District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston has been one of the most active judges in the country in seeking to enjoin the orders of President Donald Trump, including her orders to prevent deportations under previously “paroled” immigrants under the Biden Administration. She previously sought to enjoin the denial of federal funds to Planned Parenthood, an order that the United States Court of Appeals lifted for the First Circuit pending appeal. Now, Judge Talwani is back with a new basis for forcing payments to Planned Parenthood despite Congress barring Medicaid funds under the Big Beautiful Bill.
Planned Parenthood is facing a financial meltdown without the federal funding and is closing offices after the passage of the BBB.
Judge Talwani previously halted the cessation of federal funding on the basis that the action was an effort to punish Planned Parenthood for offering abortion services. She wrote the law likely violates the Constitution’s “bill of attainder clause,” which prohibits Congress and state legislatures from imposing punishments on individuals or specific entities without trial. As lead counsel in the Foretich case (one of the few successful modern bill of attainder cases), I was highly skeptical of the chances of Talwani’s earlier opinion being upheld.
However, the law applies to any health care provider providing abortions as of October 1 and receives more than $800,000 in Medicaid payments in a year. The Justice Department argued that “The elected Branches determined that taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidize certain entities that practice abortion – conduct that many Americans find morally abhorrent.”
The opinion, in my view, is flawed and (again) stretches existing precedent to the breaking point. Congress clearly has the power to place this condition on federal funding and was clear on the application of that condition.
Section 71113 was enacted on July 4, 2025, and provides that “[n]o Federal funds that are . . . provided to carry out a State [Medicaid plan] . . . shall be used to make payments to a prohibited entity for items and services furnished during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act[.]” Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 71113(a), 139 Stat. 72, 300-01 (July 4, 2025).
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) further provided the following notice and guidance:
States must ensure their managed care programs comply with section 71113 and applicable requirements under 42 CFR Part 438. States and their actuaries should evaluate whether implementation of section 71113 necessitates adjustments to Medicaid capitation rate development or constitutes a material adjustment requiring an amended rate certification. Additionally, states should review any [state directed payments (“SDPs”)] to determine whether revisions are required and how such SDPs are accounted for in capitation rate development and rate certifications.States must also ensure that all Medicaid managed care contracts comply with all applicable federal and state laws, including Section 71113 of WFTC legislation.[8] To ensure clarity, states should assess if their managed care contracts should be revised to detail the requirements of section 71113. For example, states may wish to specify in their managed care contracts that payments to prohibited entities are not allowable expenditures of Federal funds under section 71113(a), and that any expenditures to such entities made by [covered organizations] are not eligible for [federal financial participation].
The CMS told the states that if it “has already claimed or has drawn down FFP on or after July 4, 2025 for payments to entities identified as prohibited entities as of October 1, 2025, it should promptly withdraw or correct the claim, or return FFP, as required by applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.”
In my view, the court tries too hard (as it did on the attainder opinion) to protect this funding. We will have to see if the First Circuit and the Supreme Court agree with that assessment.
Here is the opinion: Planned Parenthood decision
Planned (Un)parenthood is facing a financial meltdown? So where are all the screeching, shrieking, sign-waving supporters of “reproductive rights,” “reproductive freedom,” “women’s rights are human rights” and, of course, lest we forget, “a woman’s right to choose”? Should they not be opening their checkbooks, in this season of giving, to support this hypocritical outfit? At least if it changed its name to Planned Unparenthood, or Planned Abortion, that would be honest.
*. What is most surprising in this is congress passed the BBB containing MORAL considerations not held by many? No funding because some feel abortion is morally reprehensible? Isn’t that a first? Imposing morality upon people contrary to laws? Mifepristone is legal and mailable. Will you next open federal mail?
Did I read this incorrectly?
Is this a first? Perhaps 1A…
There’s also a private property issue in these cases. Presumably a woman’s body is private property? Her medical records are also private property?
The problem with planned parenthood is its a form of double dipping. Medicaid can be used like a credit card at any accepting physician or group. The need to also fund clinics has passed.
