Latest news with #legalanalysis
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Maurene Comey fired from Trump DOJ after she 'failed' in two major cases, expert says: 'Absolute mess'
Legal analysts are split after the Justice Department fired Maurene Comey, a veteran prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, on Wednesday. "It's about time," said Nicole Parker, a former FBI agent and Fox News contributor. "She failed in two cases." One of those was the recent racketeering and sex trafficking case against hip-hop mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs, in which jurors found him not guilty of the most serious charges. The other was the 2019 prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, which barely got off the ground before federal authorities say he killed himself in a jail cell awaiting trial. Another of her past cases was the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, the only Epstein associate held liable by a civil or criminal court. Maxwell is appealing her case while serving 20 years in a federal prison in Florida. Comey has received criticism for arguing in court against unsealing some court documents in the Epstein case. While there are a number of reasons why the government might want to keep them out of the public eye, including Maxwell's pending appeal, President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi this week announced plans to ask a federal judge to unseal grand jury materials in the case. "There didn't need to be any reason for her firing," said David Gelman, a Philadelphia-area attorney and former prosecutor. "It could be job performance, which would be warranted because the Diddy trial was an absolute mess, and she was the head of it. The outcome was not what the SDNY wanted." Combs beat the most serious charges against him, including a federal RICO case full of salacious allegations and sex trafficking, and was found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. "It could also be that she would have been fired previously, but they let her stay to try the Diddy case because of all the resources that were spent on it," Gelman said. " It won't surprise me whatsoever if she goes to the anti-Trump shows and bashes the DOJ and administration. That's the playbook for her family." Still, some analysts view her firing as a political move. "The firing is pretty remarkable," said Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago-based attorney and adjunct law professor at Northwestern University. "It's a very clear shot across the bow of everyone at the DOJ to get in line." Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo suggested another route could have been taken. "I totally get why President Trump doesn't trust her, if he believes what he says about Comey (her father), how he cooked up the Russia hoax," Yoo told "The Story" Thursday. "Not the daughter, but the father, remember how he tried to entrap President Trump and ran back to his car and typed up and hid documents with friends, claiming that President Trump committed perjury." Still, he said, he doesn't think the daughter's firing was appropriate. "I would just maybe reassign her to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Alaska," he said. Comey is the daughter of former FBI head James Comey and a longtime federal prosecutor with the Southern District of New York. Fox News Digital reported earlier this month that the FBI had launched criminal investigations into the elder Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. President Trump fired her father from the FBI during his first term. When asked why Trump fired the younger Comey during a news briefing Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the decision came from inside the Justice Department. Comey did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Legal expert reveals Trump's chances if he sues over Epstein letter
CNN ' senior legal analyst has cast doubt on Donald Trump 's chances for a successful suit against the Wall Street Journal after the paper alleged he sent Jeffrey Epstein a letter for his 50th birthday that contained a drawing of a naked woman. The president promised to sue longtime publisher Rupert Murdoch 's '[expletive] off' in response. Shortly after, host Abby Phillip asked panelists on CNN NewsNight how 'credible' Trump's threat of retaliation really was. 'It would surprise me if he wins,' Elli Honig, a former federal prosecutor, said, after acknowledging the Journal's previous reporting and pristine reputation. Trump's threat, meanwhile, had painted the prestigious Murdoch-owned publication as a 'third rate newspaper.' He also claimed the letter was a 'fake' and that words quoted from the correspondence were not his. 'Also, I don't draw pictures,' he said. The argument was not able to sway Honig, however - who quickly cast cold water on the hypothetical case. 'He really has to show two things,' he said of Trump. 'That the Wall Street Journal defamed him that the statements here were damaging to him. That seems clear. 'The harder part though, is going to be to show that they acted with what we call actual malice, meaning that they knew that what they reported was false or that they were reckless as to its falsity,' Honig continued. 'That's the really hard part to show. '[The] Wall Street Journal, I believe they tend to know what they're doing. They tend to have their stuff buttoned up. 'So, it wouldn't surprise me if he sues, and it would surprise me if he wins,' he continued 'Not knowing the facts, but just knowing how high the legal bar is.' Shortly after the report was published, Trump wrote on Truth Social that because of 'the ridiculous amount of publicity' Epstein is getting , he had commanded Pam Bondi 'to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury Testimony, subject to Court approval.' Only Bondi has authority over the evidence, but not over grand jury materials specified by the president. Honig, in turn, told his fellow panelists why he believed releasing only grand jury testimony was effectively a ruse, as the administration continues to face backlash for its handling of the case. 'What Donald Trump said to do there is not to turn over all the Epstein files,' he told Phillip and others on-set. 'I really wanna make sure people understand the context here of what he did say he wanted released, because it is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of those files.' Honig went on to point to the massive size of the Epstein file, painting it as proof of the amount of unseen information. 'I talked to a tech guy,' he added. '"That's equal to about 100,000 ebooks, ok? So, think about a book, 300 pages. A hundred thousand of those. That's how much information's in the entire Epstein file. 'The grand jury transcripts means the written transcript that the court reporter takes of whoever went into the grand jury and testified,' he explained. 'So already, you are leaving out tons of documents. 'Most witnesses, as a federal prosecutor, don't even go into the grand jury. They just talk to you in a conference room, not in the grand jury,' Honig continued. 