Justice Dept. Tries to Free Jan. 6 Rioters And Investigate Federal Reserve Chief
The Justice Department is awaiting a judgment on whether its politically-charged motion filed last week will succeed in vacating seditious conspiracy convictions for leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
The motion is adding to allegations the Trump administration is using criminal courts to advance the president’s personal political agenda.
This time, it is supporters of President Donald Trump who appear to be benefiting. Other times, it has been his critics who have been targeted by the Justice Department, such as Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell.
The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers led the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. More than 1,000 rioters were charged with crimes initially but Trump later granted most of them clemency.
The Justice Department wants to wipe away jury verdicts against the groups’ last 12 leaders for organizing a plot to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden.
“The government’s motion to vacate in this case … is in the interests of justice,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing signed by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro.
The court filing mentions Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys leaders Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Zachary Rehl. All of them were serving prison sentences. Rhodes received an 18-year sentence, one of the longest penalties.
“This decision is long overdue,” said Norm Pattis, an attorney for Biggs. “This prosecution should never have been lodged.”
Critics of the Justice Department’s attempt to vacate the sentences included former Washington, D.C., police officer Michael Fanone, who was dragged into the mob and suffered a heart attack after a rioter shocked him with a stun gun.
“I would remind Americans that these were traitors to this country,” Fanone said. “They planned, incited and carried out an insurrection.”
In another move with political overtones, a Justice Department investigator and two prosecutors were turned back by a contractor last week as they tried to enter the renovation job site of the Federal Reserve Bank.
The cost of the renovation has risen to $2.5 billion, fueling suspicions that Federal Reserve Chairman Powell might have engaged in criminal behavior. Before work began, the project was estimated to cost $1.9 billion.
The Justice Department accuses Powell of lying to Congress about the cost and scope of the renovation. The reconstruction is being done on the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building and the adjacent Federal Reserve East Building.
Powell says crime is not the real issue but rather a desire for revenge after he opposed some of Trump’s economic policy preferences, such as lowering interest rates.
The investigators asked to inspect the project in an unannounced visit but were denied entry by a building contractor who directed them to the central bank’s legal team. They were told they lacked proper clearances.
Democrats in Congress say the incident is an example of “weaponization” of the Justice Department.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said, “Anyone with two eyes and half a brain knows exactly what this criminal probe represents: a brazen attempt … to cannibalize the Fed’s independence.”
He added, “This has nothing to do with building renovations… It has everything to do with Donald Trump weaponizing the DOJ into his attack dog.”
Previously, the New York Democrat criticized Trump’s pardons related to the Jan. 6 riot, saying they set a precedent that would lead to a “Golden Age” for criminal insurrection.
Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said, “Let’s be clear about what this is: the President is throwing a tantrum because the Federal Reserve and Jerome Powell won’t do his bidding.”
Boyle, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said prosecuting Powell as part of Trump’s retaliation threatened the independence of the Federal Reserve in a way that could destabilize the U.S. economy.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Judge Orders Pentagon to Restore Media Credentials and Access
Defense Department attorneys are preparing an appeal this week of a federal judge’s order for the Pentagon to restore media access to journalists who refused to seek clearance for their news stories.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took away their media credentials in a policy shift last October.
Since then, only journalists who sign agreements requiring greater cooperation with military officials were allowed routine access to the Pentagon.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman's order this month said, "The curtailment of First Amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and even more so in time of war."
The ruling resulted from a lawsuit filed by reporters and editors from The New York Times and other news outlets that regularly cover the Pentagon.
They argued that the Defense Department credentialing policy gave military officials too much discretion on whether to suspend or revoke reporters’ access.
The Pentagon required journalists seeking press credentials to sign a 21-page agreement to avoid soliciting or publishing information that was not authorized for public release by Defense Department officials, even if the information was unclassified. They also had to acknowledge that violating the rules could lead to suspension or revocation of their press passes.
Defense Department officials say a free press is not the issue. They say they are trying to protect national security.
