On the DEI Hires Running the DOJ
A few notes on a few recent indictments.
Hey everyone. There is a lot going on and I’ll try to cover most stuff, but I wanted to especially focus on the Department of Justice’s actions over the past month, namely the indictments of James Comey and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Failing upwards, one drink at a time.
Before we jump into both cases, I want to explain the headline. In case you forgot, the United States currently does not have an attorney general. Pam Bondi - who previously occupied the post - was dismissed on April 2, 2026.
Our acting attorney general is none other than Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Todd Blanche. Since being appointed, he has brought indictments against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and former FBI director James Comey, amongst others.
After Bondi was dismissed, I heard a few names dropped as her replacement, with Blanche only being thought of as a placeholder. But since that time, it is seriously starting to look like Blanche could be offered the job, and it’s all thanks to his willingness to do what Bondi refused to do: Bring meritless indictments against Trump’s perceived enemies.
This is what makes Blanche a “DEI” hire: He has no other qualifications or experience other than his willingness to be servile to Trump. On the Right, there is this imagined definition of what DEI actually is, and it ranges from meritless elevation to full oppression of white people. Blanche proves that it exists for Republicans: He has no exceptional qualities that would allow him to attain a position like deputy attorney general (or a comparable job in the private sector), but he got the job anyway because he is willing to lick Trump’s boots.
You can throw lots of other members of the Trump Administration into this group too: Pete Hegseth, Lee Zeldin, and, most notably, Kash Patel.
Ka$h has had two articles written about him recently, both coming from The Atlantic. The original one details Patel’s pretty wild drinking habits, to the point where it has alarmed the FBI:
Several officials told me that Patel’s drinking has been a recurring source of concern across the government. They said that he is known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication, in many cases at the private club Ned’s in Washington, D.C., while in the presence of White House and other administration staff. He is also known to drink to excess at the Poodle Room, in Las Vegas, where he frequently spends parts of his weekends. Early in his tenure, meetings and briefings had to be rescheduled for later in the day as a result of his alcohol-fueled nights, six current and former officials and others familiar with Patel’s schedule told me.
On multiple occasions in the past year, members of his security detail had difficulty waking Patel because he was seemingly intoxicated, according to information supplied to Justice Department and White House officials. A request for “breaching equipment”—normally used by SWAT and hostage-rescue teams to quickly gain entry into buildings—was made last year because Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors, according to multiple people familiar with the request.
A few weeks later, The Atlantic broke another story about Patel, highlighting his lavish spending habits and his own personal, FBI-branded bourbon (seriously).
Suffice it to say, if Patel was not a full Trump sycophant, he would not be the director of the FBI. So, it’s worth noting this about two of our highest law enforcement officials in the country before we get into these cases: The head of the DOJ and the head of the FBI are both DEI hires.
SPLC, Yeah You Know Me
I want to start with this case, but I also want to let my readers know off the bat that I’m not going to bore you with deep dives here. To me, there are two obvious deficits in both cases that summarize why the DOJ will struggle to get to trial, let alone to a conviction.
To summarize the SPLC case quickly: DOJ is basically alleging that the SPLC - through paying informants who are embedded within white supremacist groups - has deceived their donors, who expect SPLC to be combating white supremacist groups. DOJ says that if you are paying an informant, then you are funding the group your informant is embedded within. It is ridiculous on its face.
For one, the FBI does the same thing all the time, and that doesn’t mean that the FBI is funding terrorism, white supremacist groups, or anyone else breaking the law. Spoiler: To get people to turn on their friends, it sometimes helps to pay them. Or, in SPLC’s case, if you want someone to pretend to be a white supremacist and hang out with them, you cannot expect them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
That is the short version, but I’ll still give you the deep dives. Andrew Weissmann does a great job of breaking down the SPLC case; money quote (Weissmann calls SPLC the “Center” in his piece):
But there is more reason that the indictment on its face is particularly weak. In spite of the fact this is what is known as a “speaking indictment” – that is, an indictment that tells the story of the crime, and does not simply recite the language of the particular criminal statute charged — it nowhere says what specifically the donors were told that was fraudulent. The indictment is devoid of any allegation that the Center told the donors that it would not use donor money to engage in the informant plan it devised to learn about these alleged hate groups. That is necessary to be able to prove fraud. The current Center website, for instance, states that the Center is “standing up for the most vulnerable people in society – those who have no other champion. We’re exposing hate and injustice, fighting discrimination.” Even more pointedly, the website states, “Through our Intelligence Project, we monitor and expose hate and antigovernment movements advancing white supremacy” (emphasis added). None of that would be made fraudulent by the Center’s paying informants to gather information about alleged hate groups. (I do not know what language was used at the time of the charged conduct, but it is notable that the government does not rely on any such language in supporting the charges.)
