This week, Elizabeth Baxter, an intern with the department’s environmental division, became the second Justice Department employee to be fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi for abusive conduct toward federal officers. Baxter shouted profanities and flipped off a member of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., on her way to work. The termination raises legitimate free speech issues, but Baxter may have crossed the line by recounting the abuse at work.
We recently addressed the effort to charge Sean Charles Dunn, another DOJ paralegal, with a felony over assaulting a Customs and Border Protection agent with a sandwich. A D.C. grand jury refused to issue an indictment and he will now face a misdemeanor after being fired by the Justice Department.
Baxter is different in that she is not accused of any assault. According to the New York Post, after arriving at a DOJ building on the morning of August 18, Baxter bragged to a security guard about how she had just made the gesture at the Metro Center Metro Stop. She also recounted how she told the guardsman, “F–k the National Guard.”
The protest itself would seem protected speech. There is no indication that Baxter referenced her position at the Justice Department when she engaged in this profane protest. This was not done during work hours.
DOJ guidelines affirm that employees may:
– Express opinions on political subjects and candidates.
– Campaign for or against a referendum, constitutional amendment or ordinance.
– Participate in civic, professional and other similar activities.
– Sign a political petition.
– Display signs, stickers, badges or buttons for candidates for partisan political office except when on duty.
However, those same guidelines state that employees may not:
“Participate in political activities (to include wearing political buttons) while on duty; while wearing a uniform, badge or insignia of office; while in a government occupied office or building; or while using a government owned or leased vehicle.”
Baxter’s desire to repeat the protest to a security officer at the DOJ moved the matter into the workplace. Not only did security footage capture her flipping off the National Guardsman and exclaiming, “F–k you!” but she is also seen demonstrating to a department security guard how she held up her middle finger. She boasted to the security guard that she hated the National Guard and that she told them to “F–k off!”
The conduct inside the Justice Department could be cited as sufficient grounds for termination. The repetition of the protest to the DOJ security could be seen as disrespecting their positions and interjecting her political views into the workplace.
Baxter could, within 30 days, file with the Merit Systems Protection Board to challenge the action. I expect that she is likely to do so. She can claim that she was not insulting the security officer or making a political statement in the building’s lobby. However, she elected to repeat the political expression inside the federal building to at least one other federal employee during office hours. As such, she destroyed much of the constitutional protection afforded to her earlier statements and demonstration.
It’s called General Conduct Prejudicial to the Government (15 CFR § 0.735-18) –
(a) General policy. Officers and employees of the Federal Government are servants of the people. Because of this, their conduct must, in many instances, be subject to more restrictions and to higher standards than may be the case in certain private employments. They are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which will reflect favorably upon their employer. Although the Government is not particularly interested in the private lives of its employees, it does expect them to be honest, reliable, trustworthy, and of good character and reputation. They are expected to be loyal to the Government, and to the department or agency in which they are employed.
(b) Specific policy. An employee shall not engage in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the Government.
Employees can be disciplined up to removal for violating this Federal Regulation.
Aside from deporting illegal immigrants, assisting LE and bringing law and order to DC, do you suppose that Trump’s having the NG units on standby is more meaningful? Perhaps readymade for these Dem infestation Cities to quell any riots that may arise out of the upcoming arrests of high profile Democrats?
Bookmark
§ 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.
(a) Public service is a public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each employee must respect and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct set forth in this section
The attacks of democrats on the national guard, CBP, ICE and law enforcement over political issues are incredibly stupid.
If the police are engaged in brutality – protest the police.
If the police are enforcing laws or policies you do not like – take it up with those who created those laws or policies.
Protesting law enforcement for following the law and constitution is offensive. Even when there is some sympathy for opposition to the policies being enforced.
Stupid is the Left’s defining feature. Expect more Democrat idiocy in the days to come.
*. Theft is the defining characteristic.
Dear Prof Turley,
There’s a new sheriff in town .. . and they don’t tolerate no back lip, wasted sandwiches or protected speech.
