Well over a year after the Department of Justice’s Inspector General started an investigation into the US Attorney firings, they’re set to punt tomorrow. They won’t refer Gonzales–or anyone else–for prosecution, but they will recommend that someone–someone with subpoena power–continue the investigation.

Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility director H. Marshall Jarrett, who wrote the report, will not absolve Justice Department officials of blame but will recommend that efforts continue to resolve unanswered questions, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings have not yet been made public. 

The problem, it seems, is the same problem that prevented Congress from determining the truth behind the US Attorney firings: key participants refused to cooperate.

An intense effort to determine how the firing plan originated and whether perjury or obstruction of justice laws were violated in refusing to reveal the basis for the dismissals has been thwarted, partly because investigators lack the power to compel testimony from people outside of the Justice Department.

[snip]

Investigators did not win access to lawmakers and their assistants or former White House aides despite attempts to interview them.

Yeah, those key participants: Harriet Miers, Turdblossom, Bush, Domenici and his staffers, Heather Wilson and her staffers, etcetera. What a surprise. Mukasey’s refusal to appoint a prosecutor last year–and his ongoing support for the claims of executive privilege and absolute immunity–bought the White House a year in their attempts to stall or quash this investigation.

And, as if you didn’t already guess, Mukasey seems unprepared to appoint a special counsel to investigate this–he seems poised to appoint someone internal, just as he did with the torture tape destruction investigation.

Despite calls from some of the fired U.S. attorneys, Mukasey will not name a special prosecutor from outside the department. Instead, he intends to hand over the project to a career lawyer with experience in public corruption work, the sources said. 

Tune in tomorrow where we see yet more evidence of DOJ’s changing stories about why they fired the US Attorneys.

Via Marty Lederman, an update on the investigation(s) into the USA Purge.

But recent behind-the-scenes activity in several investigations suggests that the issue that roiled Congress in 2007 could re-emerge in the heat of the election year. Two inquiries by the House and Senate ethics committees are examining whether several congressional Republicans, including one running for the Senate this year, improperly interfered with investigations.

As potent as the congressional probes might be, they appear to be far narrower than a sprawling inquiry launched by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

Investigators from these offices have been questioning whether senior officials lied to Congress, violated the criminal provisions in the Hatch Act, tampered with witnesses preparing to testify to Congress, obstructed justice, took improper political considerations into account during the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys and created widespread problems in the department’s Civil Rights Division, according to several people familiar with the investigation.

It is mostly just a review. The two most interesting details I found were, firstly, the news that the House and Senate Ethics Committees were still pursuing this. That suggests that–as we suspected–Pete Domenici may well be leaving the Senate because he knows he broke the law when he tried to get David Iglesias fired for not indicting Democrats according to the election schedule. It also means Representative Heather Wilson will have some challenges as she runs for the Senate this year (the House inquiry will predictably lead nowhere, but if this report comes out before the election…). 

The other interesting detail is a partial list of those whom the OIG/OPR investigation have interviewed (including David Iglesias’ wife):

Following the Senate ethics committee visit to Albuquerque last month, Justice Department investigators interviewed Iglesias’s former staff, according to a well-placed source.

Justice Department investigators also interviewed Allen Weh, chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, last year.

Weh reportedly complained about Iglesias in 2005 to Karl Rove, who was then White House deputy chief of staff.

Weh said last week that his interview with the investigators was brief, and he didn’t expect inquiries to amount to anything significant. “People don’t care about this; this is yesterday,” Weh said.

These two details–that the investigators interviewed Weh and Iglesias’ former staffers–are important. Weh was in the press early claiming he had been pushing Rove to fire Iglesias back in 2005, much earlier than the DOJ documents suggested Iglesias had been targeted. But it now appears Weh’s comments were part of a cover-up, an attempt to draw attention away from the later period, in which Bush was personally involved in Iglesias’ targeting. No wonder Weh wants you to believe that "this is yesterday."

By interviewing Iglesias’ former staff, investigators will also be able to pinpoint when the "absentee landlord" claims began–and show that that, too, was just a cover story to hide the actual events that implicate Bush.

The article suggests we may get "a scathing report within the next three months," though we were waiting for a report last fall. Let’s hope the three months estimate is more real than the last one.

This is my general review of the interim report on the USA Purge. If you haven’t already done so, make sure you read the post on the Iglesias cover-up, which I believe to be the most important aspect of the report.