The targeting is morality by those thinking they are moral. Presumably they’ll beat the he// out of you as they haven’t a recognition of private property. People roam through homes now? When the salt has lost its savor.
Nathaniel Hawthorne revisited.
To the moral minority, don’t have any abortions, use any contraception, marry early.
PS I’m not for abortion but I think women are autonomous. Google still uses pregnant people so the battle is lost anyway. We’re all admiring Sidney Swiney’s jeans.
Although I don’t like the delays by radical judges I do like the steady flow of precedents in the Supreme Court that more sharply delineate the contours of the presidency and the presidential powers. It’s like a small, slow motion Constitutional re-ratification.
And Trump is coming out stronger.
That’s a good thing because when choosing to have that power in the hands of an elected official with limited terms of service against an unelected, entrenched bureaucracy supported by unelected, radical judges I choose the elected official every time.
Read Professor Hamburger’s “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”
That’s a damn good analysis Young
Thank you.
Young,
What you say SHOULD be the case.
But it is not.
As of yet, there is no evidence that these lawless left wing nut judges have any intention of following the constitution or the supreme court.
This will continue until there are actually consequences for openly lawless decisions.
A good place to start would be Boasberg. His recent defense for signing off on subpeoning congress persons communications was essentially I did not read the subpeona request.
Incompetence or bias – it does not matter – a judge that is unaware of what they are signing off on does not belong on the bench.
A judge that signs off on subpeonas that violate both the law and constitution – does not belong on the bench.
John,
Too true. That is why I have been saying the Supreme Court needs to address the problem of rogue judges rather than rely on the clumsy and often impossible impeachment process.
I believe that ALL self policing professional organizations should be instead policed by a board of non affiliated ethical and moral elected officials. You ever try to get a lawyer to sue another lawyer?
The wicked solution or planned parenthood is just a reimagined one-child, selective-child, or no-Jew, entertaining abortive ideation delegated through empathetic appeal backed by authority to the population in order to justify elective termination of a “burden”. Another bloc in Diversity (i.e. class-disordered ideologies). Deja vu. That said, demos-cracy dies in darkness under a layer of privacy.
Good. Judge Talwani stands up while hacks like Turley give trump a reach around tug off.
Aborting human life for reasons other than self-defense is a human rite performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. A wicked solution.
Keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable, and the “burden” of evidence sequestered in sanctuary states.
Planned Parenthood umbrella corporation is critical to normalizing the pedophile sexual orientation under the principle of political congruence (“=”) of Democratic law and Pro-Choice religion in Progressive sects. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #LoveWins
What is a Bill of Attainder?
Let’s say the next Congress is majority Democrat and passes this (signed by a Dem President):
“Any Constitutional Law professor who has debated Harvard Professor Randall Kennedy since Jan 1 2025 shall no longer be permitted to practice law in the United States.”
The wording is pretextual. It singles out Jonathan Turley with snarky qualifying lingo.
The measure seeks retributive punishment of Turley without due process in a Court of Law — because the Democrats detest the casework Mr. Turley takes on, and wants it stopped in its tracks. Oh…BTW…this lingo was buried in a huge omnibus bill, and never spoken about publicly nor debated on either floor of Congress. It was a stealth move.
Mr. Turley has but one countermove. It’s in the Constitution. This clause of the bill is unconstitutional because it
exemplifies in the most brazen way a …….
Boy, have a desperate need for attention this morning, so you resort to a bizarre hypothetical?
I thought it needed mentioning. I’m an independent, and still believe in the law blindly applied without regard to political affiliation. I know, you want double-standard law that takes sides, fantasizing that Dems will never regain national power. Trump will somehow stop that. That’s more bizarre thinking than anything I can conjure up.
PS I don’t think Dems have anything to offer the nation at this point. But, 1-party rule in perpetuity would lead to corrupt autocracy, so competitive elections are essential. Let the people decide abortion law out in the open, not done surreptitiously behind closed doors in Congress by an activist minority.