I was surprised to learn government employees cannot “Participate in political activities (to include wearing political buttons) while on duty; while wearing a uniform, badge or insignia of office; while in a government occupied office or building; or while using a government owned or leased vehicle.”
*Never trust anyone who wears political buttons and flag pins on duty .. . and that kind of narrows it down.
Undermining the employer’s mission = grounds for termination from any employer, public or private.
“Protected speech” my a–.
“mission” my a–. The only mission of the U.S. gov., both Federal employees and elected officials, is to support and defend the U.S. constitution. .. not Trump Enterprise Ministries, LLC.
Criticism on the use of the military armed forces for domestic law enforcement purposes has a long history in the U.S. and is protected speech (see e.g. posse comitatus). That’s not what the military is trained to do.
North Korea has a low crime rate and is clean as a whistle, I hear. .. but it’s not Times Square.
(btw, last I was at Times Square, they had run off all the people who made the place interesting.).
*aside, if you had a choice between wearing a U.S. flag pin, an Israel flag pin, or both, which would you prefer old man?
DG
That’s not what the military is trained to do.
___________________
You never served did you. Yes NG units are trained for this.
This is pretty standard in corporate America. Don’t engage in politics in the workplace. Google has been an exception and they have recently come to regret it.
Your commentary seems silly. If the duly elected government disagrees with your or any employees preference, the policy states, on your own time and while not in any way representing that duly elected government, feel free to disagree all you want. The policy does make clear that as an employee, you do not have the right while in active duty of service or while representing the duly elected government to disagree with the policies of the duly elected government. This is only logical and sad that so many cannot think their way through this.
DG
or protected speech.
******************************
My God you are dense.
She used her free speech rights and got canned. Even the US Government has a code of conduct.
JSTS
You are absolutely correct.
When I drafted the First Amendment, I had a long discussion with Thomas Jefferson about what exactly it should cover and what the most important speech to protect should be.
We came to the conclusion that crawling through a smashed window to enter a prohibited area of the Capitol to attack Congressmen was probably the most protected form of speech that is possible.
Stupidest comment of the day. No wonder you posted your garbage anonymously. Those people were prosecuted, and persecuted. The First Amendment had no relevance.
John Say at 3:36 starts his rant with this:
“She was engaged in first amendment protected action. ”
I’m glad you agree with me that John Say is stupid.
“I am infuriated that the Air Force plans to grant military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt,” wrote Retired Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling in an op-ed published Saturday in The Bulwark.
“She did not die defending the Constitution. She died trying to overturn it.”
She did neither.
She was engaged in first amendment protected action. Free speech, political speech, assembly and petititoning govenrment.
Some of her actions on J6 cross the line from first amendment protected actions into actions that are not protected – Just as Baxter in Turley’s example. Nothing that she did rose beyond minor criminal conduct – not significantly worse than Dunn throwing a sandwich at an ICE officer.
She should not receive special honors as a consequence of her actions on J6. She should also not be denied honors should would have otherwise been entitled to.
However the officer who shot her should be tried for murder. She was not armed, and not a threat to his or anyone else’s life.
Attempting to crawl through a broken window is if anything LESS criminal than throwing a sandwich at law enforcement.
John Say the Stupid
You are absolutely correct.
When I drafted the First Amendment, I had a long discussion with Thomas Jefferson about what exactly it should cover and what the most important speech to protect should be.
We came to the conclusion that crawling through a smashed window to enter a prohibited area of the Capitol to attack Congressmen was probably the most protected form of speech that is possible.
You posted that idiocy above. Can’t you come up with something original?
The comments here appear in reverse order, which makes them difficult to read in context. I don’t understand why the site is set up like this.
No one claimed that crawling through the window was protected speech. “Some of her actions on J6 cross the line from first amendment protected actions into actions that are not protected.” Or did you not notice that sentence?
