Justice Dept. Pledges to Continue Prosecution
After Charges Dismissed Against Trump Critics

     A federal judge’s dismissal Monday of the criminal cases against former FBI director James B. Comey and New York attorney general Letitia James is raising questions about whether a new round of charges against them could move forward to trial.
     Justice Department officials say they will continue to prosecute the two critics of President Donald Trump despite legal obstacles.
     The judge said the inexperienced prosecutor assigned to the cases at the urging of Trump was illegally appointed and committed serious procedural errors.
     Both Comey and James argue that the charges against them were politically motivated acts of revenge resulting from their criticism of the president.
     The dismissals represent a major setback and embarrassment for the president after he pressured the Justice Department to prosecute Comey and James.
     Much of the judge’s ruling focused on Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who led the indictments against both of them.
     She was appointed by the U.S. attorney general after the previous interim U.S. attorney was fired for refusing to prosecute Comey. He said there was not enough evidence of criminal behavior.
     The judge said federal law allows the attorney general to appoint only one interim U.S. attorney for a 120-day period. Halligan was the attorney general’s second appointment for the Eastern District of Virginia.
     She is an insurance attorney who has represented Trump previously but had no criminal prosecution experience.
     "All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan's defective appointment … constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside," Judge Cameron McGowan Currie wrote in her ruling.
     Federal law now grants the judge the option of making a new interim appointment to the prestigious U.S. attorney’s office based in Alexandria, Va.
     Comey is charged with lying to Congress. He testified to Congress five years ago about suspected links between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government.
     Prosecutors say he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he denied authorizing his FBI associates to anonymously leak information about investigations into Trump and his 2016 rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton.
     Trump fired Comey while also calling him “a disgrace to the FBI.”
     He was indicted days before the five-year statute of limitations expired to file charges against him. Since he was indicted Sept. 25, the five-year time limit has run out.
     James is being prosecuted for mortgage fraud on a second home she purchased in Virginia. She led the civil trial against Trump in New York that resulted in a multimillion dollar judgment against him for falsifying business records.
     She claims the prosecution against her is “vindictive” and “selective” as a Trump-inspired political reprisal. She also says it violates her 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law. If true, the civil rights violation is a basis for throwing out charges against her. 
     The judge dismissed the criminal charges “without prejudice,” which means they could be refiled if the problems with the first charges are resolved. Federal law grants prosecutors six months to refile charges.
     U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would take “all available legal action, including an immediate appeal” to continue criminal cases against Comey and James.
     After the court’s ruling, Comey posted a video on social media platform X saying that he expected the Trump administration to try again to prosecute him.
     “This case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies,” he said.
     He added, “I’m innocent. I’m not afraid.”
     James’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the dismissal demonstrates Trump “went to extreme measures to substitute one of his allies to bring these baseless charges after career prosecutors refused. This case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged.”
     The prosecution against Comey began to unravel last week when prosecutors admitted at a hearing that they did not show the final version of the Comey indictment to the grand jury before filing it in court. The procedural failure alone could have led to dismissal, despite prosecutors’ attempts to downplay it.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C.’s Local Governance at Stake
In Bills Approved by House Vote  

     The U.S. House approved two bills last week that would override laws enacted by the District of Columbia Council in a further move by Congress to undercut local governance.
     One bill would make pretrial and post-conviction detention mandatory for some serious crimes. The other would eliminate cashless bail for low-income defendants facing minor criminal charges.
     A Senate vote is pending on the measures.
     Local officials called the legislative moves an affront to the 1973 Home Rule Act that largely freed Washington from congressional control of local government.
     Some Republican members of Congress want to eliminate home rule for Washington completely.
     The House Rules Committee held a hearing last week during which Republicans advocated for the reform bills.
     “Crime and lawlessness should not be allowed to run rampant in the streets of Washington, D.C.,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., the Rules Committee chairwoman. “Our capital city should set an example that the rest of the country should follow – and not be burdened by violence and criminality.”
     Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said District of Columbia policies that go easy on criminals are responsible for making its crime rate worse than other large cities, such as New York.
     “They’re sending the message, continue to do the crime, you’re not going to do the time,” Norman said.
     The Republican criticisms angered local officials, such as Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton, D.C.'s Democratic delegate to Congress.
     "D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, was elected by D.C. residents. Its members are accountable to D.C. and they are the appropriate elected officials to dictate D.C. laws, not Republican members of Congress representing the interests of far-away districts," Norton said in a statement.
     Norton is an advocate for granting the District of Columbia statehood.
     The two bills that won House approval last week are part of a package of 13 bills that would represent a bigger federal presence in how the District of Columbia is governed. They have won approval from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which can modify or overturn local legislation.
     Mayor Muriel Bowser issued a statement with other local officials to oppose the bills.
     “These bills are an affront to Home Rule and the principles of democracy and local self-governance on which this country was founded,” Bowser said. “The District is home to more than 700,000 residents who pay taxes and serve in the military. Like all Americans, they deserve the right to elect local leaders who have the authority to determine the local policies that govern them.”
     The Home Rule Act at the center of the controversy is a 1973 federal law that grants Washington limited self-governance. It includes rights to an elected mayor, an elected council and local authority over most municipal laws, budgets, and administration. Before 1973, the District of Columbia was governed directly by Congress.
     Some members of Congress, such as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., say Congress should resume direct control over the nation’s capital. They have introduced the BOWSER Act, which stands for Bringing Oversight to Washington and Safety to Every Resident. 
     The pending bill would abolish D.C.’s elected mayor, city council, and attorney general.
     The sponsors say it is necessary to rein in crime and mismanagement.
     The ACLU of D.C. called the BOWSER Act “a direct attack on American democracy and states’ rights.”
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Trump Administration Prepares Appeal
Of Ruling Against National Guard in D.C.

