The full brief is remarkable. While the U.S. Attorney attempts to downplay the misconduct, he admits to discussing the incident with Main Justice as early as Sept. 27 and having the Oct. 9 grand jury transcript as early Oct. 14. The brief shows that the office repeatedly misled the Court.
Jon Seidel@jonseidel.bsky.social · 9h agoNew overnight: Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros’ office says the “Broadview Six” prosecutors have self-reported the events of the tainted prosecution to the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility as it argues against a special counsel. Full filing: cst.brightspotcdn.com/98/58/82c837...
![Separately, as the Supreme Court recently held, “[i]nvestigative and prosecutorial
decisionmaking is ‘the special province of the Executive Branch,’” and so even the “President may
discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice
Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed.” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 620 (2024) (quotations and citations omitted).
Thus, members of the Executive Branch are constitutionally required to “take Care that the Laws
be faithfully executed,” and it is entirely appropriate for them to “decide which crimes to
investigate and prosecute.” Id. (quoting U.S. Const. Art. II, § 3). Although the Supreme Court in
2024 made clear that the law permits such interactions, as already noted and consistent with
Department policy, in this matter, the United States Attorney reported the Office’s charging
decision to Main Justice shortly before the first grand jury presentation in this case. R. 110 at 4,
n.2.15 Former Defendants are not entitled to any communications relating to charging decisions or](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreihyyexcusmlv2qq5dhiupo44u6dxuggoidlrpfdkddmsuesirnp2q)