But nor was it a serious offense, let alone one that justified the use of deadly force against her.
Her participation in the protest, though, was protected speech.
John, I’m a conservative and a veteran, and I think your post is idiocy. Babbitt broke into a locked office in which members of congress were seeking refuge, protected by a police officer. It was appropriate for the officer to shoot.
Babbitt was engaged in a violent felony and I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.
Climbing through the window was not violent, and posed no threat to anyone.
*. J6 was caused by law enforcement failure to prepare and implement crowd control. They must have been told to stand down. That order had to be from Pelosi or Bowser or both.
Yes, Ashley Babbitt was manslaughter.
From “The Hill”:
Fifty-six percent of respondents said it is appropriate to call what happened on Jan. 6, when a mob of former President Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol, an insurrection, while an even larger majority — 72 percent — say it could be appropriately described as a “riot.”
In contrast, only one-third of respondents said that they see the events of Jan. 6 as a “legitimate protest,” according to the Monmouth poll.”
Anonymous: you are SO right–2/3 of Americans did NOT find any legitimacy to the insurrection. At the point when Babbitt was shot trying to force her way through a broken side light into the Speaker’s Lobby she had:
1. broken past police barriers; if the police put up a barrier–it is ILLEGAL to cross it.
2. entered the Capitol Building through a broken door or window–she was in a place where she had NO right to be;
3. ignored the command of the police officer who shot her by proceeding to try to enter the Speaker’s Lobby, the last barrier to the floor of the House.
Breaking into a federal building for the purpose of trying to disrupt Congress from accepting the certified votes of the rightful election winner is NOT “speech”, much less “protected speech”. If all Babbitt intended to do was “protest”, she could have stood outside the Capitol building to do so. She intended, along with the mob, to stop Joe Biden’s victory, based on The Big Lie. She caused her own death by breaking the law and her stupid decision to proceed through a broken window with a police officer pointing a gun at her. Under any other circumstances, there would be NO question about it.
This is a prime example of the way Trump tries to create alternate reality to suit his narcissism–he LOST in 2020, but insists he didn’t. His entire cabinet is composed of election deniers–denying the truth about Trump’s loss in 2020 is a REQUIREMENT to work for him. What he refuses to accept is that the government does not exist to soothe his massive ego–employees are supposed to uphold the law for all of America. Babbitt and the rest of the January 6th insurrectionists broke the law and those who didn’t die belong in prison-but they are not only not being prosecuted, they were pardoned –AND–get this: those who paid restitution are being given a REFUND. Some of these criminals were even hired by Trump. Babbitt’s family was paid $30 MILLION of our taxpayer dollars–for “wrongful death”. It was her presence in the Capitol Building that was WRONGFUL, and that’s why she died. SHE and only SHE is responsible for her poor judgment in believing Trump’s lie and believing she could just ignore police barriers, break into the Capitol and try to get to the floor of the House.
Giving this lawbreaking woman “military funeral honors” is a slap in the face to REAL American heroes and we law-abiding taxpayers. Since the overwhelming majority of us found what Babbit and the insurrectionists did to be wrong, where the hell does Trump get off handing out taxpayer money and military honors to lawbreakers because they broke the law for his benefit?
Nice fiction. 🤡
What the Hill’s ignorant respondents think is irrelevant. J6 was not an insurrection. But the months-long attack on the federal building in Portland was definitely an insurrection. So was CHAZ. So was the attack on the Minneapolis police station. So was the Occupy movement. In fact so were most of the BLM riots that enveloped the nation in the second half of 2020, with the Democrat Party’s open support and encouragement.
The money paid to Babbitt’s family is far more justified than the outrageous sums paid to the families of George Floyd, Freddie Grey, and other infamous criminals. If you did not object to those you have no business objecting now.
Babbitt is entitled to whatever honors she would have been entitled to had she died in other circumstances. The circumstances of her death should count neither for nor against her.
