Times reports.

An internal memo obtained by The New York Times says the surge is a priority of FBI Director Kash Patel.

In January, the FBI raided an election warehouse in Fulton County, seizing more than 600 boxes of election materials, including original ballots from the 2020 election, The Times reports. It notes that an unsealed affidavit used to obtain the search warrant for the raid relied heavily on debunked claims about ballot anomalies in the 2020 election.

Liz Oyer, the DOJ’s United States Pardon Attorney, was fired in March 2025 and unceremoniously escorted out of the building. Her job was to work with the White House to determine who was deserving of clemency.

She suggested she was fired for refusing to back the restoration of gun ownership rights for Trump supporter and actor Mel Gibson, who pleaded guilty in 2011 to a misdemeanor domestic-violence charge involving his former romantic partner, who reported that he punched her in the mouth and broke her teeth while she held their 1-year-old daughter.

Simply put, she felt the Trump administration wanted to ignore prudent and ethical guidelines for pardons and commutations.

Since leaving DOJ, she has been outspoken critic of the Trunp DOJ, and raised concerns on TV news programs, on a number of high-profile podcasts, and through opinion pieces on her Substack page, Lawyer Oyer, as well as in publications including Rolling Stone and The New York Times.

Now, on her Substack page she shares a letter she has sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging it to not confirm Todd Blanche as the permanent attorney general.

Here’s the letter:

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary:

I am writing as a former career official of the Department of Justice to make this Committee aware of my personal experience with Todd Blanche, who has been nominated to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Blanche fired me last year after I refused a demand from his office to use my official position to facilitate a political favor for a friend of the President—specifically, restoring the federal firearm rights of a convicted domestic abuser. After I raised well-documented concerns about public safety (and made clear that the Department could legally proceed despite my objections), Mr. Blanche terminated my employment. Mr. Blanche then subjected me and my family to an extended course of retaliatory conduct, including attempting to prevent me from informing Congress about his actions by directing U.S. Marshals to deliver an intimidating letter to our home and initiating a baseless professional misconduct complaint against me with the bar where I am licensed.

I believe that this Committee should be aware of Mr. Blanche’s conduct, which bears upon his fitness to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Blanche fired me after I refused to rubberstamp a political favor for a friend of the President.

Until March 2025, I was the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney—the senior career official responsible for advising DOJ leadership and the President on executive clemency matters. Mr. Blanche was my direct supervisor. He fired me on March 7, two days after he was confirmed to serve as Deputy Attorney General. My firing was a shock—but also not a total surprise. It happened just hours after I informed Mr. Blanche’s office that I would not rubberstamp a political favor for a celebrity friend of the President.

One day after Mr. Blanche’s confirmation, his staff instructed me to write a memo recommending that the Department reinstate the gun ownership rights of the actor Mel Gibson. Mr. Gibson had lost his federal firearm rights after he was convicted of a crime of domestic violence; his then-girlfriend reported that Mr. Gibson hit her while she was holding their infant daughter, punched her in the mouth breaking her teeth, threatened her with a gun, and verbally berated her. Shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, Mr. Gibson’s attorney sent a letter to DOJ requesting that the Department reinstate his federal firearm rights. The letter cited Mr. Gibson’s personal relationship with Mr. Trump and his catalogue of famous films.

Mr. Gibson’s request raised serious concerns about public safety. Data reported by DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women shows that over half of the women murdered in the United States are killed by a current or former intimate partner, and “the presence of firearms significantly escalates the danger in relationships where there is domestic violence by increasing the risk of homicide by 500%.”^[1]

Under longstanding DOJ policy, the Office of the Pardon Attorney does not recommend restoration of rights without careful vetting. Pardon candidates are required to provide detailed information about risk factors such as mental health and substance abuse history; to supply supporting documentation and character references; and to undergo a rigorous background investigation, conducted by the FBI, to ensure that restoring their rights would not endanger public safety. Rearming a domestic abuser without careful vetting was not consistent with the Department’s policies or its duty to protect public safety.

My office had not vetted Mr. Gibson’s application, nor were we given an opportunity to do so. For that reason, I informed Mr. Blanche’s staff that I could not make the recommendation they demanded. I had already sent forward a list of dozens of recommended candidates for restoration of gun rights who my office had fully vetted; Mr. Gibson’s name was not on the list.

My recommendation was not actually needed to grant Mr. Gibson’s request. The legal authority to restore firearm rights rests with the Attorney General. As a career official, I understood that my recommendation would lend a veneer of legitimacy to what could otherwise look like a political favor. But I made sure Mr. Blanche’s office knew that the Department could restore Mr. Gibson’s rights without my approval.