Mostly agreed.
But beyond your recomendation we can avoid LOTS of such issues by completely removing them from the sphere of government.
It is arguable that govenrment has a role in determining the legality of abortion.
But it has no role in Funding abortions.
Frankly govenrment has no legitimate role in funding Medical care, education or the vast majoity of what it does.
What people can do for themselves – they must be allowed to do.
They will not make perfect decisions, but they will make better decisions ALWAYS than govenrment.
One of many reasons that is so is that one size does not fit all.
The entire purpose of the free market is to allow people to choose what is important to them – for themselves.
If you wish to contribute to Planned Parenthood – go ahead.
If you wish to contribute to the ACLU or the KKK that is your business.
Individuals should make their own decisions regarding their lives and what it is they wish to spend what they have earned on.
Even in those few areas that Government MUST do – such as law enforcement and national defence.
Govenrment is STILL going to be inefficient and corrupt.
We can do our best to police that – we can not avoid it.
WE have a mess going on with Covid funds in The Somali community in Minesota.
A large number of people are RIGHTLY in the spotlight for waste fraud and abuse of power.
But anyone that expects there is no fraud on the right is an idiot.
Musk did an interview on Rogan recently about What DOGE found and what they encountered.
Musk found billions in political fraud – money that had barely a fig leaf of a pretense to a legitimate purpose that was not only going to the chronies of politicians, but often directly or indirectly to the politicians themselves.
Musk found that 90-95% of this was going to Democrats.
But still in his efforts to cut waste fraud and abuse he encountered MORE opposition from Republicans – the 5-10% of whom were also swilling at the trough of government.
They wanted their 5-10% – even if it means democrats got 90-95% of the graft.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
The greatest Threat to liberty is NOT from people engaging in free exchange.
It is not even from criminals and frauds though they are a threat Government is legitmately empowered to thwart.
The greatest threat to liberty comes from govenrment itself.
Government is a necescary evil and we must ALWAYS police it vigilantly.
That is orders of magnitude harder the larger govenrment gets.
pbinca – I am not an independent – I am a libertarian.
I do not agree with Trump on many things.
But then I have never agreed with any president or party on everything – not even libertarian candidates.
Nor do I know anyone who ACTUALLY agrees with the candidate they voted for 100% on everything.
That is the real world. We are not equal, we are not the same.
Quite often here in response to left wing nuts I scream to myself – Please do not force me to appear to be defending or supporting Trump – because the left is trying to burn down the constitution and the rule of law.
I did not vote for Trump. But if you put a gun to my head and said I must either vote for Trump or just about any democrat in contention.
I would have been forced to vote for Trump.
I do not agree with Trump on many things.
At the same time – he is the best president of the 21st century – which is not saying much.
I beleive in nearly open immigration. But I also beleive in the rule of law, Further nations can not exist without borders – and Biden fairly amply demonstrated the harm that not defending a border can cause.
I beleive in that ALL drugs should be legal. I do not beleive that govenrment can legitimately control anything we do to ourselfs that does not directly harm others.
But that does not Mean I support lawless criminal drug cartels.
This country inarguably elected Trump – Twice. They KNEW what they were getting when they elected him.
Unlike virtually every other politician in this country Trump did not massively lie to people to get elected.
He has done to tried to do what he promissed every time he has been elected.
And he MUST be allowed to do so – so long as what he promised is not actually unconstitutional or violates Actual individual rights.
There are alot of things I do not like about the way our govenrment works.
But my only legitimate means of changing that is my own vote and by persuading others.
I would further note – that even where I disagree with Trump – that does not come close to meaning I support democrats on the same issue.
I do not like our immigration law – but we must follow the law until we can change it through persuasion.
Biden and democrats are lawless on so much of what they do. They do not follow the law.
They do not follow the constitution,
They do not change the law – they just ignore it.
That is not how this country works.
Nor is it possible for any country to work that way long.
a decade ago that would have been a bizzare hypothetical.