'So we're talking about 1 percent, 2 percent. And it's not as if Pam Bondi can just release this stuff tomorrow. She has to go into a court. She has to explain to and convince a judge this stuff needs to be turned over.' Scott Jennings, meanwhile, slammed the Journal's report as 'a dud' due to a lack of evidence. Phillip - pointing to Trump's responses - countered by saying 'Trump doesn't agree with you'. The Journal report, meanwhile, contains a strange, imaginary dialogue between the two men said to have been penned by Trump. The conservative has been bombarded with accusations that his name is on the list of long-sought-after Epstein clients. Last week, the DOJ announced that the long-awaited 'client list' did not exist, after Bondi just months before bragged on Fox News that the list of alleged, potential accomplices was 'sitting on [her] desk right now to review.' That same month, in February, the White House released a compilation of Epstein documents that turned out to contain no new information.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Legal expert reveals Trump's chances of success if he sues Murdoch over Epstein letter
CNN ' senior legal analyst has cast doubt on Donald Trump 's chances for a successful suit against the Wall Street Journal after the paper alleged he sent Jeffrey Epstein a letter for his 50th birthday that contained a drawing of a naked woman. The president promised to sue longtime publisher Rupert Murdoch 's 'a*s off' in response. Shortly after, host Abby Phillip asked panelists on CNN NewsNight how 'credible' Trump's threat of retaliation really was. 'It would surprise me if he wins,' Elli Honig, a former federal prosecutor, said, after acknowledging the Journal's previous reporting and pristine reputation. Trump's threat, meanwhile, had painted the prestigious Murdoch-owned publication as a 'third rate newspaper.' He also claimed the letter was a 'fake' and that words quoted from the correspondence were not his. 'Also, I don't draw pictures,' he said. The argument was not able to sway Honig, however - who quickly cast cold water on the hypothetical case. 'He really has to show two things,' he said of Trump. 'That the Wall Street Journal defamed him that the statements here were damaging to him. That seems clear. The president promised to sue longtime publisher Rupert Murdoch's 'a*s off' after paper alleged he sent Jeffrey Epstein a letter for his 50th birthday that contained a drawing of a naked woman. The two are pictured on Trump International Golf Links in Scotland in 2016 'The harder part though, is going to be to show that they acted with what we call actual malice, meaning that they knew that what they reported was false or that they were reckless as to its falsity,' Honig continued. 'That's the really hard part to show. '[The] Wall Street Journal, I believe they tend to know what they're doing. They tend to have their stuff buttoned up. 'So, it wouldn't surprise me if he sues, and it would surprise me if he wins,' he continued 'Not knowing the facts, but just knowing how high the legal bar is.' Phillip then observed how it 'seems that the Journal has evidence that [the letter from Trump to Epstein allegedly sent in 2003] does, in fact, exist. 'And that it's perhaps among the many, many, many documents that are in the possession of investigators,' she said. Phillip had been referring to the roughly 300 gigabytes of information from the FBI's case file on Epstein. Shortly after the report was published, Trump wrote on Truth Social that because of 'the ridiculous amount of publicity' Epstein is getting, he had commanded Pam Bondi 'to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury Testimony, subject to Court approval.' Only Bondi has authority over the evidence, but not over grand jury materials specified by the president. Honig, in turn, told his fellow panelists why he believed releasing only grand jury testimony was effectively a ruse, as the administration continues to face backlash for its handling of the case. 'What Donald Trump said to do there is not to turn over all the Epstein files,' he told Phillip and others on-set. 'I really wanna make sure people understand the context here of what he did say he wanted released, because it is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of those files.' Honig went on to point to the massive size of the Epstein file, painting it as proof of the amount of unseen information. 'I talked to a tech guy,' he added. '"That's equal to about 100,000 ebooks, ok? So, think about a book, 300 pages. A hundred thousand of those. That's how much information's in the entire Epstein file. 'The grand jury transcripts means the written transcript that the court reporter takes of whoever went into the grand jury and testified,' he explained. 'So already, you are leaving out tons of documents. 'Most witnesses, as a federal prosecutor, don't even go into the grand jury. They just talk to you in a conference room, not in the grand jury,' Honig continued. 'So we're talking about 1 percent, 2 percent. And it's not as if Pam Bondi can just release this stuff tomorrow. She has to go into a court. She has to explain to and convince a judge this stuff needs to be turned over.' Scott Jennings, meanwhile, slammed the Journal's report as 'a dud' due to a lack of evidence. Phillip - pointing to Trump's responses - countered by saying 'Trump doesn't agree with you'. The Journal report, meanwhile, contains a strange, imaginary dialogue between the two men said to have been penned by Trump. The conservative has been bombarded with accusations that his name is on the list of long-sought-after Epstein clients. Last week, the DOJ announced that the long-awaited 'client list' did not exist, after Bondi just months before bragged on Fox News that the list of alleged, potential accomplices was 'sitting on [her] desk right now to review.' That same month, in February, the White House released a compilation of Epstein documents that turned out to contain no new information. News Corp - the Murdoch-owned parent company of the Journal - declined to comment when asked about birthday letter allegedly sent to Epstein from Trump in 2003 and the promised, prospective lawsuit. Just last month, Tucker Carlson claimed the Murdoch family asked him to run against Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, adding 'The Murdochs really hate Trump. There's no one who hates Trump more than the Murdochs'. The Murdochs also own Fox News. Lachlan Murdoch - the son of 94-year-old Rupert - is the current chairman of News Corp.
CNN
07-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
‘Bad look': Legal analyst rips DOJ's handling of Epstein files as ‘quite shameful'
Legal analyst Eliot Williams blasts the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein files, calling it "embarrassing" to CNN's Phil Mattingly.
CNN
07-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
‘Bad look': Legal analyst rips DOJ's handling of Epstein files as ‘quite shameful'
Legal analyst Eliot Williams blasts the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein files, calling it "embarrassing" to CNN's Phil Mattingly.