Nevertheless, on March 6, 2025 (one day before I was fired), Mr. Blanche’s senior staff instructed me to prepare a memo recommending that the Department reinstate Mr. Gibson’s gun rights. I informed them by email the same day that I could not make that recommendation because of my concerns about public safety. One of Mr. Blanche’s deputies called me that evening and asked me to reconsider, citing Mr. Gibson’s personal relationship with the President. I knew from the tone of the conversation that this request was highly consequential. I didn’t sleep at all that night. In the morning, I sent Mr. Blanche’s deputy an email reflecting that I had not changed my mind. A few hours later, I was notified that Mr. Blanche had fired me.

That took place on a Friday afternoon. A panicked colleague pulled me out of a meeting to inform me that security officers were waiting to escort me out of the building. I rushed back to my office, where I was handed a three-sentence memo signed by Mr. Blanche. It informed me I was terminated effective immediately. I got no notice and no explanation. The officers allowed me to pack my personal belongings into a grocery bag, and they walked me out of the building in front of my stunned and traumatized staff.

I am still in litigation with the Department seeking recourse for my illegal firing, which plainly violates federal civil service and whistleblower protection laws. I appealed my firing to the Merit Systems Protection Board well over a year ago, but DOJ has repeatedly delayed and obstructed any resolution of the matter.

Mr. Blanche retaliated against me and my family multiple times after I was fired.

After I was fired, I spoke about it publicly. I felt it was my duty to voice my concerns about the reckless and dangerous use of official powers of the Justice Department. In response, Mr. Blanche gave a statement to the press attacking me for speaking out and claiming that my “version of events is false.”^[2] But he has never actually disputed any of the facts I described. Mr. Blanche’s office is in possession of documents that corroborate everything I have said, but he has declined to produce copies of them pursuant to a FOIA request, which I am now litigating.

Mr. Blanche’s false and disparaging statements about me were only the beginning of his retaliatory actions. A few weeks later, I was scheduled to testify before Members of Congress in a bicameral spotlight hearing, at the invitation of Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Adam Schiff. The hearing was scheduled to take place on a Monday (April 7). The Friday night before the hearing (April 4), Mr. Blanche directed the Department’s Security and Emergency Planning Staff to send armed Special Deputy U.S. Marshals to my home to intimidate me. I learned that the officers were en route to my house shortly after nine p.m., when a very decent career employee of the Department called to warn me. At the time, my teenager was home alone while my husband and I were out with my elderly parents. Knowing how traumatic it would be for my child if these armed men showed up at the door, the caller was able to get the officers to stand down, for which I am profoundly grateful.

I went forward with my testimony despite Mr. Blanche’s attempts to intimidate me. Copies of my written and oral remarks accompany this letter.^[3] I am also providing a copy of a complaint submitted on my behalf to DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).^[4]

Shortly after my testimony, I learned that Mr. Blanche had initiated a misconduct complaint against me with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the D.C. Bar, where I am licensed. I had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to hire a lawyer, at a time when I was unemployed. After a months-long investigation, the complaint was finally dismissed in February of this year. Though the complaint lacked merit, the process took a toll on me and my family (which presumably was the objective).

Mr. Blanche has obstructed my efforts to seek legal recourse against the Department.

On a human level, dealing with the Department has been a nightmare since my firing. As noted earlier, DOJ has aggressively delayed and side-tracked my straightforward MSPB challenge to my unlawful firing, effectively denying me my day in court thus far. Additionally, shortly after I was fired, I requested some basic personnel documents from DOJ, including my annual performance evaluations, which show that I received the highest possible rating (“outstanding”) each year. DOJ responded that these were “complex” requests, and I should not expect a response anytime soon.

For weeks, DOJ also refused to provide me with documents about my benefits, including my health insurance and my retirement funds. Finally, after my requests received some media attention, I got an email advising me that my health insurance would expire in five days. To extend my coverage, the cost would more than quadruple. And to keep my family covered, I would have to provide proof of our familial relationships, including my marriage certificate, my child’s birth certificate, and proof of a common residence or joint tax filings.

I have also sought documents related to my firing pursuant to a FOIA request, which is now in litigation. Remarkably, the Department has claimed that Mr. Blanche’s office has no documents—none—related to my firing, despite the fact that Mr. Blanche himself dismissed me. DOJ FOIA staff claim that they searched Mr. Blanche’s files and found nothing—not a single page. They didn’t even find the memo he signed firing me in his files.

