Jeanine
Pirro
(Photo
by
MIKE
THEILER/AFP/Getty
Images)
Going
to
war
with
the
magistrate
judges
is
a
weird
move
for
a
prosecutor.
But
Jeanine
Pirro,
the
improbable
US
Attorney
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
is
kind
of
a
weirdo.
And,
of
course,
these
are
very
weird
times.
So
it’s
perhaps
unsurprising
that
Pirro
finds
herself
unable
to
indict
the
proverbial
ham
sandwich
and
crosswise
with
the
judiciary.
“It
is
without
a
doubt
the
most
illegal
search
I’ve
ever
seen
in
my
life,”
Magistrate
Judge
Zia
Faruqui
rebuked
prosecutors
in
August
as
he
tossed
gun
charges
against
a
Black
man
intercepted
at
Trader
Joe’s
with
a
bag
that
“looked
heavy.”
“I’m
absolutely
flabbergasted
at
what
has
happened.
A
high
school
student
would
know
this
was
an
illegal
search.”
In
a
separate
case,
Judge
Faruqui
excoriated
the
DOJ
for
holding
a
woman
in
custody
for
two
days
before
charging
her,
not
requesting
detention,
then
actually
failing
to
release
her.
“What
is
especially
troubling
is
that
this
is
not
even
the
first
time
in
the
past
four
months
that
the
Court
has
encountered
this
same
problem
of
false
imprisonment,”
the
magistrate
noted.
The
courthouse
chaos
isn’t
happening
in
a
vacuum:
The
streets
of
the
nation’s
capital
are
flooded
with
troops.
Half
the
attorneys
in
the
federal
prosecutors’
office,
which
handles
felonies
for
the
District,
were
fired
or
quit.
And
meanwhile,
Pirro
is
demanding
that
prosecutors
upcharge
everything.
“In
line
with
President
Trump’s
directive
to
make
D.C.
safe,
U.S.
Attorney
Pirro
has
made
it
clear
that
the
old
way
of
doing
things
is
unacceptable,”
her
spokesman
Tim
Lauer
barked
to
the
New
York
Times.
“She
directed
her
staff
to
charge
the
highest
crime
that
is
supported
by
the
law
and
the
evidence.”
But
after
weeks
of
military
occupation,
grand
juries
made
up
of
local
citizens
are
telling
prosecutors
to
get
bent,
returning
at
least
seven
no-bills
in
the
past
month.
That
includes
Sean
Dunn,
the
man
caught
on
camera
throwing
a
sandwich
at
an
ICE
agent.
Pirro,
who
moved
to
the
District
in
May,
insists
that
this
is
because
its
residents
don’t
actually
know
what’s
going
on
in
their
own
city.
“There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
sit
on
juries,
and
they
live
in
Georgetown
or
in
Northwest,
or
in
some
of
these
better
areas,
and
they
don’t
see
the
reality
of
crime
that
is
occurring,”
Pirro
burbled
on
Fox.
“And
my
office
has
been
instructed
to
move
for
the
highest
crime
possible
consistent
with
the
law,
the
statute
and
the
evidence.”
Her
record
is
…
mixed.
After
three
separate
grand
juries
refused
to
indict
a
woman
named
Sidney
Reid
for
feloniously
assaulting
an
ICE
agent
and
causing
him
to
bruise
his
knuckles
while
roughing
her
up,
the
DOJ
was
forced
to
convert
her
case
to
a
misdemeanor.
The
same
thing
happened
with
“Sandwich
Man”
Dunn,
although
the
DOJ
cut
its
losses
before
striking
out
with
three
grand
juries.
In
multiple
cases,
Pirro’s
office
seems
to
be
trying
to
save
face
by
securing
a
dismissal
without
prejudice,
allowing
it
to
refile
charges
after
further
rumination.
(We
hear
one
or
12
Bota
boxes
can
really
get
those
creative
legal
juices
flowing!)
Indeed,
in
the
case
of
a
man
named
Eduarda
Dana,
they
appear
to
have
skipped
the
rumination
and
the
dismissal,
and
instead
charged
him
in
DC
Superior
Court
with
his
federal
case
still
pending.
Judge
Faruqui
hit
the
roof.
On
September
4,
2025
at
12:30
p.m.,
the
parties
appeared
before
the
Court
for
a
Preliminary
Hearing.
At
12:04
p.m.
the
government
emailed
the
Court
stating
that
“a
short
time
ago”
they
filed
misdemeanor
charges
in
D.C.
Superior
Court
against
Mr.
Dana.
Based
on
this,
the
government
stated
that
it
“no
longer
intends
to
pursue
the
federal
charge
that
is
at
issue.”
The
government
concluded
that
it
“anticipate[s]
filing
a
motion
to
dismiss
the
federal
case
before
the
close
of
business
today.”
The
government
sought
to
cancel
the
hearing
before
the
undersigned
based
on
this.
However,
doing
so
would
have
precluded
any
oversight
of
the
government’s
inexcusable
actions.
He
pointed
out
that
the
DOJ’s
practice
manual
precludes
bringing
cases
which
the
US
Attorney
does
not
believe
she
can
win,
observing
dryly:
“Given
that
there
have
been
an
unprecedented
number
of
cases
that
the
U.S.
Attorney
dismissed
in
the
past
ten
days,
all
of
whom
were
detained
for
some
period
of
time,
the
Court
is
left
to
question
if
this
principle
still
applies.”
Judge
Faruqui
instructed
prosecutors
to
show
cause
why
they
shouldn’t
be
required
to
dismiss
the
case
with
prejudice
and
expunge
the
criminal
record
of
Defendant
Dana,
a
man
with
longstanding
mental
health
and
substance
abuse
problems
who
allegedly
slurred
out
threats
to
the
president
in
the
back
of
a
police
cruiser
…
after
explaining
that
he
was
descended
from
Huguenots,
affiliated
with
the
Russian
mafia,
and
was
going
to
have
Putin
bomb
America.
Judge
Faruqui
was
not
impressed,
predicting
that
magistrate
judges
will
have
so
little
faith
in
DOJ
declarations
that
they’ll
refuse
to
issue
warrants
without
cross
examining
declarants
themselves.
“This
is
not
going
to
work.
Complaints
will
not
be
signed.
We’re
past
the
Rubicon,”
he
said
during
Dana’s
hearing,
according
to
the
Washington
Post.
But
US
Attorney
Pirro
knows
that
Faruqui,
a
12-year
veteran
of
the
office
she
now
leads,
is
just
a
pinko
with
an
agenda.
“This
judge
took
an
oath
to
follow
the
law,
yet
he
has
allowed
his
politics
to
consistently
cloud
his
judgment
and
his
requirement
to
follow
the
law.
America
voted
for
safe
communities,
law
and
order,
and
this
judge
is
the
antithesis
of
that,”
she
blustered.
Wait
’til
she
finds
out
that
petit
juries
have
to
be
unanimous
…
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.