[[link removed]]

TRUMP’S TERMINALLY ONLINE DOJ COULD BE KILLING ITS CASES JUST TO
OWN THE LIBS  
[[link removed]]


 

Jim Saksa
October 10, 2025
Democracy Docket
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Trump administration’s desire to own the libs online is
already leading to own goals in serious criminal matters. If a
federal judge takes issue with all her trolling, it’ll be DoJ
official Harmeet Dhillon who’ll Find Out, not Portland. _

,

 

There was a time, not very long ago, when it would be highly unusual
for any Department of Justice lawyer, let alone the assistant attorney
general for civil rights, to have a catchphrase. 

But Harmeet Dhillon does: FAFO. It’s shorthand for “F*** Around
and Find Out.” Before her government appointment, Dhillon would
often tweet the line above news of some protestor being arrested or a
liberal losing their job for saying something mean. 

Now, sometimes from her official DOJ account on X, she uses it as a
threat. “This is FAFO territory. Where I live,” Dhillon wrote
[[link removed]], quote-tweeting
a Ted Cruz post claiming Seattle’s school district was violating a
recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving parental rights to opt
their children out of lessons contrary to their religious views — an
issue squarely in the Civil Rights Division’s jurisdiction. 

Legal ethics experts say that it’s Dhillon, however, who may soon
FO.

“As a former government lawyer who litigated many cases, I can’t
imagine how that helps the government’s case,” said David Becker,
executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research
and a former DOJ voting rights section trial attorney. 

Already, judges and defense attorneys in prominent prosecutions
have cited
[[link removed]] administration
officials’ public remarks in motions to dismiss and orders against
the government, suggesting there could be more trouble ahead for
Dhillon and the Civil Rights Division. 

Between her personal [[link removed]] and DOJ
[[link removed]] accounts, Dhillon tweets upwards of 100
times a day. That includes retweets, often of her earlier posts, or
cross-posting between the two profiles, which have more than 1.3
million followers between them. 

In recent days, Dhillon has taken to social media to comment
[[link removed]] on ongoing
[[link removed]] litigation, call
[[link removed]] a federal
judge’s decision in ongoing DOJ litigation a “lawless attack on
our very system of government,” and accuse
[[link removed]] a staffer for
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) of inspiring threats against her,
“intentionally endangering a federal law enforcement official.” 

Dhillon has also retweeted posts implying
[[link removed]] that the federal
judge presiding over the Portland National Guard deployment case
[[link removed]] was
lying, denouncing
[[link removed]] former DOJ
independent counsel Jack Smith as a “deranged, partisan zealot,”
that “should be fully investigated for his abuse of power,”
and calling [[link removed]] a
Portland police officer a “moral and physical coward.”

These are just a sampling of the 1,328 posts Dhillon has made from her
government account since April in matters that the DOJ may end up
handling in court. On Oct. 3, Dhillon sent a letter — and, of
course, tweeted
[[link removed]] it — to
Portland’s police chief, warning that the city’s response to
ongoing protests at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility
“may be based on viewpoint discrimination,” in violation of a
federal consent decree placed on the department in 2015.

Attorneys usually try to avoid commenting outside of court on issues
they — or their colleagues — are litigating or might one day, for
fear of prejudicing those cases. 

“Anything that the DOJ says or does — or a state says or does —
could be introduced as evidence in a case, and it could really weaken
the government’s case,” Becker said. 

If introduced by defendants, extrajudicial statements may “indicate
that the justification that [the DOJ is] giving for enforcing law is
merely pretextual, isn’t supported, and it actually serves some kind
of partisan purpose that would greatly undermine the DOJ’s
entitlement to relief,” he added.  

The DOJ declined to comment for this story. 

Christy Lopez, a former Civil Rights division attorney who also
teaches at Georgetown Law, called Dhillon’s public comments
“highly unusual.” 

“I have no recollection of even private conversations with Civil
Rights Division leadership that were remotely as partisan, or that
alleged unsupported criminal conspiracy theories,” Lopez wrote in an
email. “Anyone who has investigated and studied law enforcement
knows, this kind of public pre-judgment, especially when it is aimed
only at people perceived as opponents, undermines confidence in the
integrity and fair-handedness of that law enforcement — across the
board, not just among those who oppose your policies.”

