Justice Department purge continues, firings include Trump classified document case investigators and Jan. 6 prosecutors
The firings, one source familiar with the terminations said, included more than 20 people who worked on former Special Counsel Jack Smith's classified documents case against Mr. Trump and Smith's investigation into Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn election results in 2020.
There have been at least 35 firings of Justice Department employees who worked for Smith on the two investigations he oversaw, and at least 15 more could be fired, the source said.
Sources told CBS News that among those fired were paralegals who worked for Smith's office, finance and support staff, and two additional Justice Department prosecutors in North Carolina and Florida. Three other top Jan. 6 prosecutors were fired in June.
The staffers were identified by the Justice Department's so-called "weaponization working group" which Attorney General Pam Bondi established as one of her first priorities after she was confirmed, one source said.
The attorney general established the "weaponization working group" to review Biden administration law enforcement policies, according to the source. The group is reviewing the two federal cases against Mr. Trump pursued by former special counsel Smith and is examining prosecutions of rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It is also reviewing the Trump legal cases in New York — the "hush money" trial pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the civil enforcement action against the Trump Organization brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James — neither of which involved federal prosecutors.
As the Justice Department began collecting information about the FBI agents who worked on Jan. 6 investigations and fired career prosecutors who worked on the cases, Bondi said in her directive that the working group would investigate "improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions" versus "good faith actions by federal employees simply following orders."
CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment on the firings.
One of the staffers who has been fired was Patty Hartman, who served as a top public affairs specialist at the FBI and federal prosecutors' offices. Hartman was fired Monday via a letter from the attorney general. She worked on the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney's Office public affairs team that distributed news releases about the more than 1,500 Jan. 6 criminal prosecutions.
In an interview with CBS News, Hartman warned of a continuing wave of retribution inside the agency.
"The rules don't exist anymore," Hartman said. "There used to be a line, used to be a very distinct separation between the White House and the Department of Justice, because one should not interfere with the work of the other. That line is very definitely gone."
The purge of Justice Department employees who worked on Jan. 6 cases began shortly after Mr. Trump's second inauguration, when he installed a former Jan. 6 defense attorney, Ed Martin, as the acting top prosecutor in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Trump and his supporters have downplayed the damage, injuries and trauma of the Capitol siege and have sought to recast convicted rioters as "political prisoners."
The mass pardon of nearly all of the approximately 1,500 defendants shuttered the prosecutions in January.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Nancy Mace kicks off South Carolina GOP gubernatorial bid. She says she's 'Trump in high heels'
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina is running for governor, entering a GOP primary in which competition for President Donald Trump's endorsement — and the backing of his base of supporters — is expected to be fierce. Mace, who last year won her third term representing South Carolina's 1st District, made her run official during a launch event Monday at The Citadel military college in Charleston. Mace told The Associated Press on Sunday she plans a multi-pronged platform aimed in part at shoring up the state's criminal justice system, ending South Carolina's income tax, protecting women and children, expanding school choice and vocational education and improving the state's energy options. Official filing for South Carolina's 2026 elections doesn't open until March, but several other Republicans have already entered the state's first truly open governor's race in 16 years, including Attorney General Alan Wilson, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Rep. Ralph Norman. Both Wilson and Evette have touted their own connections to the Republican president, but Mace — calling herself 'Trump in high heels' — said she is best positioned to carry out his agenda in South Carolina, where he has remained popular since his 2016 state primary win helped cement his status as the GOP presidential nominee. Saying she plans to seek his support, Mace pointed to her defense of Trump in an interview that resulted in ABC News agreeing to pay $15 million toward his presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit. She also noted that she called Donald Trump early this year as part of an effort to persuade GOP holdouts to support Rep. Mike Johnson to become House speaker. 'No one will work harder to get his attention and his endorsement,' she said. 'No one else in this race can say they've been there for the president like I have, as much as I have and worked as hard as I have to get the president his agenda delivered to him in the White House.' Mace has largely supported Trump, working for his 2016 campaign but levying criticism against him following the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the U.S. Capitol, which spurred Trump to back a GOP challenger in her 2022 race. Mace defeated that opponent, won reelection and was endorsed by Trump in her 2024 campaign. A month after she told the AP in January that she was 'seriously considering' a run, Mace went what she called 'scorched earth," using a nearly hour-long speech on the U.S. House floor in February to accuse her ex-fiancé of physically abusing her, recording sex acts with her and others without their consent, and conspiring with business associates in acts of rape and sexual misconduct. Mace's ex-fiancé said he 'categorically' denied the accusations, and another man Mace mentioned has sued her for defamation, arguing the accusations were a 'dangerous mix of falsehoods and baseless accusations.' 'I want every South Carolinian to watch me as I fight for my rights as a victim," Mace said, asked if she worried about litigation related to the speech. "I want them to know I will fight just as hard for them as I am fighting for myself.' Mace, 47, was the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, the state's military college, where her father then served as commandant of cadets. After briefly serving in the state House, in 2020 she became the first Republican woman elected to represent South Carolina in Congress, flipping the 1st District after one term with a Democratic representative. "I'm going to draw the line, and I'm going to hold it for South Carolina, and I'm going to put her people first," Mace said. ___ Kinnard can be reached at