Most major news outlets, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Associated Press, refused to sign the agreement. Among the 56 news organizations in the Pentagon Press Association, 55 walked out in protest last fall.
They continue to report on the military from other sites. They also sued to block implementation of the policy.
Reporters said the changes curtailed much of their ability to gather news. The building in Arlington, Va., has hosted a resident press corps for decades.
Friedman ruled in March that key portions of the Pentagon policy violated the First Amendment and the constitutional guarantee of due process because journalists were given little notice or explanation when their access was curtailed.
The judge ordered the Defense Department to restore reporters’ credentials and allow them access in the Pentagon while their lawsuit continued.
Instead, Pentagon officials revised their guidelines but continued to require escorts for many reporters and limited their access to workspaces and hallways used by the press corps. They claimed the revisions complied with the judge’s order but journalists described them as a cosmetic change that showed defiance.
“The government cannot nullify a federal injunction simply by repackaging the same restrictions under a new label,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing earlier this week.
Friedman agreed in his ruling this month. He wrote that the Pentagon’s revised policy “continues to burden the plaintiffs’ ability to gather and report the news” and therefore does not satisfy the court’s earlier ruling.
Lawyers representing the journalists welcomed the decision. A spokesperson for The New York Times said the ruling reaffirmed the principle that the government cannot arbitrarily deny reporters access to institutions they have historically covered.
“A free press depends on the ability of journalists to observe and report on the government’s activities,” the newspaper’s statement said. “We are pleased the court recognized that the Pentagon’s policy threatened that fundamental principle.”
The Defense Department refuses to leave Friedman’s ruling as the last word in the dispute.
“The Department disagrees with the Court’s ruling and intends to appeal,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote in a social media post.
He repeated that he believed the Pentagon complied with the March 20 court order.
“The Department remains committed to press access at the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation,” Parnell said.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Trump Plans to Refile Defamation Suit Against The Wall Street Journal
April 27 is Donald Trump’s deadline to refile a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch after they published stories saying the president sent a suggestive birthday letter to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
A federal judge in Florida dismissed the lawsuit earlier this month but said the president could refile it if it had additional allegations that avoid entanglements with the First Amendment.
The birthday letter included a rough drawing of a naked woman's torso.
Trump denied sending the letter, despite a signature on it that appeared to match his own.
The judge who dismissed the lawsuit said Trump failed to prove the "actual malice" required before public figures can successfully sue for defamation.
Trump filed the lawsuit last July after the Journal published an article describing the letter as being part of a leather-bound album of birthday messages compiled in 2003 for Epstein by his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
The hand-drawn outline of a naked woman in the letter included a signature that said “Donald” and appeared below the waist of the drawing in a way that resembled pubic hair, according to the description. The message ended with the line, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump’s lawyers argued in court filings that the report falsely portrayed him as having authored the racy message. The president accused the Wall Street Journal, its parent company and owner Murdoch of trying to damage his reputation.
Judge Darrin P. Gayles said Trump’s lawsuit did not sufficiently show the Journal knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Because Trump is a public figure, federal court interpretations of the First Amendment say proof is required of “actual malice” for a defamation lawsuit to succeed.
"Whether President Trump was the author of the Letter or Epstein's friend are questions of fact that cannot be determined at this stage," Gayles wrote in his ruling. "The Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the Defendants published the Article with actual malice."
The Supreme Court set out the actual malice standard in the 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The court said a public figure must prove a defendant published an allegedly defamatory statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.
The lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal is one of several legal actions Trump has filed against major media organizations during his presidency as he battles coverage he considers “fake news.”
The dispute also revived scrutiny of Trump’s past social relationship with Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Trump acknowledges knowing the financier earlier in his career but says he ended the social relationship as Epstein’s criminal behavior became obvious.
The judge noted that the Journal had reached out to Trump for comment before publishing its story about the letter to Epstein. It also reported his denials in its story.
Giving a person who is criticized in a news report an opportunity to respond is a standard journalistic practice that can shield news outlets from lawsuits alleging "reckless disregard for the truth."
