Blue Press Journal

Tag: Federal court

  • Inside the Trump DOJ Corruption Scandal: Why a Federal Judge Just Torched a Top Official Over the Adani Case

    by Winston Wendell

    When the machinery of American justice begins to wheeze and grind to a halt, it’s rare that we get to see proceedings from behind the velvet curtains. Every now and then, however, a federal judge feels inclined to pull back the curtain for good and show us the workings of the system for all to see.

    That’s exactly what U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis proceeded to do in a 47-page ruling that exposed the Trump DoJ’s corruption at the heart of the case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani.

    Front facade of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C. with American flags and people walking nearby

    For context, Adani is a billionaire businessman and major political donor to the Republican party whose federal criminal fraud and foreign bribery indictment was revoked by none other than the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. When Judge Garaufis ruled against the intervention, he made sure to deliver a stern dressing down to McCotter for dismissing the case in the first place.

    In particular, the judge seemed especially concerned with the fact that McCotter didn’t think highly of the investigative authorities that worked on the case before he decided to drop the charges.

    As per the ruling, McCotter’s actions were “inexplicable,” as the judge found it “particularly troubling” that the high-ranking DOJ official had the “independent judgment” to ignore the FBI, SEC, and prosecutors. The judge even remarked on how it was totally “unbecoming of someone in [McCotter’s] position” to rely on the private conversations with Adani’s lawyers concerning the case, as he “failed” to take into account all relevant information.

    You see, in order to dismiss the five-count indictment against Adani, McCotter only had to rely on the “advice of his legal counsel” and have “direct communications with the defense,” ignoring all other factors. He claimed that the case was dismissed due to “political interference,” but the judge quickly retorted that it would be “unbecoming of someone in [McCotter’s position]” to rely on private communications with the defendant’s lawyers.

    After all, as we know, political pressure has a way of interfering with due process. That’s why the case was dismissed, according to the ruling.

    On the other hand, Garaufis pointed out, it would be “unconscionable” for the President Trump to simply accept a bribe in exchange for dropping the case. So, in short, if there really were no bribes involved, the case shouldn’t have been dropped in the first place.

    It appears that in order to get the charges dropped against Adani, the defendant’s defense team made a “personal appeal” to DOJ’s Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. This, according to CBS News, happened during a meeting with Adani’s lawyer Bob Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell and included an offer of a $10 billion donation to the U.S. if the indictment was revoked.

    The foreign bribery and fraud charges that were dropped are crimes that the current government has long since given up on prosecuting and it’s high time that we reminded them of their sworn duty to protect and serve.

    It’s absolutely sickening to witness politicians and government officials alike selling justice for money while the rest of the taxpayers fund their obscene salaries. It’s also heartening to see judges like Nicholas Garaufis take matters into their own hands and finally bring these corrupt officials to task.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Federal Appeals Court Deals Blow to Trump’s Tariff Policy

    Blue Press Journal – In a significant setback to President Trump’s trade agenda, a federal appeals court rejected his claim that emergency powers justify imposing tariffs on a global scale. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7-4 that the President’s tariffs were not authorized by the statute he cited to justify them.

    The court’s decision affirms a lower court’s ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not permit the President’s sweeping moves. The IEEPA allows the President to issue certain economic sanctions in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” during an emergency. However, the court ruled that this authority does not extend to the imposition of tariffs.

    The majority opinion stated, “Because we agree that IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to ‘regulate’ imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm.” This decision is a significant blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to refashion global trade through tariffs.

    The ruling will not take effect immediately, as the court has withheld the mandate for its decision until October 14. This delay allows the administration to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration is likely to pursue an appeal, as the tariffs are a key component of the President’s trade policy.

    This decision has significant implications for ongoing trade disputes between the United States and other countries. The Trump administration’s tariffs on goods from several nations, including China, Canada, and Mexico, were justified by national security concerns and unfair trade practices. The court’s ruling suggests these tariffs may not be legally justified, potentially leading to a re-evaluation of the administration’s trade policy.