DOJ wants to screen prosecutor misconduct complaints before adjudicated by state disciplinary authorities

The US Department of Justice (DOJ)  introduced a proposed rule that would establish a formal procedure for reviewing complaints and allegations of professional misconduct against department attorneys before they are taken up by state disciplinary authorities, reported JuristNews.

The proposal, which comes amid increasing scrutiny of the department’s attorneys and their adherence to ethical obligations in implementing Trump administration policies, seeks to empower Attorney General Pam Bondi to request the suspension of state bar investigations until the Department of Justice conducts a review of any originating complaint. The department said the proposed rule reflects concerns about what it described as the increasing “weaponization” of bar complaints against government lawyers, including complaints filed by political activists against senior DOJ officials and career attorneys.

The department argued that such complaints risk interfering with the attorney general’s statutory responsibility under 28 U.S.C. 519 to supervise DOJ litigation and legal activities.

The proposal would amend 28 CFR Part 77 to allow the Attorney General to review allegations that a current or former DOJ attorney violated ethics rules while performing federal duties. Under the proposal, if a complaint is filed with a state, territorial, or District of Columbia bar disciplinary authority, the DOJ could request that the authority pause investigative steps requiring participation from the attorney until the department completes its review.

Hilary Gerzhoy, chair of the rules of professional conduct review committee for the District of Columbia Bar, said the proposal “is incredibly concerning, adding that it “is inconsistent with all precedents,” and that attorney discipline in Washington, DC, is conducted through an independent process overseen by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals rather than the federal government.

Public comments on the proposed rule will be accepted through April 6, 2026.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses Ohio school's video game lawsuit on WFMJ-TV21

 To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses murder of new born on Law and Crime's Scandal

Watch my interview with Sierra  Gillespie host of "Scandal" on Law and Crime Network.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

The 'Iran War' may be remembered as the end of restraint on a president's use of the military

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, said President Trump’s unilateral launch of the Iran war may be remembered as the death of any pretense that law and executive branch lawyers can be counted on to meaningfully constrain a president who wants to use military force on his own, reported The New York Times.

“By using the military on such a large and dangerous scale with foreseeable U.S. casualties, this operation kills the idea of any effective legal constraint on the president’s use of force,” he said. “It’s been very close to dead for years, I think.”

In 2007, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. argued in a presidential candidate survey that presidents have no legitimate power to bomb another country without congressional authorization, unless the United States is about to be attacked. Senator Barack Obama said the same thing. But executive power can look different from the vantage point of the Oval Office.

Mr. Obama bombed Libya without authorization in 2011. And, running for president again in 2019, Mr. Biden argued that the Constitution empowered presidents to order limited military strikes on their own. In 2024, Mr. Biden ordered several large-scale strikes on Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen who were menacing Israel and shipping in the Red Sea.

Against that backdrop, Mr. Biden’s approach to Iran over time is instructive. In 2007, he had singled out an attack on the country as particularly dangerous and unpredictable, writing, “Let’s not kid ourselves: any military conflict with Iran is likely to become major.”

In 2019, he maintained that “any initiation of the use of force against Iran,” unless in response to an imminent attack, “could certainly result in a wide-scale conflict and constitute a ‘war’ in the constitutional sense that would require authorization by Congress.”

But as president in 2023, before he dropped out of the 2024 race, Mr. Biden sidestepped Iran in responding to a similarly worded survey.

Mr. Trump had already joined Israel last June in bombing Iranian nuclear sites, in what has become known as the 12-day war. Since then, he has unilaterally “determined” that the United States is in a formal armed conflict with drug cartels, and launched a brief invasion of Venezuela to seize its president, Nicolás Maduro.

Now, without going to Congress, Mr. Trump has joined Israel in killing Iran’s supreme leader and other top officials at the start of a massively larger bombing campaign that he said he intended to last “four to five weeks.” He has urged Iranians to rise up for a regime change.

Ahead of the operation, Mr. Trump made scant effort to persuade lawmakers and the public that such a war had become necessary. He delivered no Oval Office address and barely mentioned Iran in his State of the Union speech, a sharp divergence from how past presidents sought to build a case for wars they wanted to launch.