The report on the findings to date in the USA purge lists the following crimes and violations that may have been committed in the course of the USA firings:

• Obstruction of justice, attempted obstruction of justice [18 USC 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2)]
• Criminal Hatch Act violations [18 USC 606]
• Presidential failure to ensure that laws are faithfully executed [Constitution, Article II, Section 3]
• Civil Hatch Act violations [5 USC 7323(a)(1)]
• Federal Civil Rights laws [18 USC 242]
• Conspiracy [18 USC 2, 371]
• Perjury [18 USC 1621]
• False Statements [18 USC 1001]

For a number of these potential crimes (particularly obstruction and criminal Hatch Act violations), the report cites multiple possible violations. This is a list that bloggers on this topic need to keep ready at hand, because it puts in concrete terms what this whole investigation is about. This report, for the first time, makes clear that Congress is investigating real criminal violations, that evidence suggests a crime was committed, and that by invoking executive privilege, the White House is obstructing the investigation into potential crimes.

281 days. That’s how long–by my admittedly rough count–Jeff Taylor has been serving as Interim USA for DC. He’s been serving roughly 21 days since George Bush signed a law that effectively did away with the PATRIOT appointment he currently serves under. Yet there he is, a former DOJ clique-member, Counselor to the Attorney General for four years, and before that Counsel to the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yet come Wednesday, when it comes time to talk about a contempt citation for Sara Taylor, Jeff Taylor is the one who will get to choose whether or not he will serve that citation.

Now, perhaps Pat Leahy knows Taylor and is confident he’ll serve SJC’s subpoenas. But I doubt it, because if so, I’m guessing Taylor wouldn’t have that "interim" before his name still.

So why is Jeff Taylor still serving? When do we get our new USA for DC? Because, in about four days, it’ll become crystal clear that appointing a Senate-approved USA is long overdue.

At a hearing before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs this week, Thomas Heffelfinger got asked some questions about how the USA Purge related to his work–and that of Chiara, Charlton, Iglesias, McKay, and Bogden before they were fired. In his testimony, Heffelfinger noted that those USAs on NAIS who were fired were not just on the subcommittee, they were leaders on it. Of the meetings NAIS had, four of five were hosted by the fired USAs (Chiara was the only fired USA who did not host a meeting). Heffelfinger went on:

All of those five people were zealous advocates in their own districts for improving public safety in Indian Country and improving Indian Country’s role in our broader Homeland Security infrastructure. As to the specific reasons why individuals got put on that list I think you will have to ask Kyle Sampson [laughs] but it is not a mere coincidence that five of eight were leaders amongst Native American prosecutors.

You’d think that, after Heffelfinger made such a statement before Congress, someone would act on it. We may not have long to wait. From a local story on Heffelfinger’s testimony:

Heffelfinger was slated to attend a meeting at the Justice Departmenton Thursday afternoon but would not say with whom he was meeting.

And DOJ, which has given precisely no persuasive explanations for anyone (save Kevin Ryan’s) firing, wants you to know that a focus on Native American issues has nothing to do with the firing.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Heffelfinger’sassertions were false, suggesting that Heffelfinger had no evidencelinking the firings and work in Indian Country.

I say we bring back Kyle Sampson and ask him under oath!

Most reports on the resignation letter from the last three AUSAs on the Eric Adams case focus, justifiably, on its substance. After stating that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche would only let them return from paid leave if they confessed wrong-doing they didn’t commit, Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach, and Derek Wikstrom instead resigned.

The Department placed each of us on administrative leave ostensibly to review our, and the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office’s, handling of the Adams case. It is now clear that one of the preconditions you have placed on our returning to the Office is that we must express regret and admit some wrongdoing by the Office in connection with the refusal to move to dismiss the case. We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none.

[snip]

Serving in the Southern District of New York has been an honor. There is no greater privilege than to work for an institution whose mandate is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. We will not abandon this principle to keep our jobs. We resign.

But I’m just as interested in the date: Tuesday’s date, April 22.

The same day that Jay Clayton was apparently installed at SDNY, over Chuck Schumer’s attempt to hold his nomination.

Trump has, in general, conducted his purges before bringing in new leaders, even if (as with Kash Patel) the incoming leader was secretly part of the purge. In any case, the attack on the Adams

prosecutors has been going on for months. Emil Bove first put Wikstrom on paid leave, along with Hagan Scotten, on February 13, over two months ago. He first attempted to smear prosecutors with quotations stripped of context on March 7, by which point he had already rifled through their communications.

In between, Judge Dale Ho pushed back on DOJ’s claims any of these prosecutors engaged in misconduct.