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP
The brazen partisan redistricting underway in Texas, with Republicans attempting to entrench themselves in office and Democrats weighing a counter-offensive in blue states, was greenlit by the US Supreme Court six years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion for a 5-4 court, declared that federal judges could not review extreme partisan gerrymanders to determine if they violated constitutional rights. Roberts' opinion reversed cases that would have allowed such districts – drawn to advantage one political party over another irrespective of voters' interests – to be challenged as violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and association and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The justices split among the familiar ideological lines, with the five conservatives ruling against partisan gerrymanders and the four liberals dissenting. 'Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one,' dissenting justices warned in 2019, 'The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.' That decision in Rucho v. Common Cause has generated a new era of partisan rivalry with vast repercussions for American democracy. The decision resonates as profoundly as the Roberts Court's decision last year in Trump v. United States, which granted presidents substantial immunity from criminal prosecution (also delivered among partisan lines). Trump has taken the 2024 ruling as a blank check, tearing through democratic norms. The gerrymandering case also lifted a federal guardrail. Lawsuits challenging extreme partisan gerrymanders can still be brought before state court judges. But state laws vary widely in their protections for redistricting practices and state judges differ in their ability to police the thorny political process. Roberts may have failed to foresee the consequences in 2019 and then in 2024. Or, alternatively, perhaps he understood and simply believed the effects were not properly the concern of the federal judiciary. In his opinion, Roberts acknowledged the apparent unfairness of gerrymandered districts. 'Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,' he wrote. But, he said, 'the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' … does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.' The chief justice said no constitutional authority exists for judges to oversee the politics of redistricting, nor are there standards for their decisions, that is, to know when state lawmakers have gone too far in what is an inherently political process. Roberts wrote: ''How much is too much?' At what point does permissible partisanship become unconstitutional?' The current redistricting controversy arises from Trump's pressure on fellow Republicans to generate as many GOP-controlled districts as possible before the 2026 midterm elections for the US House of Representatives. Right now, the focus is on Texas where legislators broke from the usual cycle of post-census redistricting that happens every 10 years and suddenly proposed a new map intended to push several Democrats out of office and buttress the chances that Republicans keep their majority, now hanging by a thread, in Congress. The audacious Texas effort has prompted liberals to consider a counterattack in Democratic-controlled states such as California to create new maps that could boost their numbers. But politicians' effort to draw lines to their advantage have never been free of controversy. The paired cases before the justices six years ago involved extreme gerrymanders by Republicans in North Carolina and by Democrats in Maryland. Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote was crucial. A year earlier, Kavanaugh had succeeded Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had previously left the door open to federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Justice Elena Kagan, taking the lead for dissenters, insisted workable standards existed and had been used by lower US court judges. 'For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation,' she wrote, pointing up the stakes. 'The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,' Kagan added. She was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who remains on the bench, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020, and Stephen Breyer, who retired in 2022. Echoing a line from redistricting precedent that appears apt as Texas legislators divide voters for predetermined results, Kagan wrote that a core principle of government is 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
Tesla Awards ‘Good Faith' Shares to Musk Worth $29 Billion
Tesla granted shares to Elon Musk worth around $29 billion, the company said on Monday, describing it as a 'good faith' award to help retain the car maker's chief after his previous multibillion-dollar pay package was struck down by a judge. The company approved a package of 96 million shares for Mr. Musk, which he could tap after two years of service in a 'senior leadership role' at Tesla. The mercurial billionaire, whose business empire includes rockets, artificial intelligence, brain implants and more, hinted last month that he wanted more shares in Tesla, on top of his 13 percent stake. It was a 'major concern,' he said on an earnings call with analysts. Tesla said in a letter to investors that 'we know that one of your top concerns is keeping Elon's energies focused on Tesla.' It said the stock award was 'a critical first step toward achieving that goal.' In addition to his businesses, Mr. Musk has dove into politics, steering President Trump's cost-cutting initiative before they had a falling out, after which the tech billionaire pledged to start a new political party. Mr. Musk's previous pay package, awarded in 2018, was struck down last year by Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery, ruling that shareholders had not been properly informed of its details and that members of Tesla's board were not sufficiently independent. Tesla has appealed the decision, with its lawyers arguing that two shareholder votes in favor of the package should have cleared the way for reinstating it. Tesla is in a profit slump, and the company has not reported an increase in quarterly earnings since the third quarter of 2024. Sales also declined this spring. The company's stock has fallen nearly 20 percent this year.