This raises serious questions about what channels of communications Mr. Blanche is using to conduct official DOJ business; where (or whether) he is preserving records required by federal law; and whether he is telling the truth about documents in his possession, custody or control. I respectfully suggest that this Committee should probe whether Mr. Blanche has complied with the Federal Records Act or is using forms of communication that evade oversight.^[5]

My treatment by Mr. Blanche is not an isolated case. Although many others have chosen not to speak out, numerous dedicated and high-performing senior career attorneys have been fired or driven out, without cause or explanation, from Mr. Blanche’s DOJ. The unmistakable message is that employees must keep their concerns to themselves about actions they view as unsafe or unlawful—or face losing their jobs.

The harmful impact of purging career officials is not limited to the dedicated civil servants who lose their livelihoods. My firing, for example, was traumatic to my entire team of hard-working career professionals. They watched in shock and horror as I was marched out of the building with no warning, no explanation, and no chance to say goodbye.

Since my firing, the pardon process has become a dangerous and chaotic free-for-all.

Removing career experts like me harms the Department’s ability to fulfill its vital mission of upholding the rule of law, and it makes America less safe. What has happened to the pardon process since my firing is just one example.

Though the President has absolute discretion with respect to pardons under the Constitution, for over 130 years the Justice Department has been charged with ensuring that the pardon power is not used recklessly, corruptly, or in other ways that are detrimental to the integrity of the justice system. Under federal regulations, the Pardon Attorney is charged with rigorously vetting applications for executive clemency and making recommendations in accordance with a detailed set of guidelines codified in the Justice Manual. By regulation, the Pardon Attorney’s recommendations are submitted “through the Deputy Attorney General,” who then exercises “such discretion and authority as is appropriate and necessary for the handling and transmittal of such recommendations to the President.” 28 C.F.R. § 0.36.

To guard against politicization of the pardon power, the position of Pardon Attorney has traditionally been reserved for a career expert. However, the job is now filled by Ed Martin, a political operative who failed to win confirmation as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Neither Mr. Blanche nor Mr. Martin has imposed any discipline on executive clemency. The lack of vetting has resulted in staggering rates of recidivism among recent clemency recipients—including at least 14 charged with sex crimes or offenses involving child sexual abuse material, and at least six with domestic violence crimes.^[6] Crime victims have been deprived of over a billion dollars in restitution owed as a result of pardons.^[7] A pay-to-play pardon system has developed that has advantaged the wealthy and well-connected.^[8]

Hardly anyone who has received clemency during this Administration meets the merit-based criteria historically enforced by the Justice Department. Most have not even applied through the Justice Department.^[9] Meanwhile, there is now a backlog of over 20,000 applications for clemency pending with the Office of the Pardon Attorney—an increase of more than 300 percent since my firing last year. Without question, some of those whose applications are languishing there for lack of political connections would merit the exercise of executive clemency.

* * * *

I welcome the opportunity to meet with the Members of this Committee in person or virtually. I am also willing to testify under oath. I am available to provide any additional information that would be helpful to you. I am sharing my personal contact information under separate cover. Thank you for your careful consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth G. Oyer

By Greg Stejskal

A new book, “The Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice,” chronicles the transformation of the Department of Justice under the Trump administration from an entity that was semi-independent of White House influence to a weapon of revenge wielded by Trump and his minions. In so doing, the Trump administration is abrogating many of the safeguards put in place following Watergate.

The author, Devlin Barrett currently writes for the New York Times and has covered federal law enforcement for more than 25 years. He began his career in journalism at the NY Post and has reported for Associated Press, Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He has been part of four Pulitzer Prize winning teams.

I have closely followed the Trump administration’s efforts to control and change the DOJ since the inauguration. But it has been difficult with so much happening. It seems to follow Steve Bannon’s plan to “flood the zone” with information and disinformation making it almost impossible to keep up.

Barrett’s book has focused on the changes at the DOJ/FBI and provides a readable first draft of history putting the events and characters in context. Barrett also guides the reader through some of the legal procedures like how federal grand juries operate.

Criminal law and procedure can sometimes be esoteric, but he has made it understandable for the layman. Barrett with his long-term reporting of DOJ/FBI, has captured the culture and ethos of the DOJ attorneys and FBI agents. In his “acknowledgments” Barrett wrote:

“The people who deserve the deepest thanks for this book would suffer the most for being listed here. Instead of names, I will acknowledge the character of those who gave this work meaning. They are Americans who took the oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

“They are Americans who know that being an officer of the court demands honesty, integrity, and ethical conduct, not only when it is easy but when it is hard.”

“They are Americans who disagree on many things, but who share that the way to resolve disputes is not through lies, threats, or self-serving backroom deals.”