Those past campaigns have drawn accusations of spin and deception, as when the George W. Bush administration’s warnings about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction proved false after the war began. But even propaganda is a backhanded nod to democracy — an implicit acknowledgment that buy-in from Congress and the public matters when it comes to taking the country to war.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Florida carries out another execution

The 5th Execution of 2026

Billy Leon Kearse convicted of fatally shooting a police officer with his own service weapon during a traffic stop was executed on March 3, 2026 in Florida, becoming the third person put to death by the state this year after a record 19 executions in 2025, according to The Associated Press.

Kearse, 53, was pronounced dead at 6:24 p.m. following a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He was condemned for the 1991 shooting death of Fort Pierce Police Officer Danny Parrish.

The execution started just after 6 p.m. When a warden asked Kearse if he had any final words, he said all he could do was ask for forgiveness from Parrish’s family.

“To his family, I sincerely apologize for what I’ve done,” Kearse said. “There is no way I can ever repay that.”

More than a dozen family members and police officers gathered to observe the execution.

Kearse twitched briefly after the lethal drugs began entering his system but stopped moving several minutes later. It was another quarter of an hour before a medic entered the room and pronounced Kearse dead.

After the execution, Parrish’s widow, Mirtha Busbin, said she has found peace.

“It’s been a long, long 35 years,” said Busbin. “We didn’t win anything though; we lost another life, but we did get justice.”

Busbin, who works as a victim advocate for the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office, said she didn’t expect Kearse to apologize, but she did appreciate it.

“I can forgive him, I can move on,” Busbin said. “It was the right thing to do.”

Court records show Parrish had pulled over Kearse for driving the wrong way on a one-way street in January of that year. After Kearse couldn’t produce a valid driver’s license, Parrish ordered Kearse out of his vehicle and attempted to handcuff him when a struggle ensued.

Kearse grabbed Parrish’s firearm during the struggle and fired 14 times, striking the officer nine times in the body and four times in his body armor, prosecutors said. A taxi driver heard the shots and called for help on the officer’s radio, but Parrish died after being rushed to a hospital. Police used license plate information called in by Parrish during the traffic stop to arrest Kearse at his home.

Kearse was initially convicted of first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm and sentenced to death in 1991. The Florida Supreme Court later found the trial court failed to give jurors certain information about aggravating circumstances and ordered a new sentencing. Kearse again drew the death penalty in 1997.

A total of 47 people were executed in the U.S. in 2025. Florida led the way with a flurry of death warrants signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, far outpacing Alabama, South Carolina and Texas which each held five executions last year. The 19 Florida executions that year outstripped the previous high totals of eight in both 1984 and 2014.

Besides the three Florida executions to date this year, Texas and Oklahoma have each executed one person each so far in 2026.

Two more Florida executions are scheduled soon, starting with Michael Lee King on March 17 for the 2008 kidnap and killing of a mother of two. Former police officer James Duckett is set to be executed March 31 for the 1987 killing of an 11-year-old girl.

All Florida executions are carried out via lethal injection using a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the Department of Corrections.

Hours before Tuesday’s execution, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Kearse’s final appeal without comment. And last week, the Florida Supreme Court denied appeals filed by Kearse.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: 'Partisan Political Theater' Disguised as a Congressional Investigation

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
March 3, 2026

Last week, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State, one-time democrat nominee for president, Hillary Clinton, testified under oath before the House Select Committee investigating convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The depositions took place behind closed doors in Chappaqua, N.Y. Bill Clinton was deposed for 4 hours and 33 minutes and Hillary Clinton testified for 4 hours and 35 minutes. The Committee recently released video of the depositions.

The Epstein scandal has pulled in a number of prominent men from around the world. They include Britain's Prince Andrew; Elon Musk; Steven Bannon; Richard Branson, owner of Virgin Group; Steven Tisch, co-owner of the New York Giants; Casey Wasserman, president of the 2028 Summer Olympics; Ehud Barak, former Israel prime minster; Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary; Howard Lutnick, current Secretary of Commerce; billionaire Sergey Brin; Mirosalav Lajcak, former Slovak foreign minister and of course President Donald Trump.

Yet none of these men have been deposed by the House Select Committee. The GOP-run committee chose to depose the former Democratic president and his spouse, the former 2016 Democratic nominee for president. Her opponent — Donald Trump.

Never mind that references to President Trump are everywhere in the Epstein files. The New York Times identified more than 5,300 files containing more than 38,000 references to Mr. Trump, his wife, his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, and other related words and phrases in the latest batch of emails, government files, videos and other records released by the Department of Justice.