Dhillon is hardly the lone lawyer in this administration preferring to
pander to the court of public opinion rather than prioritize actual
cases. FBI Director Kash Patel posted photos of evidence after Charlie
Kirk’s assassination and mistakenly claimed
[[link removed]] to
have the “subject” in custody before the suspect was actually
arrested. 

Some of Dhillon’s underlings echo her combative online style from
their personal social media accounts, even on matters under the
DOJ’s purview. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael
Gates tweeted
[[link removed]] “Love
AFL” above a post reporting that America First Legal was suing the
Census Bureau. Above another tweet accusing the Portland Police of
“ACTIVELY DEFENDING Antifa militants,” he wondered
[[link removed]] “Did
Portland secede?” Jordan K. Carpenter, counsel in the civil rights
division, offered
[[link removed]] theological
critiques of Pope Leo XIV. Dhillon’s number two, Jesus A. Osete, has
reposted his boss’s interviews
[[link removed]] on Newsmax
weighing in on the Civil Rights Division’s ongoing investigation
into Portland. 

Of course, Attorney General Pam Bondi herself retweeted
[[link removed]] the same
interview. Bondi frequently takes to Fox News to opine
[[link removed]] on
matters before her agency, and on Tuesday, she prepared
[[link removed]] for
Senate oversight hearings with detailed notes on how to insult
[[link removed]] Democrats,
rather than how to combat crime. Bondi’s DOJ prefers to play for the
cameras, to the apparent delight
[[link removed]] of
the president. 

“It is, at best, not going to hurt the government,” said Becker.
“It cannot help and it’s likely to significantly harm the
government and its prosecution of these cases.”

Judiciary’s presumption of regularity, meet Trump’s resumption of
irregularity 

The Trump administration’s desire to own the libs online is already
leading to own goals in serious criminal matters. 

Defense lawyers in the Luigi Mangione murder trial accused
[[link removed]] the
government of violating his Fifth and Eight Amendment rights with
prejudicial out-of-court statements, citing an interview Trump gave to
Fox News, a tweet by DOJ Public Affairs Deputy Director Chad Gilmarin,
comments by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and others.
The judge in that case then warned
[[link removed]] the
government that “multiple employees at the Department of Justice may
have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1
[[link removed]],
and this Court’s order of April 25, 2025,” and that “future
violations may result in sanctions, which could include personal
financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to
the prosecution of this matter.”

Likewise, judges in cases like the administration’s attempt
[[link removed]] to
remove Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador or Kilmar Abrego
Garcia’s deportation
[[link removed]] have
cited extrajudicial statements in rulings against the government.
Former FBI director James Comey’s lawyers have already signalled
[[link removed]] they
will move to dismiss the charges against him for vindictive and
selective prosecution. And attorneys
[[link removed]] for
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) will presumably do the
same, pointing to Trump’s demands
[[link removed]] via
social media for her prosecution and the bizarrely menacing
photos posted
[[link removed]] by
Ed Martin, head
[[link removed]] of
the DOJ’s weaponization task force.

All of these extrajudicial statements by DOJ lawyers could be used to
challenge the government’s presumption of regularity
[[link removed]].
If they can set aside the presumption — that government officials
have properly discharged their official duties and acted with
legitimate, non-pretextual reasons — it could allow defendants to
question the DOJ’s very basis for bringing litigation against
them. 

Normally, it’s nigh-on-impossible to rebut the presumption of
regularity, but presenting direct evidence
[[link removed]] that
the government has launched some enforcement action out of animus or
vindictiveness is one conclusive way of doing it. Federal judges 
[[link removed]]across
the nation have done so more and more as they contend with the
breathtaking contempt the administration has demonstrated for them and
the rule of law. 

Consider, for example, the DOJ’s lawsuits against eight states for
refusing to turn over their voter registration rolls. The DOJ argues
its requesting that information to ensure that the states are
complying with federal election laws like the National Voter
Registration Act. But if one of the states, like California, can set
aside presumption of regularity — perhaps by noting the animus
Dhillon has publicly
[[link removed]] expressed
[[link removed]] toward
[[link removed]] Governor
[[link removed]] Gavin
[[link removed]] Newsom
[[link removed]] — it
could allow for discovery of the administration’s deliberations to
bring a case, which might reveal embarrassing or exculpatory details.