Since then Democrat administrations have spied on congress – AGAIN.
Tried to sell the american people a HOAX,
Used that hoax as a pretext to kneecap a constitutionally elected president.
Brazenly lied that some of thee evidence of political corruption involving the president was “russian Disinformation”.
We have listened to years of “russia Russia Russia” regarding Trump – but it was Clinton that brokered the Uranium One Deal.
It was The Clinton that received hundreds of millions form Russian Oligarches.
It was Biden that used the power of the vice president to shill for a Russia affiliated Oligarch to profit himself and his family.
This is just a LITTLE of the bold and brazen garbage that democrats have foist on the american people.
It is a wonder anyone trusts the left AT ALL.
I certainly do not.
If you said the sun will rise tomorow – I would question it – that is how badly you have burned your credibility.
I
Yes, is professor a private or publicly funded person? Publicly funded is simply a matter of a budget. Anyone taking medicaid is publicly funded.
The Federation may be a mix of public and private which would then make it possible for a portion of public money. The problem is also in a ban or severe restriction of any abortion beyond 6 weeks in 14 States and nonelective. In these States even cash isn’t allowed.
SCOTUS has allowed mifepristone federally and telehealth, mailing.
GW is private or public?
^^^ additionally States are out of compliance with the FDA approved use of mifepristone. It has not been challenged. An alliance of ER docs hadn’t standing if you recall. The use is 70 days gestation and not 6 weeks. This also means States such as California are out of compliance. Nothing much covers surgical abortions to date.
This case is ridiculous.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1994936380724551779
Here’s the American fertility rate in a “death spiral.”
Agreed, but do you think coercion of women will actually fix the problem? It might make it worse.
India is doing great on the otherhand standing at 1.5 billion Indians. Import 100 thousand and in no time there’ll be millions. Not to worry about a shortage of people. You mean Americans? Oh yes, too late. Putin and zelensky are killing off western civilization. Brilliant!
We aren’t God’s favorites. He likes perfect.
Roe v. Wade was juridical corruption.
Dobbs is the Constitution.
No its not. The 1788 Constitution is silent specifically on the issue of abortion. However, abortion was widely practiced in the colonies ( a fact Justice Alito deceptively omitted in his “history and tradition” analysis. Why did he leave that out? Because of Article IX on unenumerated rights.
Just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, that doesn’t mean Congress or a State can abridge that right. For example, the right of parents to select the names of their children, to decide the manner of their attire and grooming, to decide what food to eat, sleeping hours, and what means to make their (honest) living. For women, in widespread practice at the time of Ratification, whether to use an abortificient.
Sine what is included in the broad sweep of Article iX is a matter of interpretation, the most honest position is that the Constitution does not take any clearcut position on abortion. And the fact that it doesn’t can’t be used to undermine any right being exercised at the time of its passage.
Abortion was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution from 1787. It was not “specifically silent’, they never considered it. Check the available convention records. You ‘re lying or just plain stupid. The Constitution does not explicitly reference abortion, and there is no evidence that the framers or adopters of the 1787 Constitution intended for it to protect a right to abortion.
Read Article IX. The failure to explicitly mention a right being enjoyed at the time in 1788 does not indicate that the right is henceforth unprotected.
How many abortions were performed in 1787?
Ummm, none? They thought they were gifts from God.
“. . . there is no evidence that the framers . . .”
You have a grotesque understanding of the nature and purpose of the Constitution.
It is *not* a comprehensive list of rights.
It is not a limitation on *private* action. It is a limitation on *government* action.
Jackie Kennedy typifies the American thoughts and feelings when her premature son was given a full burial. The circumstances now reflect the advent of Roe. IMO
My bad…it’s the 9th Amendment, not Article IX, that protects unenumerated rights.
Americans Supported Roe For 50 Years
A majority of Americans disapprove of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, which had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years. Public support for legal abortion remains largely unchanged since before the decision, with 62% saying it should be legal in all or most cases.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/
………………………………………….
