🚨 Federal Judges Appoint Special Prosecutor Against Blanche & DOJ?!?!

Not one, not two, but three federal judges are evaluating whether fraud on the court was committed on them by the Department of Justice, and not just the Department of Justice, any old person, Todd Blanche, the embattled nominee for Attorney General. Two judges in Chicago, one in Miami. In fact, it's gotten so far that there's already been, in the last 24 hours, a filing by defendants who had their case dismissed by the Department of Justice because of prosecutorial misconduct that was admitted to. They've asked and demanded that the judge in Chicago, Judge Perry, appoint a special counsel, that that special counsel that she can do under the federal rules of criminal procedure, that that special counsel investigate the Department of Justice itself as an independent officer of the court. Wait till I read to you from the motion that was just filed by the lawyers for the Broadview Six, which were First Amendment protesters that got caught up in an ugly web of grand jury misconduct. And the working theory that is on display is whether Todd Blanche and his right-hand person, Akash Singh, who he's gonna have to answer for at his confirmation hearings, put pressure on local prosecutors, handpicked ones like Andrew Boutros, the US attorney for the Chicago office of the Department of Justice, the Northern District of Illinois, who then put pressure on lying everyday prosecutors to get them to violate their ethics, their rules of professional responsibility, the Department of Justice manual, and lie to courts about it. That is what is on full display. And I said there were three judges. One is Judge Coleman. Judge Coleman is handling another matter in which the Department of Justice had to dismiss another indictment, a second indictment, with prejudice. This is now the prosecutors dismissing their own indictments that they've already obtained because they had to admit to other prosecutorial misconduct. It's a case called the Loretto Hospital case in Chicago involving over a billion dollars of COVID testing fraud. And they had to let that case go because they admitted to Judge Perry that there was abuse in the grand jury process by a lying assistant prosecutor, an everyday prosecutor named Sherry Mecklenburg. Now, they wanna pin it all on Sherry Mecklenburg, who's already been fired, to try to distract attention from Andrew Boutros and ultimately from Todd Blanche. But Judge Coleman has already said you've opened Pandora's box, her words, not mine. And she's holding a sanctions hearing in which Department of Justice personnel are likely going to have to testify. In the same courthouse, Judge Perry, because it was the same grand jury but different indictments over 18 months, she's already entertaining a motion to appoint a special counsel, which is the power that a federal court has when they believe the Department of Justice can't be trusted with investigating itself. And all that is against the backdrop of Judge Williams in Miami. She's gonna get her final brief today. I'm gonna cover it, even though, as you can see, I'm traveling. I'm gonna cover it here on Legal AF, the final brief from the 35 former federal judges in response to Donald Trump's half-hearted skeleton of a filing with no evidence, no affidavits, and no support to try to get out from under charges made by these judges that there have been abuse of power. There has been deception on the court and fraud on the court committed related to the IRS Trump lawsuit and the resulting settlement agreements. And if there was that, then the Jan 6th Weaponization Fund is the fruit of the poisonous tree, and it goes by the wayside as well. I'm gonna tie these three judges together and this new motion, you know who you are, Legal AF YouTube channel. Take a minute and hit the free subscribe button. Let me read to you from this bombshell filing that was just made in the last 24 hours. Let me pull it up for you. We're gonna put it on Legal AF in Substack for you to read, but let me give you the highlights right now. Pursuant to federal rule of criminal procedure 42, we'll talk about that in a moment. Defendants Michael Rabbitt, Catherine Marie Abugazela, Andre Martin, Brian Straw, and Catherine Sharp respectfully request that this court appoint a special counsel to investigate the misconduct of certain individuals from the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois. And if the evidence supports it, prosecute such individuals for criminal contempt. Those who should be investigated for their conduct during the grand jury proceedings and the ensuing cover up before this court begin with the assistant United States attorneys assigned to prosecute the case, but in further include unidentified supervisory and advisory personnel, including Andrew Boutros and his supervisors in Washington. That's code word for Todd Blanche. They then go on in their demand for a prosecutor. They point to the fact that Boutros' office