by
Joe
Raedle/Getty)
Yet
another
one
to
add
to
the
“it’s
OK
if
we
do
it”
file
for
the
Trump
administration.
This
administration
is
cool
with censoring
speech, nationalizing
elections,
seizing
the means
of
production,
and
blackmailing law
firms and universities.
It
would
be
heated
AF
if
any other administration
did
these
things,
but
since
it’s
the
one
doing
it,
it’s
all
cool
and
(probably
not)
legal.
Not
a
day
goes
by
that
its
hypocrisy isn’t
exposed.
Here’s
the
latest,
which
certainly
isn’t
the
last:
the
DOJ’s
insistence
that
government
employees
be
given
preferential
treatment
in
court.
Multiple
bullshit
prosecutions
are
underway,
with AG
Pam
Bondi’s DOJ
hoping
to
convert
regular
protest
stuff
into
long-lasting
federal
felony
charges.
This
hasn’t
gone
well
for
the
DOJ,
which
tends
to
find
itself
rejected
by
grand
juries
when
not
getting
its
vindictive
prosecutions
tossed
because
they’ve
been
brought
by
prosecutors
who don’t
have
legal
claim to
the
positions
they’re
holding.
While
the
government
continues
to
make
social
media
hay
by
tweeting
out
wild
allegations
and
the
personal
information
of
people
who
have
yet
to
have
their
day
in
court,
it
simultaneously
claims
it
should
be
illegal
to
identify
federal
officers
and
post
their
information
to
social
media.
And
while
that’s
just
the
government
being
hypocritical
in
terms
of
social
media
blasts,
it’s
engaging
in
another
level
of
hypocrisy
that’s
not
as
easily
dismissed. As
Josh
Gerstein
reports
for
Politico,
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s
personal
participation
in
this
form
of
hypocrisy
is
not
only
inexcusable,
but
it’s
also
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
law.
Two
federal
judges
have
raised
concerns
about
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s
use
of
social
media
to
publicize
a
wave
of
arrests
last
month
of
people
charged
with
interfering
with
federal
officers
during
an
immigration
enforcement
surge
in
Minnesota.
When
the
government
seeks
protective
orders
to
shield
the
details
of
cases
from
the
public
eye,
the
order
applies
to
the
government
as
much
as
it
does
to
the
defendants.
But
since
Bondi
can’t
keep
herself
from
scoring
internet
points
on
behalf
of
the
Trump
administration,
she’ll
be
lucky
to
keep
these
particular
prosecutions
going.
That’s
the
upshot
of
this court
order [PDF],
handed
down
by
Minnesota
federal
judge
Dulce
Foster:
As
a
threshold
matter,
the
government’s
claimed
concern
about
the
victim/agents’
“dignity
and
privacy”
and
the
risk
of
doxxing
is
eyebrow-raising,
to
say
the
least.
On
January
28,
2026,
at
12:53
p.m.,
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
publicly
posted
a
tweet
on
X
announcing,
to
a
national
audience,
that
Ms.
Flores
was
arrested
along
with
15
other
people
as
“rioters”
who
“have
been
resisting
and
impeding
our
law
enforcement
officers.”
[…]
In
publicly
posting
that
information,
the
government
failed
to
respect
Ms.
Flores’s
dignity
and
privacy,
exposed
her
to
a
risk
of
doxxing,
and
generally
thumbed
its
nose
at
the
notion
that
defendants
are
innocent
until
proven
guilty.
The
post
also
directly
violated
a
court
order
sealing
the
case
(ECF
No.
6),
which
was
not
lifted
until
the
Court
conducted
initial
appearances
later
that
day
(see
ECF
No.
7).
If
the
argument
is
that
it’s
dangerous
for
federal
officers
to
be
publicly
identified
but
perfectly
fine
for
random
citizens
to
be
exposed
to
threats
of
violence,
the
argument
is
deeply
flawed.
At
worst,
it’s
the
most
powerful
people
arguing
that
the
least
powerful
people
should
be
exposed
to
the
same
sort
of
stuff
they
claim
federal
officers might be
exposed
to
if
their
names
are
made
public.
At
best,
it’s
a
tacit
admission
that
more
people
are
opposed
to
this
administration’s
actions
than
are
opposed
to
the
actions
of
those
who
engage
in
protests.
If
the
DOJ
really
believed
what
the
government
is
doing
was
good
and
supported
by
a
majority
of
the
public,
it
wouldn’t
seek
protective
orders
preventing
the
release
of
personal
information.
But
that’s
not
the
case
it
made
in
court.
And
courts
are
now
refusing
to
pretend
the
government
is
operating
in
good
faith
when
it
says
some
personal
information
is
more
equal
than
other
personal
information.
This
determination
was
echoed
in
another
court
decision
dealing
with
a
Minneapolis-based
prosecution:
At
a
hearing
in
a
separate
Minneapolis
case
last
week, another
magistrate
judge,
Shannon
Elkins,
directed
prosecutors to
“address
whether
the
public
posting
of
photographs
violated
the
Court’s
sealing
order.”
The
government
missed
a
deadline
Tuesday
to
respond.
Elkins
later
agreed
to
extend
the
deadline
until
Monday.
In
the
first
case,
the
judge
gave
the
government
what
it
wanted,
but
applied
those
desires
to
both
parties
in
the
prosecution.
If
the
defense
team
is
barred
from
publicly
revealing
information
about
the
government
officers,
the
government
is
likewise
barred
from
making
information
about
the
defendants
public.
It
doesn’t
get
to
have
it
both
ways.
While
it
would
have
been
somewhat
refreshing
to
see
the
court
allow
the
defendants
to
release
whatever
information
they’d
gathered
about
the
federal
officers
to,
I
guess,
make
things
even,
I
also
recognize
“two
wrongs
make
a
right”
is
no
way
to
run
a
judicial
system.
I
do
say
that
very
hesitantly,
however.
After
all,
we’re
being
governed
by
people
who
believe
that
even
if
they
purposefully
do
wrong,
there’s
no
power
that
can
stop
them.
But
there’s
little
that’s
more
satisfying
than
beating
cheaters
at
their
own
game
while
playing
by
the
rules.
Hopefully,
this
great
nation
will
be
able
to
weather
the
constant
attacks
on
what
makes
it
great
by
people
who
are
seeking
to
destroy
it
from
the
inside.
More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:
OpenAI
Rewrites
Contract,
Anthropic
Returns
to
Negotiate—The
Chaos
Continues
FCC
Approves
Cox,
Charter
Merger
On
Condition
They
Promise
To
Be
More
Racist
Judge
Says
He’s
Sick
Of
The
Government’s
Shit;
Threatens
To
Make
DHS,
DOJ
Testify
Under
Oath