Guess Retired gas bag Lt Gen Hertling is going to have to eat some crow huh? What strikes me is that as just an ordinary citizen, I knew that the 2020 election was totally rigged. Interference, false information, questionable voting, all of it. You had to be brain dead not to see it. Yet people like this gas bag at the highest levels still pretend that the protesters on J6 were or are some kind of insurrectionists?! They are patriots and poor Ashli a martyr that stood up against corruption of our Nation’s highest office. Indict Byrd, Pelosi, Schiff, Clinton, Clapper, Comey, Obama et al NOW!
OT, but before someone beats me to the punchline:
Bill Clinton spotted traveling with a portable defibrillator
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/bill-clinton-spotted-traveling-portable-defibrillator-report
“Former President Bill Clinton, 79, was spotted alongside his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with a portable defibrillator as they were leaving the Hamptons at the airport.”
An observer who declined to be named claimed that he observed Clinton caressing the machine, and murmuring “I love you, Monica” to it…
OT
I hope the DOJ starts filing more Affidavits of Prejudice in cases like this.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08/conflict-interest-exposed-corrupt-judge-jia-cobb-who
To clarify my comment: 28 USC Sec 144 Affidavit of Prejudice
“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.”
For some of the DC judges DOJ may want to pre-print stacks of these.
Query: I wonder how many of these Obama/Biden judges have committed mortgage fraud?
There may be more than one way to skin a judge.
That is ridiculous. Being a member of the same sorority is not a conflict of interest, and there is no reason for recusal, which is why the government did NOT ask for it.
https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3lxmg6d4gj22x
“Idle Hands Are The Devil’s Workshop”
____________________________________________
In my experience, every soldier frequently does policing—detritus and debris removal—of his company area.
In Vietnam, soldiers would be assigned latrine duty that required pulling the receptacle out from under the seating and burning the waste using diesel fuel in a cutoff 55-gallon drum while stirring the contents with a 5 ft. steel rod.
That good old FTA—Fun, Travel, and Adventure.
The other day I quoted Teddy today I’ll quote Franklin:
“all government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”, though this statement is a truism he also promoted the socialist mantra of labor unions. Back to public service employees, the failures in public schools lies at the feet of National Education Association (NEA) union, and another example is the National Association of Immigration Judges and their blindness on illegal immigration. A small list of unions that represent Government Employees: (LUNA, NTEU, NMU, GCIU, UFCW, HCDCU, IUOE) from a list of 224 U.S. Government Labor Relations Collective Bargaining Agreements.
This is where the Alligators of the Swamp are born, raised, and taught to bite any hand that happens into their waters!
If America had laws against breach of contract, loitering, trespassing, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, property damage, bodily injury, et al., there would be no “collective bargaining” and there would be no unions; unions have absolutely nothing to bargain with, and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) simply overlook and allow their actionable criminal acts.
Anonymous – while I would agree that unions should be barred engaging in criminal conduct – as should businesses – the US has a history of criminal acts in the area of labor and labor negotiating on both sides of the issue.
The governments role should be to preclude either party from resorting to violence, and to enforce contracts.
Unions do not arrise except where employers are abusive. But historically unions fail their members and destroy the companies they are part of when they become too powerful.
With respect to contracts – Businesses are free to try to operate without unions if they can manage to do so. But if they feel compelled to negotiate with a union – whatever contract is negotiated must be honored by both parties.
I think union or closed shops are a bad idea – but so called right to work laws that preclude them are unconstitutional.
Ridiculous.
No businessman and private property enterprise owner stops doing contracted work and trespasses on his employer/opponent’s property.
Unions simply cannot exist rationally, legally, or constitutionally because everything they do for their cause is illicit and criminal.
With crime including murders way down ever since Trump deployed the NG in DC, no reasonable person could opine that that was a bad move and be angry at the very people being put in harm’s way to protect the innocent residents of the District. The sandwich thrower and this little brat are neither reasonable nor rational. They are indoctrinated little children, whose backside is being protected by the people they insult.