“Many of those people never considered until 2025, that their oath ‘to bear true faith and allegiance’ to their country might mean risking their livelihoods. Nevertheless, when confronted with difficult moral choices (and some that were not difficult), they made sacrifices to defend principles that protect the American people. Even more than the ‘rule of law’ or ‘norms’ — two concepts that probably don’t poll well or get many clicks — they stood up for basic human decency and common sense. Thank you.”

Author Devlin Barrett (NY Times photo)

The overarching theme of the book is Trump’s & his acolytes’ efforts to make the DOJ the Department of Revenge – Trump’s means of retribution. But a subplot to this retribution is the efforts to change the investigative and prosecutive priorities of the DOJ/FBI.

The priorities have been: protecting national security, i.e., counterterrorism, counter-espionage, cybersecurity; public corruption; white collar crime like sophisticated frauds; organized crime. Investigating and prosecuting these crimes is complicated and generally requires long-term commitment.

Trump’s revenge agenda prioritizes prosecuting his perceived enemies and reverses the traditional criminal process of investigating the crime and obtaining evidence proving the crime and identifying those that perpetrated it. The revenge agenda identifies the perceived enemy then seeks to find a crime for which he/she can be prosecuted.

Most of what the DOJ/FBI does occurs outside of Washington DC. Every day all over the country, assistant US attorneys and FBI agents are investigating and prosecuting cases that have no direct connection to what’s going on in the Capitol.

This is where I spent most of my career in what we referred to as “the field.” But the priorities and culture are determined by the leadership in Washington. In this administration, agents and AUSAs have been fired or forced to resign because they were investigating and prosecuting legitimate cases involving members of the current administration or its supporters. This skews the mission to follow the facts without fear or favor. Now fear and favor are counter-balanced on the scales of justice.

Barrett quotes from Maureen Comey’s farewell letter to her Justice Department colleagues after being fired without cause by Trump: “If a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain. Do not let that happen. Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims. Of dedication to truth above all else.”

Maureen Comey is the daughter of James Comey, the former director of the FBI fired by Trump in his first term. She was also the principal prosecutor of Ghislaine Maxwell who was convicted for being a facilitator for Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities.

And now we see what seems to be clear violations of federal law, like blatant corruption and unjustified homicides committed by federal agents, that are not even being investigated, let alone prosecuted.

Perhaps the only saving grace which is of little solace is that sycophancy doesn’t equal competence. Most of the prosecutions of Trump’s enemies have failed, not even getting past the grand jury stage. Unfortunately, the incompetence further damages the creditability of the Justice Department and the FBI.

Every American should be concerned about the Trump administration’s attack on justice. Devlin Barrett’s book is excellent, but there will need to be a sequel – hopefully with a happy ending.

By Steve Neavling

Douglas S. DePodesta, the head of the FBI’s Chicago Field Office, is stepping down after nearly two years in the role, adding to a turbulent stretch for federal law enforcement in the city, The Chicago Sun-Times reports.

DePodesta’s last day will be Monday, shortly after the Fourth of July holiday, according to a law enforcement source. The reason for his departure was not immediately clear, and DePodesta could not be reached for comment.

The FBI’s Rapid Response social media account appeared to respond to news of the departure late Wednesday, writing, “It’s simple: Anyone who is not on board with THIS FBI under the leadership of President Trump — which has achieved the lowest murder rate ever — is free to leave.” The post came in response to former FBI agent and podcaster Kyle Seraphin, who had posted about DePodesta.

DePodesta has been with the FBI since 2002 and took over the Chicago office in August 2024. During his tenure, the office saw the conclusion of the long-running public corruption investigation that led to former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan’s conviction and prison sentence. The office also handled counterterrorism cases, including one involving a former Navy sailor convicted of helping plan an attack on Naval Station Great Lakes.

On Wednesday, the FBI announced the arrest of an alleged member of the cyber hacking group Scattered Spider.

“Thanks to our international partnerships and cross-agency collaboration, the FBI successfully identified a known Scattered Spider actor alleged to have targeted hardworking Americans and critical infrastructure,” DePodesta said in a press release.

His departure comes as U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros faces mounting questions over the collapse of the “Broadview Six” prosecution against Operation Midway Blitz protesters. The case fell apart amid allegations of prosecutor misconduct before a grand jury, prompting calls for Boutros to resign and for a special counsel to investigate.

Boutros has promised “sweeping” grand jury reforms and a review of nearly 20 years of work by veteran prosecutor Sheri Mecklenburg, but judges have continued raising concerns about federal prosecutors’ work since the case collapsed.