Finally, the parties raise related issues in their briefs that do not appear in DOJ’s Rule 48(a) Motion. For reasons explained below, a court cannot properly grant a Rule 48(a) motion on the basis of rationales that were not raised in the motion. But even considering these additional points on the merits, the Court finds them either inapposite or unsupported by the record. For example, DOJ attaches various exhibits to its brief consisting of communications involving the former prosecution team and asserts that they show “troubling conduct” at USAO-SDNY. DOJ Br. at 1. But these communications were not public until DOJ sought to rely on them; as a matter of logic, they could not have affected “appearances” in this case. Moreover, the notion that DOJ sought dismissal because of improper conduct by the USAO-SDNY prosecution team is belied by the February 10 Decisional Memo itself, which makes clear that DOJ, in reaching its decision, “in no way call[ed] into question the integrity and efforts of the line prosecutors responsible for the case.” February 10 Decisional Memo at 1. At any rate, the Court has reviewed these communications carefully and finds that they do not show any improper motives or violations of ethics canons or the Justice Manual by the USAO-SDNY prosecution team or by former U.S. Attorney Sassoon.49

49 The Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution state, in relevant part, that “the attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.” U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual § 9-27.220 (2023). There is nothing in the USAO-SDNY communications indicating a violation of these principles. For example, one communication indicates that a friend of AUSA Scotten believed that he would make a good federal judge. See ECF No. 175-4. The Court has reviewed this communication and finds that it shows nothing noteworthy, only that AUSA Scotten was focused on his current job “first,” rather than on any possible future opportunities. Id. Another communication—an email circulating a draft letter to the Court—refers to the Williams op-ed as a “scandal,” ECF No. 175-3, but the use of that informal shorthand in an email does not suggest that any of the individual AUSAs on the case, or the U.S. Attorney at the time, had any inappropriate motives or otherwise violated Justice Department policy or guidelines. [my emphasis]

Ho thus foiled DOJ’s effort to conduct a Twitter Files attack on these prosecutors, to invent scandal among private messages.

And, apparently, Todd Blanche was left demanding that the prosecutors implicate themselves.

There’s nothing good about a dozen prosecutors ousted from DOJ over Bove’s effort to cover up his own quid pro quo with ginned up claims of wrong-doing. There’s nothing good about Blanche’s overt effort to weaponize DOJ in the name of fighting it.

But amid silence about other prosecutors ousted on similar terms, this seems to mark a clear failure. Thus far, the ethics of the prosecutors have thwarted Bove and Blanche’s efforts to recruit them in their own corruption.

There was a big development (and a few smaller ones) in DOGE’s [sic] attempts to start shutting down big parts — Treasury and Office of Personnel Management — of the government.

Before I look at those, I want to look at the order Trump appointee Carl Nichols (a former Clarence Thomas clerk) issued in a lawsuit two unions filed to enjoin the USAID shutdown.

The unions claimed the USAID shutdown violated:

• Separation of powers
• Take care clause
• Administrative Procedure Act because it was in excess of statutory authority
• Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and capricious

They described the death and destruction the shutdown has caused and will cause.

The agency’s collapse has had disastrous humanitarian consequences. Among countless other consequences of defendants’ reckless dissolution of the agency, halting USAID work has shut down efforts to prevent children from dying of malaria, stopped pharmaceutical clinical trials, and threatened a global resurgence in HIV.40 Deaths are inevitable. Already, 300 babies that would not have had HIV, now do.41 Thousands of girls and women will die from pregnancy and childbirth.42 Without judicial intervention, it will only get worse. The actions defendants plan to take on Friday will “doom billions of dollars in projects in some 120 countries, including security assistance for Ukraine and other countries, as well as development work for clean water, job training and education, including for schoolgirls under Taliban rule in Afghanistan.”43

And they asked for a Temporary Restraining Order on certain actions the government took, which Nichols (after a hearing) construed this way:

Plaintiffs frame their TRO request as pertaining to one overarching event: the allegedly “illegal and unconstitutional dismantling of USAID.” Mot. at 9. But at the TRO hearing, it became clear that plaintiffs’ allegations of irreparable injury flow principally from three government actions: (1) the placement of USAID employees on administrative leave; (2) the expedited evacuation of USAID employees from their host countries; and (3) Secretary Rubio’s January 24, 2025 order “paus[ing] all new obligations of funding . . . for foreign assistance programs funded by or through . . . USAID.” Dep’t of State, Memo. 25 STATE 6828. The Court finds that a TRO is warranted as to the first two actions but not the third.

The request for a Temporary Restraining Order included declarations describing the injuries the shutdown has and will cause, including this one describing the harm a sudden move will cause to an employee’s two special needs kids.