tried to delete, redact 217 or more lines of a grand jury transcript so that the federal judge wouldn't know what happened. Where grand jurors said, is this the same crap you've tried to bring in here before and got dismissed? And as a federal prosecutor, obviously under the influence or the pressure of her boss, Andrew Boutros, and his boss, Todd Blanche, breached every one of her ethical responsibilities in making the presentation to that grand jury in that case. And here's what they say about the appointment. This is on page 23. The interest of justice requires the appointment of an outside special counsel to investigate and if warranted by the facts, prosecute the wrongdoers. Here, the interest of justice requires the appointment of an outside special prosecutor. That's on page 23. And they talk about rule 43, says that a court requires, that a court requests that an attorney for the government investigate contempt unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. And that would be a special prosecutor. That rule has, in cases, have recognized that rule 42 does not require asking the government to handle a contempt prosecution when the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. And they go through the case law that mandates it. Now, it's interesting. Two rules we don't often talk about here on Legal AF. One is rule 41 and the other is rule 42. So rule 41 is the rule that's being used by the federal judges down in Miami. And if that was used to convince Judge Williams to reopen the closed Trump versus IRS case, because they argued there was a fraud on the court and they have the power under rule 41 to bring to the court's attention, even if they were not parties to the case, the issue of collusion and fraud. Of course, there'd have to be a rule of that nature. Because if the allegation is that Trump is colluding with the IRS, his own entity, who's gonna bring up the charge of fraud? Right, outsiders like 35 former federal judges. This is rule 42, which says that if the judge believes that she can't get to the bottom of the investigation without independent analysis of a prosecutor, she must appoint a prosecutor. See, in other countries, like civil code countries, the judge sometimes is the investigator, but not in our country. We depend on an adversarial process of two parties who are at each other's throats, who sit before a trier of fact, which is oftentimes a judge and a giver of law, and that's how we operate. And it's not unprecedented for a special prosecutor to be appointed. I've been calling for it on many, many occasions when this Department of Justice has indicated that they are completely corrupt. Now, Judge Williams is gonna consider the same thing in her 35 federal judge issue. Later today, they're gonna file the final brief. She has two choices. She either rules on the brief, and she could rule that there has been fraud on the court because the Trump lawyers have done nothing to properly oppose that. No evidence, no testimony by Todd Blanche, nothing under oath. I think it's easy. But she could also hold an evidentiary hearing just to build an appropriate appellate record. I don't think that helps the Department of Justice either, because Blanche is not gonna testify. They have made it clear Todd Blanche is never gonna testify under oath, except when he's in the Senate for confirmation hearings. He's not gonna do it in any court at all, ever. They'd rather lose than do that. So Judge Williams is gonna have to consider whether she needs an evidentiary hearing and whether she should be appointing a special prosecutor. Let's see what the 35 judges led by J. Michael Ludwig file later today, whether they now call for a special prosecutor. I'm sure they've read the Broadview Six. And then you have Judge Coleman. Judge Coleman, same courthouse as Judge Perry. She's dealing with the Loretto Hospital fraud case. And she's already said it's she's holding an evidentiary and sanctions hearing. And I'm sure she's also considering appointing a independent special prosecutor. So if you thought the last independent special prosecutor you were ever gonna hear about during the remainder of the Trump administration was Jack Smith, think again. I'm gonna follow each of these three cases, right? The case in front of Coleman, the case in front of Williams, the case in front of Perry. I'll tie it all together. This is a fast-moving story. You're gonna wanna be on Legal AF. Hit that free subscribe button. Come over to the Legal AF Substack where I'll be doing a live report as soon as we get more information. And a programming note, we're still waiting on a series of United States Supreme Court decisions. There've been a few about the Second Amendment and some other issues, but there are major ones that we're still waiting on, which could drop on Friday, later today, on Monday, or next Thursday. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popoc. Where? Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.