Weissmann wrote his piece before SPLC submitted their brief in the case, and in it they make a pretty blockbuster allegation: DOJ did not disclose to the grand jury that the SPLC shares its information with law enforcement. Here is SPLC:
In 2019, the SPLC provided information to law enforcement about a planned attack by a member of the white supremacist extremist group Atomwaffen Division, who intended to engage in a major terrorist attack against Las Vegas citizens. The SPLC’s information led to the individual being charged and convicted — and thwarted the planned attack.
Prior to the indictment, attorneys for the SPLC met with prosecutors and presented specific information and documents of scenarios in which the SPLC shared information from the informant program with law enforcement. That information led to a criminal conviction of an individual that the government identified as dangerous and who lied about his affiliation with an extremist group in seeking national security clearance.
That is the sort of thing that results in a dismissal of the case rather than a simple “not guilty” verdict after a trial. SPLC is seeking the full transcripts of what was disclosed to the grand jury, and if there was any deception on DOJ’s part (I’m willing to bet there was), we could see a dismissal here.
If you’ve read The Jackal for a while, you know that dismissals are extremely rare in Federal cases, and I think it is still unlikely to occur here. But DOJ is skirting really close to the line in a case that is already fundamentally weak at its core.
James Comey, Yeah You Know Me
See? I made an old reference to a Naughty by Nature song work in both segments of this Jackal. How can anyone say it’s boring?
I want to spend a little bit more time on the Comey case because I think it is (1) much more likely to be dismissed and (2) emblematic of a deeper issue within the Trump Administration.
DOJ has indicted Comey because of an Instagram post he did last year, where he took a picture of a group of seashells that said, “86 47.” DOJ is arguing that this was essentially a death threat made by Comey against Trump, who is (unfortunately) the 47th president of the United States, and “86” means “kill.”
I can’t really overstate this: Comey’s indictment is going to be dismissed. If I’m wrong about that, then it is definitely not going to win at trial. For one, “86” does not mean “kill” in most people’s understanding of the term. Merriam-Webster has an entry for it, where they explicitly say it is so rarely used as a reference to kill, that they do not include it as a possible definition on their website.
But let’s assume that Comey believed it meant “to kill,” just to fully get into DOJ’s argument. Even if you think that is true, DOJ still has an almost impossible task to prove this case. First, they’d have to prove that Comey (1) arranged the seashells and (2) intended the photo to be a true threat.
DOJ cannot prove either. Comey has already said he simply saw the seashells arranged on the beach and snapped the photo. But DOJ really cannot prove it was a true threat, because it obviously wasn’t.
The hallmark SCOTUS case in whether or not a threat against the president is actually “true” is Watts v. United States. Watts - who was 18 at the time - said about President Lyndon B. Johnson:
If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J
SCOTUS said that this statement from Watts - which directly names a person and explains how he’d want to kill them - was protected under free speech. A thing all Americans should be thankful for: Our First Amendment protections are very robust, and they protect an 18-year-old who is blowing off steam.
They also protect James Comey, but he also has an additional protection here: Todd Blanche’s stupidity. During one of the Sunday shows, Blanche was asked about a whole host of “86 47” products on Amazon, and whether or not DOJ would be prosecuting anyone selling or purchasing those. Blanche said no, which Comey’s team will 1000% cite to as evidence of vindictive prosecution when they ask for a dismissal.
Blanche’s public statements are a big problem for DOJ. A few weeks ago, Blanche was speaking at CPAC - a conservative, partisan event - and openly bragged that all the DOJ employees who had worked on the Trump prosecution cases were all fired.
There are several of these former employees - one of whom is Comey’s daughter - with active lawsuits against the DOJ for wrongful termination. Do you know who just validated their lawsuits? Todd Blanche.
And I want to be clear: None of this stuff is valid; all of it is done to satisfy Trump’s desire for revenge; no one in the Administration actually cares; and all of it costs real money.
You and I are paying for these indictments right now, while Trump makes billions off his second term. It is so incredibly frustrating, because Trump likely isn’t going to see consequences. But do you know who will? I’d bet Blanche loses his bar license in the future, along with anyone else who signed onto this prosecution.
I’ll try to come back before Memorial Day with a general update on the insanity.