Amid a flurry of Justice Department efforts to target people whom Donald Trump doesn’t like, two former FBI officials were charged late last week with lying to Congress — in a case of particular interest to the president.

Remember the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop? As part of a Republican investigation into the matter, Nikki Floris, the former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and Bradley Benavides, another FBI official, briefed members of Congress about the contents of the computer. Last week, Trump’s DOJ charged them with allegedly making false statements about their level of involvement into the investigation.

Their attorneys condemned the charges as political “nonsense,” announced 10 days before closely watched elections, and it didn’t help matters that the president told reporters after their arrest, “I heard they were bad people.” He did not say from whom he’d heard this.

Nevertheless, the case appears to be off to a rough start. After prosecutors added an obstruction charge to the case, for example, a federal judge dismissed it.

But just as notable was what we learned from Bryan Witt, a veteran FBI agent, who testified Tuesday and shed light on what transpired behind the scenes. The New York Times reported:

In mid-July, President Trump gave a prime-time speech in which he raised concerns about a disputed F.B.I. report that China had tried to interfere in the 2020 election in an effort to defeat him.

At the heart of his address was a bitter complaint: that some of the bureau’s intelligence officials had purposefully sought to play down the report to undercut his claims about the race.

According to Witt’s testimony, one day after Trump targeted FBI officials in his remarks, FBI Director Kash Patel directed prosecutors immediately to investigate the officials for obstruction and conspiracy.

Witt conceded that FBI officials saw the inquiry as a “witch hunt,” and he personally saw the effort as a “huge distraction,” but the push ultimately led to charges against Floris and Benavides.

The Times report went on to note that Witt “asserted from the stand that he had never before worked on a case where instructions came directly from the F.B.I.’s director. He added that Mr. Patel and his deputies often checked on his progress, pressing him and his colleagues to move as aggressively as possible.”

Time will tell what becomes of the case, though it’s a safe bet that the defendants’ attorneys have taken a keen interest in what Witt had to say. But the broader takeaway from the agent’s testimony is unavoidable: Trump snaps his fingers, and Patel follows the president’s orders.

White House control over the Justice Department has been well-documented, but its control over the FBI is just as overwhelming. Patel, best known as a podcast personality before Senate Republicans elevated him to his powerful role, may lead the bureau, but there is fresh reason to believe he’s effectively a DINO — Director in Name Only.

The post In court testimony, FBI agent sheds new light on the White House’s control over the bureau appeared first on MS NOW.

In legal circles, it’s known as “no bill.” That’s the label used to describe what happens when prosecutors go to a grand jury to secure an indictment and regular people serving as jury members decide to reject the effort.

If it seems as if the phrase has come up quite a bit over the past year or so, it’s not your imagination. Donald Trump’s Justice Department tried to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, for example, but grand jury members balked. The same thing happened when the Republican administration tried to indict several congressional Democrats, as well as in the case against Sean Dunn (better known as the “sandwich guy,” who was later charged with a misdemeanor).

In each instance, federal prosecutors tried to bring dubious charges against a perceived presidential political foe. In each instance, the nature of the process was slanted against the accused. (Grand juries don’t even hear from the defense.) In each instance, Trump’s DOJ failed anyway — despite the fact that a “no bill” is almost unheard of for most career federal prosecutors.

This week, it happened yet again. MS NOW reported:

A federal grand jury on Tuesday rejected an indictment against former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson after the Trump Justice Department tried to charge her over her stunning testimony on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division sought to charge Hutchinson with a crime based on claims she made false statements, according to two people with knowledge of the case. They were granted anonymity to describe normally closed-door proceedings.

To be sure, the developments are humiliating for the DOJ, and it will no doubt be tempting for the administration’s many critics to point and laugh at the failure.

But while that’s understandable, it’s also worth appreciating what a scandal this is.

There’s no reason to believe Hutchinson, who delivered stunning testimony more than four years ago about what transpired on Jan. 6, did anything wrong. But because we’re in a twisted political environment in which people can expect to face prosecutorial scrutiny for having wronged the incumbent president, Attorney General Todd Blanche pushed prosecutors to investigate the former White House staffer, whose case ended up in the hands of Harmeet Dhillon, the controversial Trump loyalist who runs the Civil Rights Division, which wouldn’t appear to have any relevant jurisdiction over a case like this.

What we’re witnessing, in other words, is unambiguous evidence of a hyperpartisan, weaponized Justice Department, controlled by the West Wing, trying (and failing) to prosecute a baseless case against someone Trump doesn’t like.

The developments come against a backdrop in which the same politicized DOJ went after former FBI Director James Comey yet again and charged Democratic state Sen. L. Louise Lucas of Virginia after she spearheaded an electoral effort the White House didn’t like, in the run-up to the midterm elections, when politically sensitive prosecutions are traditionally delayed.

I’m glad the case against Hutchinson flopped, but the larger context matters: The fact that this case was pursued at all reflects crisis conditions in federal law enforcement.

The post When weaponized justice flops: Cassidy Hutchinson case turns humiliating for Trump’s DOJ appeared first on MS NOW.

Together, they have pursued cases against the president’s enemies and protesters and amplified false claims of widespread election fraud, often citing thin evidence.

© Ronaldo Bolaños/Los Angeles Times, via Getty Images

More than a dozen news organizations have asked a federal judge to unseal documents related to a search warrant executed at Ms. Omar’s home this month.

© Kenny Holston/The New York Times

In the legal tangle between the Justice Department and California, a federal judge on Tuesday deferred a ruling but said the government already had a remedy it could use after the election.

© Philip Cheung for The New York Times

A grand jury has declined to indict former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson for her testimony about President Donald Trump's alleged conduct during the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill in 2021.

The post Grand Jury Declines to Indict Cassidy Hutchinson for Her Jan. 6 Testimony appeared first on Breitbart.

In court testimony, the agent outlined the willingness of Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, to take orders from President Trump to investigate his perceived enemies.

© Alex Kent/The New York Times