OT
AI Overview
A federal appeals court has ruled that a large portion of President Trump’s tariffs, including sweeping reciprocal tariffs imposed under emergency powers, are illegal. The ruling, issued on August 29, 2025, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirms a lower court decision but allows the tariffs to remain in effect while the administration seeks an appeal to the Supreme Court.
___________________
Here are the main laws wherein Congress delegated the authority to set tariffs to the president:
– Tariff Act of 1930 (Smoot-Hawley)
Primarily set tariff rates itself, but also allowed the President to negotiate reciprocal tariff reductions.
– Trade Expansion Act of 1962 – Section 232
Lets the President impose or adjust tariffs if the Department of Commerce finds that imports threaten national security.
This is the law President Trump used in 2018 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum.
– Trade Act of 1974 – Section 301
Authorizes the President (via the U.S. Trade Representative) to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions if a foreign country is engaging in unfair trade practices.
– International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 1977)
Broader in scope: gives the President power to regulate imports/exports (including tariffs) during a declared national emergency related to foreign threats.
– ChatGPT
The fact that the court left the tarrifs in place speaks to their lack of confidence in their own decisions.
“ The fact that the court left the tarrifs in place speaks to their lack of confidence in their own decisions.”
Wrong. It speaks to their adherence to due process. The court understands that they are just on part of the process that needs to occur. This case will end up in front of the Supreme Court where they will either limit the scope of President Trump’s authority or they will rule the tariffs unconstitutional meaning tariffs he imposed will be null and void. If Trump wants to keep them he must ask Congress to continue them and that will be a tall order, even for the President.
Karen, is that you?
Come Hercules! Much more to clean from the government stables… much more!
But it is getting easier as the merde identifies itself.
Intern Monologue
*. Internal monologues do develop as children 1st listen to speech before talking. Some children continue to listen for many years . They listen to conversation, debates, arguments and other. When listening they internally respond to what is being said and agree or disagree as if they were joining in the conversation. They simply don’t say or talk their opinions. It becomes habit and generally listen often without comment.
Oh, the horror !!!!!!
The crime wave in DC is completely out of control !!!!
Thankfully Pam Blondie and Jeanine “Boxwine” Pirro are on the job protecting us from all the sub sandwich bandits and interns flipping off the National Guard.
That’s right.
They are getting to grips with the real crimes committed every day in DC
Many residents have been charged with felony littering and felony jaywalking.
These criminals belong in prison with long
They are also cracking down on criminals who blatantly ignore the law and take their dogs on the street for a walk without a leash.
This is a violation of § 8–1808. Prohibited conduct.
This has to stop.
Thankfully they are also cracking down on criminals who feed the birds and ducks on the National Mall.
This activity is strictly prohibited by National Park Service regulations
It has to stop!!!!!
Left wing nut karens ranting ironically because Trump might be enforcing the laws their imposed.
Yawn.. keep crying losers.
Poor baby. I just bet you cheer for the robbers & murders.
Only a left wing nut would think that seeking to reduce crime – particularly violent crime is a bad thing.
@X
I don’t know all of the particulars, but I had a friend who worked for a state senator, and he was not allowed to do whole heckuva lot in his private life if even the *potential* for damage to the senator’s office was a factor. This girl is an entitled idiot. Actions: meet consequences.
Another poster said something to the effect of ‘they aren’t children’, but oh, so many in that cohort are. They are in grown up bodies, but emotionally they are about four years old, and they react rather than respond to life. She deserved to be fired, and I can only imagine that the rules are even *more* stringent in DC than they would be for a state representative. 🤷🏻♂️
Turley has it correct – so long as she did not resport to violence and kept her actions outide of the workplace – her actions were protected by the first amendment.
But the moment she brought them into the workplace she could be fired.
“ But the moment she brought them into the workplace she could be fired.”
