Trump’s A.G. Just Did Something So Corrupt She Should Be Fired Already

<h3>18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) / § 1503 — Obstruction of justice (corrupt interference with a pending proceeding)</h3><ul><li>Alleged facts: Attorney General-authorized directive to dismiss a pending federal corruption prosecution “as soon as is practicable,” expressly “without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories,” suggests a non-merits basis for terminating an ongoing judicial proceeding.</li><li>Structural inference: Using DOJ supervisory authority to terminate a case for political/operational reasons (e.g., immigration and crime policy alignment) can constitute “corrupt” interference if the purpose is to protect an individual or leverage prosecution discretion as coercive control.</li><li>Key gap: Article does not allege a clear personal benefit to Bondi nor an explicit corrupt agreement; intent would require corroboration (communications, internal deliberations, directives from political principals).</li></ul><h3>18 U.S.C. § 242 — Deprivation of rights under color of law (selective/non-equal enforcement)</h3><ul><li>Alleged facts: Justification premised on the mayor’s political criticism of prior administration immigration policies and on functional “distraction” considerations implies politically conditioned enforcement discretion.</li><li>Structural inference: Conditioning prosecutorial outcomes on political speech or policy alignment raises equal-protection/selective enforcement concerns, though criminal §242 typically requires willful deprivation of a clearly established right and is rarely charged on these facts without stronger evidence.</li><li>Key gap: No allegation of discriminatory animus toward a protected class or clear willful deprivation element beyond politicized reasoning.</li></ul><h3>28 C.F.R. Part 45 & DOJ norms — Improper political influence / abuse of prosecutorial discretion (ethics and governance)</h3><ul><li>Alleged facts: Memo rationale cites political timing and governance priorities; article also describes an asserted White House policy permitting discussion of ongoing cases with the AG and deputies, increasing risk of partisan case manipulation.</li><li>Structural inference: Even if technically within supervisory authority, directing dismissal without evidentiary review and leaving charges “without prejudice” creates leverage over an elected official and reflects politicized use of federal law enforcement power.</li></ul><b>Conclusion:</b> The described conduct is a serious investigative red flag indicating politicized, potentially coercive use of DOJ authority (procedural/power abuse), but the article does not establish the money/personal-benefit quid pro quo or specific corrupt intent typically needed to charge criminal obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>