The Daily BS • Bo Snerdley Cuts Through It!
The Daily BS • Bo Snerdley Cuts Through It!

Get my Daily BS twice-a-day news stack directly to your email.


‘Blatantly Unlawful’: Judge throws out Walz and Frey Subpoenas, says DOJ engaged in political harassment

by

SOURCE: Wire

 

 

A federal judge in Minnesota has thrown out grand jury subpoenas issued to Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and several other Democratic officials after concluding the Justice Department’s actions crossed a legal line.

Every administration promises it won’t weaponize government. Every administration eventually gets accused of weaponizing government. That’s Washington.

What’s unusual is when a federal judge doesn’t dance around the accusation. Usually you’ll get pages of legal jargon, procedural arguments, and carefully worded observations that leave everyone claiming victory. Not this time.

This judge essentially looked at the government’s actions and said, “Nope.”

The judge wasn’t appointed by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or some progressive activist administration. He was appointed by George W. Bush. That doesn’t automatically make him right. But it does make it a lot harder to dismiss the ruling as partisan reflex. The larger lesson here is one conservatives should remember just as much as liberals. The powers you cheer when your side controls them become the powers you’ll fear when the other side does. That’s why using criminal investigations as political leverage is such a dangerous game.

Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz issued a blistering ruling declaring the subpoenas invalid and describing the underlying conduct in unusually direct terms.

Schiltz wrote:

“Initiating a criminal investigation in order to harass political opponents or to coerce them into taking official action—particularly official action that the federal government cannot directly require those political opponents to take—is a blatantly unlawful and unethical use of the grand-jury process.”

That’s not the kind of language judges typically use when they’re merely disagreeing with prosecutors.

“The only question, then, is whether the challenged subpoenas were issued for one of these forbidden purposes. The Court has no doubt that they were.”

“No doubt.”

The ruling stemmed from subpoenas issued earlier this year to Walz, Frey, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and officials from Ramsey and Hennepin counties.

The subpoenas were tied to a Justice Department investigation involving immigration enforcement and local government cooperation with federal authorities.

Just days before the subpoenas were issued, President Trump publicly criticized Minnesota officials over large demonstrations surrounding ICE operations and warned that stronger federal action could follow if state and local leaders failed to restore order.

Trump wrote:

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State.”

Supporters of the administration argued the investigation was tied to legitimate concerns about immigration enforcement and whether local officials were obstructing federal efforts. The judge saw something very different. According to the ruling, the subpoenas appeared less connected to a legitimate criminal inquiry and more connected to pressure being applied against political adversaries.

That’s a serious accusation. And it’s why this case is likely to generate attention well beyond Minnesota.

 

today’s hot news