     The Trump administration plans to file an appeal within days of a federal judge’s ruling last week that says the deployment of more than 2,000 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., is unlawful.
     President Donald Trump ordered the troops into the nation’s capital in August to assist with law enforcement but the judge’s ruling said he lacked constitutional authority.
     “The Court rejects Defendants’ fly-by assertion of constitutional power, finding that such a broad reading of the President’s Article II authority would erase Congress’s role in governing the District and its National Guard,” U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb wrote in her 61-page ruling.
     She delayed enforcement of the preliminary injunction until Dec. 11 to give the Trump administration time to appeal. The court order was sought by D.C.’s attorney general in a lawsuit.
     Similar court action opposing deployment of the National Guard is pending in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland.
     In each case, the Trump administration cites crime and illegal immigration as the underlying motivation. Local officials describe the deployments as retaliation against Democrats.
     The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling within weeks on the legality of the National Guard in Chicago, which could resolve the disputes in other cities as well.
     The Trump administration pushed back against its court loss in Washington with a statement defending the troop deployments.
     “President Trump is well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement with specific tasks,” the statement said. “This lawsuit is nothing more than another attempt — at the detriment of DC residents — to undermine the president’s highly successful operations to stop violent crime in DC.”
     The judge said the Constitution gives the president only limited authority over the local National Guard, primarily for emergencies. 
     The court ruling also cited the District of Columbia’s right to govern itself under the 1973 Home Rule Act. Self-governance was being undermined by the fact that more than 1,000 of the troops came from other states and the Trump administration planned to keep them in Washington into next year, the judge wrote.
     District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb said sending the military to enforce local laws sets a dangerous precedent.
     It allows the president to “disregard states’ independence and deploy troops wherever and whenever he wants – with no check on his military power,” he said in a statement. “This unprecedented federal overreach is not normal, or legal. 
     Trump administration attorneys argued in court filings that the troop deployment to Washington could not be compared to the states. The nation’s capital is a federal district, not a state, which gives the president expanded powers over local issues, they said.
     They also said proof the deployment is justified is found in a drop in Washington’s crime rate since the National Guard was sent in on Aug. 11.
     The judge disagreed, writing, “When federalized, the National Guard is subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act, barring it from conducting domestic law enforcement.”
     Schwalb called the ruling a “victory for D.C., Home Rule, and American democracy.”
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Judge’s Doubt of Officer’s Testimony
Adds to Police Misconduct Complaints

     A federal judge’s criticism last week of prosecutors for using testimony from a “dishonest” Washington, D.C., police officer in a gun seizure case is adding to a recent rise in misconduct complaints.
     U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said police illegally seized a gun from a man they stopped outside a laundromat.
     A key witness was a police officer who said he saw the man smoking marijuana, which led him to suspect criminal activity.
     Reyes accused Metropolitan Police Department Investigator Harvy Hinostroza of giving false testimony under oath. She added that his history of being discredited by other judges should have given prosecutors adequate warning not to use him as a witness.
     “He has been dishonest about major issues in the past,” the judge said.
     Hinostroza testified that he saw the defendant passing around a marijuana cigarette with two other men. The defendant’s attorney said surveillance camera video contradicted Hinostroza’s testimony.
     In two previous cases, Hinostroza testified that he smelled marijuana before making arrests but his testimony was discredited, according to the defense attorney.
     Reyes suggested that prosecutors either drop the charges or she would consider dismissing them.
     Allegations of dishonesty by the investigator are part of an increase in complaints against police amid a law enforcement surge in Washington. Crime is down from last year but the number of people who say they were falsely accused is up.
     “It also undermines the public's confidence in our system of justice,” Reyes said during a pretrial hearing.
     She barred prosecutors from using the seized gun as evidence against the man they arrested.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Officials Slow E-Bike Speeds
In Youth Crime-Fighting Effort

     The latest crime-fighting effort by Washington, D.C., officials is to set speed limits on dockless electric bikes they say sometimes are used as getaway vehicles.
     The speed limits are a response to recent police reports that teens have used Lime and Veo e-bikes to escape in a hurry after robberies.
     Some rental e-bikes are designed to travel up to 20 mph. The new D.C. speed limits cap the maximum speed assistance from a bike’s motor at 15 miles an hour on Veo bikes and 18 mph on Lime bikes.
     In the Howard University, Chinatown, Navy Yard, Wharf and U Street area neighborhoods, rental e-bikes are limited to 8 mph of motor speed. 
     Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) explained why city officials set the new limits at a recent news conference. “We want to make sure that all the bicycles can be available for the purpose that they are intended and curb any misuse,” she said.
     In one example last month, four teenagers stole personal property from a victim in the 1000 block of Georgia Avenue, Northwest, before speeding away on Lime e-bikes. One of the robbers pointed a gun at the victim.
     D.C. Department of Transportation officials say a contributing issue is safety. They say they are getting complaints about near-misses with fast e-bikes on bike trails and sidewalks.
     Non-electric pedal bikes often travel faster than the new limits for e-bikes but the only restriction on them is the posted speed limit for D.C.’s streets.
     Police acknowledge speed limits are only a partial solution. Some of the crime is being done by teenagers younger than 18 years old. Although they are not supposed to use e-bikes, tracking the use of the dockless bikes is difficult, police say.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.