Trump said on social media after the ruling that the judge’s decision is a setback but that he intends to refile the lawsuit. He says he has a “powerful” claim against the newspaper.
"The Press has to learn to be truthful," Trump wrote. He called the Journal a "disgusting and filthy rag."
A spokesperson for Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, said in a statement the ruling reinforced the importance of a free press.
"We stand behind the reliability, rigor, and accuracy of our reporting,” the statement said. “This decision affirms the essential role of a free press in reporting on matters of public interest."
The case has been a flashpoint in the ongoing tension between the Trump administration and mainstream media outlets. While Trump has secured settlements in other legal disputes, the dismissal Monday is a blow to his efforts to penalize the Murdoch-owned publication for its coverage of his ties to Epstein.
The case is Trump v. Murdoch et al., No. 1:25-cv-23232, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (filed July 2025).
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Shock Follows News of Justin Fairfax’s Murder-Suicide with His Wife in Annandale
Virginia’s legal community is expressing amazement at the death last week of former lieutenant governor Justin Fairfax and his wife in a murder-suicide squabble.
Fairfax was once a rising star in Democratic politics who was considered a possible candidate for governor of Virginia until he was accused of sexual assault in 2019 by two women. The allegations compelled him to resign from politics and apparently sent him into an emotional tailspin.
Police said Fairfax fatally shot his wife before taking his own life at their home in Annandale, Va. The couple’s teenage children were in the house. One of the couple’s sons called 911.
Police said they believe the violence resulted from a domestic dispute tied to the divorce proceedings between Fairfax, 47, and his wife, Cerina, 49. The two were separated but still living together in the house with their children.
Court filings showed Fairfax was recently served documents connected to the divorce and a custody dispute. A judge had ordered him to move out of the family home by the end of April.
Cerina Fairfax was a dentist who ran a family dental practice and was recognized as a distinguished alumna of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry. Friends and neighbors described her as devoted to her family and active in the community.
Justin Fairfax served as Virginia’s lieutenant governor from 2018 to 2022 during the administration of former Gov. Ralph Northam. A former federal prosecutor and civil litigator, he once appeared poised for higher office but saw his political career unravel after the 2019 accusations of sexual assault.
U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said in a joint statement that they were praying for the couple’s children and relatives as they processed “this shocking and horrifying news.”
Fairfax shot his wife multiple times in their basement before going upstairs and shooting himself, police said. Their children were unharmed.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Teen Curfew Expires While City Officials Consider Options on Neighborhood Violence
An emergency juvenile curfew that was ordered by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser expired May 1 but the search by city officials for a long-term solution to disruptive behavior in some neighborhoods continues.
Bowser issued an emergency order April 16 to reinstate a citywide juvenile curfew in response to a recent surge in teenage violence.
The mayor’s reinstatement order follows the expiration of similar emergency legislation on April 15 after the D.C. Council failed to secure the votes necessary for an extension.
Bowser invoked her executive powers to prohibit all youth under the age of 18 from being in public spaces or on the premises of any establishment between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. seven days a week.
The order restores the Metropolitan Police Department's power to designate "curfew zones" as early as 8 p.m. in areas where large groups are expected to gather.
Bowser cited "several weeks of disorderly behavior." The mayor’s office mentioned "teen takeovers" in neighborhoods like Navy Yard and U Street, where large gatherings have frequently escalated into fights, robberies, and vandalism.
"The safety of our young people is the most important thing to me," Interim Chief of Police Jeffery W. Carroll said in a statement. Carroll noted that the 11 p.m. citywide curfew and targeted zones have helped maintain order and prevent violence.
The curfew grants exceptions for youth who are accompanied by a parent, traveling to or from a job, or participating in school-sponsored or religious activities. Minors found in violation are typically transported to a youth facility to await pickup by a guardian rather than being formally arrested.
Parents or guardians can face fines of up to $500 or community service if they knowingly allow a minor to violate the curfew.
Bowser said the city would continue to offer late-night programming at recreation centers to provide safe alternatives for teenagers during the restricted hours.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.