Never mind that no former president has ever been compelled to testify before Congress. Bill Clinton and his wife were hauled before Congress when there are so many more compelling targets of this investigation.

Hillary Clinton accused House Republicans of using her as a prop in "partisan political theater." Her written statement to the committee emphasized that she "had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that."

She accused the committee of compelling her testimony "fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, to distract attention from President Trump's actions and cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers."

Bill Clinton said in his written testimony that he "had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing."

"No matter how many photos you show me, I have two things that at the end of the day matter more than your interpretation of those 20-year-old photos. I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn't see. I know what I did, and more importantly, what I didn't do. I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong."

So, when will the Select Committee have President Trump testify?

When asked about the Epstein files on a recent flight back from Mar-a-Logo on Air Force One, Trump responded, "You know, I've been totally exonerated on Epstein. And it's really interesting because they've (Clintons) been pulled in. Think of it. They've been pulled in. Clinton and many other Democrats have been pulled in."

Trump feigns surprise that the Clintons have "been pulled in." This is the point: On nearly every topic, the President suspends reality. He is "shocked, shocked" that the GOP-controlled Congress has pulled the Clintons, Democrats, into the Epstein scandal.

According to The Hill, Democrats are saying that by compelling Clinton's testimony, the dynamic between Congress and the president has changed. Democrats are calling for the same standard for President Trump.

"Trump defied, as all of you know, a congressional subpoena with the Jan. 6 Committee. He said, 'presidents don't have to testify,'" Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said, according to The Hill. "Now we have the Clinton rule, which is that presidents and their families have to testify when Congress issues a subpoena, and that means that Donald Trump needs to come before our committee."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Federal judges feel under siege by current political rhetoric

When the Supreme Court recently struck down President Trump's tariffs, he lashed out at two Justices he had nominated calling them fools and lapdogs. The president has frequently railed against judges when they rule against him. What often happens next is a barrage of violent threats from his followers against those judges. 

CBS News spoke with 26 federal judges – nine Democratic appointees, 17 Republican, both sitting and retired. The sitting judges told us they feel under siege. Most would not appear on camera, fearful for their safety. Judge John Coughenour – appointed by Ronald Reagan - is one of the few who would. He blocked President Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship. He wasn't prepared for what happened next.

Judge John Coughenour: My wife and I are at home. And the doorbell rings. And I go to the door. And there's, I think, five sheriff's deputies there with long rifles –

Bill Whitaker: And they show up with guns drawn?

Judge John Coughenour: Oh yeah. Yes, yes. Long guns, very intimidating guns. And they said to me, "Sir, could we see your wife?" And I said, "whatever for?" And they said, well, sir, we've had a report that you've murdered your wife."

It was a cruel hoax. The next day? A bomb threat. For John Coughenour, a federal district court judge in Washington state, it didn't end there.

Judge John Coughenour: There was a congressman that had a wanted poster. It just said Wanted in big letters at the top and then a picture of several of us. It said everything except "dead or alive".

His trouble started when President Trump signed an executive order to end the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship for infants born on U.S. soil to non-citizens. Judge Coughenour ruled it, quote, "blatantly unconstitutional." The threats poured in.

Judge John Coughenour: Some of it was very very ugly, and very threatening.

Bill Whitaker: Death threats?

Judge John Coughenour: Oh yes, yes dozens of em. Dozens if not hundreds.

Judge Coughenour told us threats come with the turf. He has sentenced an al Qaeda bomber and Montana militia members and needed round the clock protection. But he said he'd never had as many death threats as with the birthright citizenship case.

Judge Coughenour: I've been at this for 44 years. I have never encountered the hostility toward the judiciary that has existed in this country in the, the last year. And I don't think it's' because we're making bad decisions. I think it's because there are people who think that they can make a lot of political hay out of criticizing the federal judiciary.

President Trump (in 2025): "And also we cannot allow a handful of communist radical left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States."

When President Trump lost a battle in court to deport migrants, he called the judge a lunatic. When immigration crackdowns were ruled illegal, he called the judges monsters. It's incendiary comments like that that have provoked a torrent of death threats. 

Our reporting found hundreds of threats were left on judges voicemails. This one after a judge ruled the president had violated the First Amendment:

Recording of threat: I hope your whole family and everybody you love is raped in front of you and has their heads cut off.

And this one after a judge ruled the president couldn't cut certain government benefits.

Recording of threat: I wish somebody would f****** assassinate your ass.

To read more CLICK HERE