For almost half a century, 55-60% of Americans consistently supported a woman’s right to safe and legal abortions. Yet the Roberts court totally disregarded public sentiment when it struck down Roe in 2022.
And now the Trump administration is deliberately trying to destroy what remains of Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile, Johnathan Turley pretends that a far-right minority has a right to dictate public policy even in the most liberal of blue states.
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
He doesn’t pretend. He is paid to oppose it.
Those opposed to abortion should know, and do know, a couple of things. They don’t have to get one if they don’t want one, and no federal money has ever been allowed to be used to pay for abortion.
What the opposition really want is to prevent gynecological services from being given to poor people. They want sexually transmitted diseases to go untreated, to prevent access to birth control so the poor produce more poor people to work for low wages at terrible jobs, and they want to prevent services like PAP smears and other reproductive health care from saving poor people from agonizing maladies. Mainly the word “poor” is a stand-in for the word Black.
Those opposed to abortion should know, and do know, a couple of things. They don’t have to get one if they don’t want one, and no federal money has ever been allowed to be used to pay for abortion.
These Democrat communists lying that federal taxpayer money isn’t fungible, and none of the $800 million a year federal taxpayers give to Planned Parenthood doesn’t fund abortions, need to work on being better liars.
And why do communist Democrat liars prefer to call criminal Illegal Aliens “undocumented migrants” and abortion “gynecological services”? Is it just an accident? Or deliberate to mask the ugly truth?
As for “PAP smears and other reproductive care”, where medical procedures are concerned, elective after the fact birth control abortions outnumbered prenatal care 57 to 1. Planned Parenthood is all about butchering unborn babies – and 60% of those babies they electively abort are black babies..
So mainly, the word “abortion” is a stand-in for Confederate Democrat black genocide. Don’t have to hang ’em later if you just scrape ’em out before they get started!
For those who want hundreds of thousands of elective birth control abortions to know: if you don’t want to pay for your own damned abortions, put a few pennies aside before you spend the rest on booze and crack and buy some damned condoms. You don’t want me having any say while you butcher our unborn child – keep your damned commie hands out of my wallet, trying to get me to pay for your abortion.
And if that’s too hard – there’s lots of places that will give both of you/all five of you condoms for free.
Planned Parenthood has done everything possible to comply with the Hyde Amendment.
Planned Parenthood was started by a racist.
A majority of Americans disapprove of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision
Dobbs gave your state and you the right to authorize elective after the fact birth control abortions right up to the moment the umbilical cord is cut. So why are you and your butcher state crying now, when you wouldn’t have been able to get away with that under Roe?
Another Democrat trying to keep pretending Dobbs restricted elective birth control abortions when it did the opposite?
And that majority disapprove because the Democrat-Marxist Media Propaganda Complex worked with The Oval Office House Plant to convince them the Dobbs decision banned all abortions. When in word and in action it did the opposite: Dobbs clearly said it was neither in the courts’ power nor the federal government’s power to rule on abortion.
Like concealed carry permits to bear arms, the laws applying to those oopsie elective birth control abortions are controlled by each state. Hawaii won’t allow you a Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon – but they sure as hell have ensured you can legally kill a viable child.
And the Democrats and their propagandists did such a good job that the Useless Idiots they convinced haven’t noticed there are far more aborted children – overwhelmingly black – than there was BEFORE Dobbs.
So these vicious lying Democrat Marxist Useless Idiots have done a good job – now they reason that federal taxpayer funding must be increased to Planned Parenthood Baby Body Parts Chop Shops.
Nope. You and your state want to abort children at the moment normal humans would be cutting the umbilical cord, Dobbs gave you the power to pass laws allowing that.
But if you want to fund it, you do it with tax dollars from your state – not federal tax dollars, you greedy butchers.
And for Christ’s sake – at least one of you should stay sober or straight long enough to put on a condom.
A majority of Americans don’t understand that ruling.