By Steve Neavling

Former CIA Director John Brennan is asking a federal judge to force the Justice Department to preserve records tied to its investigation of him before prosecutors decide whether to bring charges, The Washington Post reports.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Washington, Brennan’s attorneys said they want access to the records to support a potential claim that any prosecution would be vindictive and driven by President Trump’s push to punish political enemies. Brennan, who led the CIA during the Obama administration, helped oversee intelligence gathering into possible ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

“This administration has adopted a policy of using criminal process and prosecution to punish the President’s perceived adversaries,” Kenneth L. Wainstein, an attorney for Brennan, wrote. “It is against this backdrop that the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John O. Brennan, is being vindictively singled out for investigation and prosecution.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said Wednesday that the department could not comment on whether any investigation exists, but added, “It is certainly rich that John Brennan is accusing anyone of a ‘retribution campaign.’”

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has publicly hinted at the investigation, saying during a recent appearance on Sean Hannity’s podcast, “I’m not giving away state secrets.”

The investigation is being run by a team of lawyers under the U.S. attorney in Miami and has included subpoenas and interviews with former intelligence officials. Prosecutors are examining a theory that Brennan and other government officials violated Trump’s civil rights through what DOJ officials have described as a years-long “deep state” conspiracy involving the Russia investigation and later prosecutions of Trump. They have also reviewed Brennan’s 2023 congressional testimony about intelligence findings that Russia sought to help Trump’s 2016 campaign.

\Brennan has denied wrongdoing and says the investigation is an effort to harass and intimidate him.

By Steve Neavling

The Justice Department is telling federal prosecutors to go after so-called birth tourism schemes, signaling that the Trump administration plans to keep pressing the issue even after the Supreme Court rejected its attempt to narrow birthright citizenship, Reuters reports.

In a June 30 memo to DOJ employees, senior department official Colin McDonald said people who come to the U.S. under “false pretences” to give birth and secure citizenship for their children could face criminal charges under laws covering visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.

“The Department of Justice will zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system,” McDonald wrote in the memo, which was posted on social media.

The directive came hours after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against a Trump executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when neither parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. The decision preserved the longstanding principle that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen.

The memo directs prosecutors to work with the Department of Homeland Security on investigations, following an April DHS order that told investigative agents to focus on a new “Birth Tourism Initiative.” The Justice Department had argued in defense of Trump’s order that birthright citizenship encourages pregnant foreign nationals without lasting ties to the U.S. to enter the country so their children can receive citizenship, an issue also raised by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion.

By Steve Neavling

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said Monday that he was relieved to see Iran eliminated from the FIFA World Cup, saying he “danced a happy dance” after the team’s run ended, Politico reports.

“I’m just glad they’re done, and they’re not coming back,” said Mullin, whose agency is overseeing security at the U.S. games. “I was so happy when we were able to pull their visas and said they could leave U.S. soil, and I might have sung a song or two, or maybe danced a happy dance.”

The comments came after Mullin addressed federal employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Special Events Coordination Center, which helped coordinate security planning for the 48-team tournament. His remarks underscored how deeply politics and security concerns have shadowed this year’s World Cup, especially after U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran raised questions about whether the Iranian team would be allowed to compete in the U.S.

Iran’s participation had been uncertain for weeks as FIFA President Gianni Infantino worked between Washington and Tehran to avoid a boycott that could have undermined the tournament. Iran’s training camp was ultimately moved from Tucson, Ariz., to Mexico, and the team faced strict travel limits, including arriving only shortly before matches and leaving soon afterward.

Mullin defended the restrictions, saying the administration had tried to accommodate the team while protecting national security. He alleged Iranian officials attempted to bring people into the U.S. with ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including some who had not previously traveled with the team. He also said two people presented as media members had connections to IRGC intelligence and claimed another applicant was the subject of an international warrant.

The Iranian embassy in Mexico did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“They were playing games the whole time,” Mullin said. “I’ve talked about them enough. They’re gone, they’re out of the tournament, we don’t deal with them anymore.”

By Steve Neavling

New Mexico officials may seek billions of dollars in civil damages after revelations that federal drug agents repeatedly allowed fentanyl shipments to move through communities while trying to build larger criminal cases, the Associated Press reports.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said Monday that she plans to take her outrage “right to the White House and Congress” and demand assurances that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is no longer using the strategy in New Mexico or anywhere else. The state has been hit hard by overdoses, even as fentanyl deaths have declined elsewhere.

“This is a stunning failure by the federal government,” Lujan Grisham told reporters during a news conference at the state medical examiner’s office in Albuquerque, where she appeared with state and local law enforcement officials seeking answers. “It’s disgusting and despicable.”

The DEA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson pointed to President Donald Trump’s decision to classify fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction” and his signing of legislation aimed at cracking down on the synthetic opioid.