This directive will have profound impacts on the wellbeing of my kids’ personal, educational and psychological development. I have two children at Post: a seven-year-old in first grade and a two-year-old in preschool. Both have received “Class 2” medical clearances from State MED and thus they receive a Special Needs Education Allowance (SNEA) for occupational therapy (OT). My older child has documented gross and fine motor skill delays due to prenatal intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). My younger child also has documented gross and fine motor skill delays due to torticollis. Both children receive OT services in conjunction with their schooling in a purposefully integrated manner, a best practice promoted by specialists at the State Department ‘s Office of Child and Family Program (CFP) who oversee their care. Additionally, my older child who is in first grade was recently diagnosed by a licensed medical professional with ADHD and anxiety. They are now receiving Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) at Post from a licensed therapist and the Embassy Medical Unit is tracking their care.

Uprooting my children from their school, OT service providers, and child therapist in the middle of the school year will undoubtedly set back their development with possible lifelong implications. In the United States, we currently have no home or ties to a specific school district. My kids have lived overseas nearly their entire life in service of our country. There will be an inevitable gap – possibly a long one – before they are back in a stable routine of integrated schooling, OT services, and psychological services, a routine that medical professionals have determined they need to overcome developmental delays, and in the case of my seven-year-old, ADHD.

Or this one, describing the danger of losing access to security protections in high risk locations.

Personal Safety Risks: The shutdown could have life-threatening consequences for PSC colleagues serving in high-risk locations. The abrupt shutdown of government devices and access was highly reckless to colleagues in active conflict zones, such as Ukraine and Somalia. Friends and colleagues lost access to the Embassy safety communication channels, and many could no longer use a safety app called “Scry Panic 2.0,” which is installed on government-furnished equipment. In addition, many PSCs serving USAID abroad were unsure if they remained under U.S. chief-of-mission authority, which guarantees access to U.S. Government resources to ensure staff safety and accountability, including for emergency evacuations. U.S. Department of State officials, who were tasked with developing a plan to get USAID officials home, had no instructions or information on the next steps.

Many USAID PSCs work in high-risk environments where access to security resources is critical. I have heard from overseas colleagues who have now lost access to Diplomatic Security systems, meaning they can no longer coordinate security protocols, evacuations, or emergency procedures. Without official communication from USAID leadership, these PSCs remain in dangerous locations without clarity on whether they still have institutional protection. Others fear that in the event of a medical emergency or security threat, they will be forced to rely on personal funds or external assistance, as USAID has not provided guidance on whether existing security protocols still apply to them.

A risk exacerbated, the declaration explains, by the false claims launched against USAID staffers.

PSCs are also at increased risk of physical harm due to the threats, harassment, and misinformation that have accompanied the shutdown. The reckless rhetoric spread on social media and in political discourse has put USAID personnel at risk. I have heard from colleagues who have been labeled as criminals, supporters of terrorists, or Marxists—simply for doing their jobs.

High-profile figures, including Elon Musk and his supporters, have fueled this misinformation, creating a hostile environment where USAID staff fear for their personal safety. With individuals involved in the January 6th insurrection now released, there is a heightened sense of danger that USAID employees could be targeted next. I have colleagues who no longer feel safe in their own homes, with some refusing to leave family members alone out of fear that someone radicalized by online misinformation may try to harm them.

Judge Nichols cited both of those injuries in enjoining the government. He cited the latter risk when disputing the government claim that putting 2,700 USAID employees (500 of whom were already put on leave, the others would have been as of yesterday) was just a “garden-variety personnel action.”

Taking the TRO factors somewhat out of order and beginning with irreparable injury, the Court finds that plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that their members are facing irreparable injury from their placement on administrative leave, and that more members would face such injury if they were placed on administrative leave tonight. Many USAID personnel work in “highrisk environments where access to security resources is critical.” ECF No. 9-10 ¶ 14. No future lawsuit could undo the physical harm that might result if USAID employees are not informed of imminent security threats occurring in the countries to which they have relocated in the course of their service to the United States. The government argued at the TRO hearing that placing employees on paid administrative leave is a garden-variety personnel action unworthy of court intervention. But administrative leave in Syria is not the same as administrative leave in Bethesda: simply being paid cannot change that fact.

And he cited the former injury when ruling that immediately recalling the officers overseas would create real injury, one not counterbalanced by any pressing government need.