Dhillon follows and signal boosts a host of right-wing influencers and
election-deniers, including Mehek Cooke
[[link removed]], Catturd [[link removed]],
and Jack Posobiec
[[link removed]]. A Slate
[[link removed]] investigation
recently revealed that Posobiec had apparently voted in Pennsylvania
despite living in Maryland — a case of alleged voter fraud that the
federal government would be expected to prosecute, as it has done
[[link removed]] a few
[[link removed]] times
[[link removed]] already
this year. Moreover, deciding to not prosecute this case — in
conjunction with Dhillon and Trump speaking so highly Posobiec, who
was invited to the White House recently
[[link removed]] —
could be used as evidence of selective prosecution
[[link removed]] in
other voter fraud cases. 

Bad lawyering

Democracy Docket shared a few of Dhillon’s social media posts and
interviews with ethics experts, who suggested she was running afoul of
the rules of professional responsibility that governs the conduct of
all lawyers. 

“I would say she is acting contrary to Rule 3.6 (prohibiting lawyers
from making public statements that have a substantial likelihood of
materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding); 3.8 (the civil
rights division prosecutes some criminal cases), and 8.4 (conduct that
seriously interferes with the administration of justice) of the Rules
of Professional Conduct, as well as the Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitution,” Abbe Smith, a Georgetown Law professor, wrote in an
email.

“If Dhillon’s statements are demonstrably false and she knows the
statements are false, she may also be violating Rule 4.1(a) of the ABA
Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits a lawyer from
‘knowingly’ making ‘a false statement of material fact or law to
a third person,’” added Stephen Marcus, a legal malpractice
attorney.

Dhillon has also re-tweeted nakedly partisan posts @AAGDhillon
account, in apparent violation of the Hatch Act, like this one
[[link removed]] urging
voters to “keep Virginia Red!”

As we have seen elsewhere
[[link removed]] in
the Trump administration, Dhillon’s bombastic statements out of
court serve the purpose of reassuring the MAGA faithful that this DOJ
still believes in the “Big Lie.” Demanding voter registration data
from states won’t ultimately lead to the uncovering of some vast,
consequential voting fraud conspiracy. If these cases are successful
in court — a big if, some observers
[[link removed]] believe
— the subsequent scrubbing of voter rolls might keep some eligible
voters from casting ballots. But this suppression is ancillary to the
primary goal of causing a scene. 

After years of baseless claims about voting fraud, they are now trying
to gin up some evidence after the fact, to offer confirmation for the
true believers and their faith in the Big Lie. 

Dhillon’s posting might first prove problematic for the DOJ in
Portland. Before joining the DOJ, Dhillon represented right-wing
provocateur Andy Ngo in a lawsuit
[[link removed]] against the city,
as she noted in a recent interview
[[link removed]] discussing the
anti-ICE protests in Portland — an apparent conflict of interest. 

“Why does it seem like the Portland Police are actually working for
Antifa as opposed to the people of Portland?” Dhillon said
[[link removed]] on Newsmax,
discussing the ongoing investigation into the department.

Dhillon has also retweeted accounts calling the Portland police
department “corrupt
[[link removed]],” and accusing
[[link removed]] it of
protecting “antifa for years.”

When news first broke of her investigation into the city, Dhillon
returned to her catchphrase: “Portland: it’s FO time. Buckle up.
[[link removed]]”

But if a federal judge takes issue with all her trolling here, it’ll
be Dhillon who’ll FO, not Portland.

Related Links

* In Latest Political Prosecution, Trump’s DOJ Indicts New York AG
Letitia James
[[link removed]]
* Judge Says DOJ May Be Vindictively Punishing Abrego Garcia for
Challenging Removal to El Salvador
[[link removed]]
* With Appointment of Loyalist as Top Virginia Prosecutor, Trump’s
Dangerous Revenge Campaign Hits ‘New Low’
[[link removed]]
* Trump Orders Attorney General Pam Bondi to Indict NY Attorney
General Letitia James
[[link removed]]
* Rep. McIver Moves to Dismiss Federal Charges Against Her, Citing
Trump’s Jan. 6 Pardons
[[link removed]]

_More articles by Jim Saksa.
[[link removed]]_

_Democracy Docket [[link removed]] is the
leading digital news platform dedicated to information, analysis and
opinion about voting rights and elections in the courts. Our website
and flagship newsletters are free for all, thanks to contributions
from our readers. Consider supporting Democracy Docket’s work and
keeping our content free by becoming a member
[[link removed]] for $120/year._

* DOJ
[[link removed]]
* justice system
[[link removed]]
* Harmeet Dhillon
[[link removed]]
* Pam Bondi
[[link removed]]
* Pam Bondi
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]