Judge Talwani says abortion providers have been targetted in opposition of article 1 section 10 regarding Bill of Attainder.
You can not punish someone by Refusing to give them something that is not a right.
You have no right to use a highway. You have no right to healthcare. No right to have a fire department or the police. You have no right to have a telephone or internet. You have no right to clothing or shoes. No mention of any of these in the US Constitution. You don’t even have a right to food or water. You do have a right to own a gun, but no unfettered right to use it.
These are unenumerated rights under the 9th Amendment.
There’s no longer a need for planned parenthood because medicaid is a preloaded medical credit card. Go to an ob-gyn of choice or a group.
Is this true?
“It is possible the DOJ could attempt to bring charges again.”
“Fox News is told that prosecutors intend to continue the effort to re-indict [Leticia] James.”
– Fox News
It is most likely that DOJ is going to prevail on appeal regarding the dismissal of Halligan by the courts.
If they prevail there is no need to reindict either comey or James.
It is possible that they choose to reindict James AND Comey in the meantime.
I do not beleive there is an SOL issue with the james indictment, and the evidence is more damning the original indictment.
Reindicting Comey will with certainty resullt in SOL based appeals. But those are with near certainty going to fail.
John Say the Stupid
DOJ has already tried AGAIN to indict James and today they announced that the new grand jury refused to indict.
They have not filed a notice of appeal and they probably will not because they know that the judge’s dismissal of Halligan is bulletproof.
So much for your stupid predictions.
My vote is John Say is pseudonym for a grad student working for Turley, maybe several sharing the responsibility. Not a good one, as one cannot “reindict” someone who was not indicted in the first place.
Pam Blondie and Keystone Kash should probably not be celebrating catching the pipe bomber.
He may have already been pardoned.
Trump, in one of his first official acts after returning to the White House this year, issued a grant of clemency to the rioters charged in connection with the Capitol attack. His clemency proclamation was extraordinarily broad, covering all defendants accused or convicted of “offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on or about Jan. 6, 2021.
Note that the pardon covered all defendants ACCUSED of offenses, not just convicted.
The president can define a group, or class of people, based on specific criteria and issue a pardon that applies to anyone meeting those conditions, without individual identification in the pardon. There is well established precedent for this. That is why Trump was able to issue such a broad general pardon.
Andrew Johnson’s general pardon for former Confederates after the Civil War.
Jimmy Carter’s pardon for Vietnam War draft evaders.
Gerald Ford’s clemency program for Vietnam War draft evaders and deserters
A competent defense lawyer will have a good shot at arguing that the placing of the pipe bombs should also be covered by Mr. Trump’s general pardon, since to quote, it was an “offense related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”
Name calling will not make your case. Trump did not pardon those who broke some laws.
Trump issued a blanket pardon without naming every individual.
He did name 14 individuals, in the first part of the pardon, but the second part reads as follows:
“(b) grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021;
The Attorney General shall administer and effectuate the immediate issuance of certificates of pardon to all individuals described in section (b) above, and shall ensure that all individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
I further direct the Attorney General to pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
That is a blanket pardon for all people convicted of crimes AS WELL AS all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
There was no pending indictment of Cole when the pardon was issued.
I would further note that the pardon issued is a blanket pardon with respect to any crimes committed.
It is NOT a blanket pardon with respect to the people pardoned.
Though not individually named in the pardon the pardon ONLY applies to those already convicted,
The portion of the order that deals with pending charges – is NOT a pardon or commuation – it is just an executive order.
But even so it still clearly identifies those it applies to.
Those with pending indictments.
The terms of this cover a large number of people, BUT the terms are specific enought that it does NOT cover people unknown to the government at the time of the pardon/order.
Further DOJ can ask for dismissal with predjudice – and if the court grants it – that is the same as a pardon.
But the court is not obligated to do as DOJ asks.
Regardless, unless Cole was convicted or hard charges pending at the time the pardon was issued – it does not apply to him.
