Federal Prosecution
Federal prosecution refers to the legal process through which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigates, charges, and prosecutes individuals for offenses that violate federal laws or occur on federal property. This process is primarily conducted by United States Attorneys, who serve as the chief federal law enforcement officers in various judicial districts across the country. Federal prosecution encompasses a broad range of criminal offenses, including serious cases involving drug trafficking, fraud, weapons offenses, immigration violations, and public corruption. In recent months, federal prosecutions have surged, highlighting ongoing issues of jurisdiction and enforcement priorities in the U.S. legal system. Recent reports reveal that federal prosecutions have increased significantly, with categories such as immigration cases dominating the landscape. In 2025, more than half of federal prosecutions were related to immigration issues, alongside notable rises in drug-related offenses and corporate misconduct. This growing volume of cases reflects not only the DOJ’s evolving enforcement priorities but also broader discussions on the balance between federal and state jurisdictions, particularly regarding alleged over-federalization of offenses traditionally managed at the local level. The procedural intricacies of federal court procedure, including adherence to federal sentencing guidelines and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, are pivotal in navigating these complex legal waters. With ongoing debates about the implications of federal prosecutorial strategy and jurisdiction, understanding federal prosecution remains essential for grasping the interactions between law enforcement and the evolving landscape of American justice.
How many principled resignations have occurred in the Trump Justice Department in the last week?
According to Lawrence O'Donnell, the Trump Justice Department has experienced eight principled resignations in just the last week. This wave of resignations demonstrates significant internal concerns about the administration's approach to justice and legal protocols. The resignations appear to be connected to officials choosing to uphold legal principles rather than comply with potentially problematic directives from the administration.
Watch clip answer (00:36m)
MSNBC
04:18 - 04:54
Why did Denise Chung resign from her position at the U.S. Department of Justice?
Denise Chung, the Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., resigned after refusing to compromise her ethical standards when pressured by the Trump Justice Department. She specifically refused to create misleading documentation about an investigation that would have facilitated what she viewed as the illegal seizure of banking records. This resignation represents another instance of principled departure from the Trump administration's Justice Department, where career officials faced ethical dilemmas when ordered to cross professional lines. Chung chose to step down rather than put a lie in writing that would enable actions she believed were unlawful.
Watch clip answer (00:33m)
MSNBC
02:12 - 02:45
Why did prosecutor Denise Chung resign from the Justice Department?
Denise Chung, a career federal prosecutor with 24 years of experience, resigned after refusing to facilitate what she viewed as an illegal seizure of banking records. She was pressured to write a letter claiming there was probable cause to seize certain bank accounts, but she maintained there was insufficient evidence to support such action. When Chung explained her legal concerns and refused to cross this ethical line, her resignation was requested. In her resignation letter, Chung detailed how she was accused of "wasting five hours" trying to get what she and the FBI wanted rather than what her superiors demanded. Her principled stand represents part of a broader pattern, becoming the eighth resignation on principle from Trump's Justice Department in just one week.
Watch clip answer (02:19m)
MSNBC
02:12 - 04:31
What legal challenges do prosecutors face in connecting Jack Lasota (Ziz) to the murders associated with the Zizian group?
Prosecutors face significant legal hurdles in attempting to pin the most serious offenses, particularly the murders, directly on Jack Lasota (Ziz), the alleged leader of the cult-like Zizian group. Despite connections between the group and multiple killings, establishing Lasota's direct criminal liability raises complex legal questions. As investigations continue into the violent crimes linked to the Zizians, including the double murder of Michelle Zazko's parents and a samurai sword attack, the case presents interesting legal challenges moving forward. Prosecutors must determine whether they can or should attempt to establish criminal responsibility for the leader of the group, even if Lasota wasn't physically present during the actual killings.
Watch clip answer (00:14m)
NBC News
03:57 - 04:12
Why is the Trump Justice Department seeking to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams?
According to Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, the charges have 'restricted Mayor Adams' ability to devote full attention and resources to illegal immigration and violent crime.' The Justice Department argues that these legal proceedings are hindering the mayor's capacity to address pressing urban challenges facing New York City. Adams has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud and bribery filed in September and has denied any quid pro quo arrangement with the Department of Justice. The case represents an unprecedented situation where a federal judge is considering whether to allow the dismissal of corruption charges against a sitting mayor.
Watch clip answer (00:30m)
CBS News
00:00 - 00:30
What unprecedented action did the Department of Justice take regarding the corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams?
The Department of Justice sent an official memo to the Southern District of New York instructing them to drop the corruption charges against Mayor Adams. This unprecedented move resulted in seven resignations from within the DOJ, as it broke established precedent for handling such cases. The decision represented a significant departure from normal prosecutorial procedures, causing internal turmoil within the Justice Department. This unusual intervention in a high-profile corruption case against a sitting mayor highlights potential concerns about political influence in the justice system.
Watch clip answer (00:16m)CBS News
02:19 - 02:36