Wrong again. Turley posted the rules and bragging is not a political activity. She was bragging to a security officer who then snitched on her. Bragging that she flipped off a National Guardman is not political activity. Her actions, such as bragging, are still protected by the First Amendment. She was punished because of what she did outside her job.
What did she bring to the workplace? Gossip? Statement? Nothing she said was political. She was bragging about being rude and flipping off the NG. She was punished for talking about something she had every right to do. Frankly, that is why we have the 1st amendment. To protect those against government retaliation for criticising and speaking ill of the government.
That is why Professor Turley didn’t go any further in explaining why bragging about what she did is not protected speech and why it’s not political activity.
I’m not so sure it was protected speech even off the job. It seems to me that expressing hostility to law enforcement is incompatible with employment in law enforcement. Doing so off the job is bad enough; doing it on the job is worse.
hello
How is bragging about flipping off a national guardsman political activity? The intern wasn’t wearing a pin, or a shirt or anything that would be considered political.
All she did was brag about what she to a security guard which would indicate she was on her way in the building. The firing seems more vindictive than a violation of policy. Professor Turley correctly points to the protected speech activity, but stops short of explaining why bragging would be considered political activity? Flipping off a National Guardsman and cursing them is not political activity. It’s a simple act of defiance. Because she is an intern she may not have much of a recourse, but it still does not excuse the firing becasuse of braggin about what she did on her way to work. The Trump administration has been clear they will prosecute anyone for anything deemed insulting or appears to be an assaultl or even daring to touch an federal law enforcement into a felony and the harshest possible punishment, Those tactics were useful when the Nazis were in power and when the soviet union existed.
We know Trump is enamoured with the dictator and rule by fear concept because it works.
She’s an intern. Or was. She was correctly separated from her internship for gross stupidity. Interns can lose their internship for pretty much any reason. She should move on and find an internship that is more appropriate or her juvenile behavior
As a retired National Guardsmen and college professor I am taken back by the fools in the Democratic Communist party. the National Guard are your neighbors the give up their time in support of their country. they stand tall supporting the Constitution of the United States. People like you should read it some time. They are not Nazis! As a history professor I can tell you no nothing about Nazis! I have been to Germany and seen what the Nazis did, The NG are nothing like them! In the last four years you and evil people like you and the Democrats have acted more like the Nazis than anyone else. Open borders, high crimes by illegals, the cancel culture, lawfare, voter fraud, defunding the police, murdering babies (for fifty years), open hostility toward anyone the wont bow down to your sick beliefs, your deplorable actions in public with your foul mouth and then bragging about it. If anyone acts like a demonic Nazis it is you!
Bravo
Anonymous,
You speak of Nazis and baby killing for 50 years. Here’s a stat which should floor you and make your point about the Dems:
In the last 50 years, something on the order of 65 million abortions have taken place. If one does the math, that’s roughly 10.5 times the number of Jews it’s believed the Nazis killed in the concentration camps. If that doesn’t say Nazi, nothing does.
Also, Margaret Sanger believed in eugenics, wanted to wipe out the black race, and was, I believe, praised by Hitler.
If we, as a society, have no compunction about killing innocent life in eutero, how much worse do you think we’ll do to others in our society?
Thanks for your comment about the Dems and Nazis, it’s spot-on an, well-said, and needs to be said.
The Security Guard was forced to listen to her speech. He did not have a choice but to listen. He did not have the ability to respond or he could have been charged with political speech.
Ahh re-read it. Free speech, but………………… you my have to pay.
You poor libs. No common sense
The “stupid”, it burns………..
X – if her expression was not political – then her firing for it is also not political.
Lets pretend that politics had nothing to do with this – ROFL.
Vulgar langage and vulgar actions directed at another employee are grounds for termination.
Both Baxter and the National Guard are government employees.
Generally vulgarity in the workplace can be grounds for dismissal.
He case is actually stronger if it is political.
*. When work becomes hostile most people look for another job and then leave. Most people don’t enjoy hostile feelings. Work suffers and the employee suffers.