It doesn’t say “currently pending” so it does not limit it to those already charged. It applies to anyone as described as soon as there is any pending action. Clearly one should not be pardoned if not convicted, but as soon as they are convicted they are to be pardoned. For those not yet convicted the DoJ should cease the case as soon as a case is pending.
Trump didn’t restrict the pardons in any way as to which laws were broken.
Hmmm. The RNC and DNC offices were not that close to the capitol, at least in relation to other offenses that were prosecuted. And to be eligible for the blanket pardon, the bomber would have to prove that the bombs were related to the J6 capitol events and not just general mayhem – which means he would have to name co-conspirators.
andrew while you are correct – if Coles actions where part of the Jan. 6 activities in the capitol – as an example if Cole was trying to draw the CP away from the capitol – then his crimes would be covered by the pardon.
But the big problem with arguing that Cole is covered is that while the pardon is broad – The pardon only covers people who were convicted and the portion oof the EO that directs the DOJ to seek dismissal of charges with predjudice only applies to indictments pending on the date of the order.
There may not be a list of names in the order, But the order is specific enough that it only covers very specific people KNOWN at the time the order was issued.
You are correct that a lawyer can argue that.
And if you specifically connect Cole to the events at the capitol – then the Trump pardon likely covers him
But I doubt the courts will by it.
Regardless this is significant.
First it is already clear that the FBI had the ability to find Cole years ago.
Those of you on the left have argued that Trump Bondi, patel etc were incompetent, and were managing disasterously.
Yet here they managed to get to the bottom of something that the FBI under Biden/Wray and Garland could not.
It is clear who is and who is not competent.
Cole is described as politically motivated – but thus far he has not been tagged as either right orr left – just an extremists.
If Cole is identified as a right wing extremists – that undermines all claims that the Trump Justice department is politically biased.
If Cole turns out to the a left wing nut – that demonstrates thee political bias of the Biden Justice system as well as amplifying the claim that the left was complicit in the J6 violence.
Put simply this is a lose. lose situation for democrats.
John Say the Stupid
What is wrong with you ????
This is not a political issue. Why do you try to frame it as a “loss” for Democrats ???
Your thinking is severely warped by the brainwashing of the MAGA cult.
The issue here is that Trump and the motley bunch of minions that advise him screwed up spectacularly by granting a blanket pardon that may include the pipe bomber. They are incompetent fools who are totally incapable of thinking through the consequences of their actions.
They act in the moment to do things to please the MAGA moron base without any thought whatsoever of the possible consequences.
You are an idiot !!!!!
Really, and how about pardons before any charges are identified. That’s pretty royal, huh?
“Grand jury declines to re-indict Letitia James in Virginia”
The Department of Justice failed to bring an indictment against Letitia James on Thursday after a federal judge tossed out the initial indictment last week, according to a DOJ source. The DOJ attempted to persuade a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia to indict James a second time, the source said, after Judge Cameron Currie found that the prosecutor who brought the first indictment, Lindsey Halligan, was serving unlawfully as interim U.S. attorney. The revelation that a grand jury did not indict James, one of President Donald Trump’s top political foes, is a blow to the DOJ as it is rare that grand juries do not find enough probable cause to bring charges.
It is possible the DOJ could attempt to bring charges again. Fox News is told that prosecutors intend to continue the effort to re-indict James.
“I’d say don’t celebrate just yet,” one source said.
The attempt to re-indict the state attorney general also marks a shift for the DOJ after Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt vowed to immediately appeal the judge’s finding that Halligan was an invalid appointee and that James’ indictment was therefore also invalid. James was previously charged with bank fraud in Norfolk, Virginia. She pleaded not guilty and had argued the charges should be tossed out on numerous grounds.
– Fox News
Currie will lose on appeal. Her oppinion misreads the law badly.
There is no appeal.
DOJ has not filed a notice of appeal because they know that they will lose.
That is why they chose to attempt another indictment of James this week, THAT FAILED.
Your spelling is criminal.
I sense the dims are good at judge shopping.