Specifically, whereas USAID’s “usual process” provides foreign service officers with six to nine months’ notice before an international move, plaintiffs allege that USAID has now issued a “mandatory recall notice” that would require more than 1400 foreign service officers to repatriate within 30 days. Mot. at 18.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that this action, too, risks inflicting irreparable harm on their members. Recalling employees on such short notice disrupts long-settled expectations and makes it nearly impossible for evacuated employees to adequately plan for their return to the United States. For instance, one of plaintiffs’ members attests that, if he is recalled from his foreign post, he will be forced to “[u]proot” his two special-needs-children from school in the middle of the year, “set[ting] back their development with possible lifelong implications.” ECF No. 9-5 ¶ 6. He also attests that, because his family has no home in the United States and his children have “lived overseas nearly their entire life,” there will be “an inevitable gap—possibly a long one—before they are back in a stable routine . . . that medical professionals have determined they need to overcome developmental delays.” Id. Other of plaintiffs’ members tell similar stories, explaining that the abrupt recall would separate their families, interrupt their medical care, and possibly force them to “be back in the United States homeless.” See ECF ECF No. 9-4 ¶ 7; ECF No. 9-5 ¶ 8; ECF No. 9-9 ¶ 6. Even if a future lawsuit could recoup any financial harms stemming from the expedited evacuations—like the cost of breaking a lease or of abandoning property that could not be sold prior to the move—it surely could not recoup damage done to educational progress, physical safety, and family relations.

But perhaps the most important language in Judge Nichols’ short opinion was his disdain for the government’s flimsy claims that the USAID employees have to be put on leave because of vague claims of fraud.

When the Court asked the government at the TRO hearing what harm would befall the government if it could not immediately place on administrative leave the more than 2000 employees in question, it had no response— beyond asserting without any record support that USAID writ large was possibly engaging in “corruption and fraud.”

That is, when pushed to justify this purge to a sympathetic Trump appointee, DOJ simply couldn’t substantiate claims of fraud.

To be sure, Nichols only enjoined the government until February 14. And he didn’t reverse the freeze on funding — notwithstanding that the government likely lied in saying that the freeze only applied to prospective funding obligations.

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that there are significant factual questions about what the practical effect of that order is. The government argued at the hearing that the order only prevents USAID from entering “new obligations of funding”—leaving it free to pay out contracts that it entered into prior to January 24, 2025—and indeed, the text of the order does seem to permit that result. Dep’t of State, Memo. 25 STATE 6828. Yet, plaintiffs maintained at the TRO hearing that payments on existing USAID grants have been frozen, preventing certain “contracting officers” employed by USAID from using agency funds to fulfill monetary commitments that the agency had already made.

But Trump’s administration had a chance to substantiate the wild claims of fraud and abuse that Elon Musk has leveled at USAID.

And Carl Nichols was unimpressed.

Among the many things that happened in the ongoing DOJ purge was the reassignment of DOJ’s top career official, Brad Weinsheimer, to Trump’s sanctuary cities task force.

The department’s most senior career official, a well-respected department employee responsible for some of the most sensitive cases, was reassigned to a much less powerful post.

Were that official, Bradley Weinsheimer, to remain as the associate deputy attorney general, he would have handled critical questions about possible recusals — a thorny issue for a department that will soon be run by a number of Mr. Trump’s former lawyers.

[snip]

Like many of the other officials who have received transfer emails, Mr. Weinsheimer has been given the option of moving to the department’s sanctuary cities task force — an offer seen by some in the same situation as an effort to force them into quitting.

Mr. Weinsheimer, a respected veteran of the department for three decades, played a critical role under multiple administrations, often acting as a critical arbiter of ethical issues or interactions that required a neutral referee.

He was appointed to his current role on an interim basis by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in July 2018 during Mr. Trump’s first term, a move that was made permanent by one of his successors, William P. Barr.

Mr. Weinsheimer also served four years in the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates complaints about prosecutors. An email to his government account was not immediately returned.

I’ve written about the key role Weinsheimer has played here.

In response to a question from Dick Durbin about her lobbying for Qatar (which she did not disclose as a potential conflict to the committee),

If there are any conflicts with anyone I represented in private practice, I would consult with the career ethics officials within the department and make the appropriate decision.

When Durbin asked if she would face a conflict with private prison contractor GEO, Bondi again said she would “consult with the career ethics officials within the Department of Justice and make the appropriate decision.”

But now the DOJ purge has made that impossible. Weinsheimer will be stuck prosecuting Chicago officials somewhere, and someone hand selected will take his spot.

In Bondi’s case, it won’t matter. She is, at least, qualified for the job, unlike so many of Trump’s other nominees.

But a key promise she made in her confirmation hearing just became meaningless.

Update: Fixed my typo to state correctly that it will be impossible for Bondi to keep her promise.