Topic: The DOJ (Department of Justice)
“The White House Counsel’s office cannot serve as a finishing school to credential the next set of white-shoe law firm attorneys or federal judges in waiting who cabin their opinions for fear their elite credentials could be tarnished through a policy disagreement. Rather, it should function more as an activist yet ethical plaintiffs’ firm that advocates for its client—the Administration’s agenda—within the limits imposed by the Constitution and the duties of the legal profession.”
He’s explicitly arguing that White House Counsel should serve as the President’s personal legal team.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“Traditionally, both the White House Counsel and the Attorney General have issued a memo requiring all contact between the two institutions to occur only between the Office of White House Counsel and the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. The next Administration should reexamine this policy and determine whether it might be more efficient or more appropriate for communication to occur through additional channels.”
Dearborn is advocating for circumventing traditional communication between the White House Counsel and the Attorney General. The reason for the longstanding policy that limits communication between the White House and the Department of Justice (DOJ) is because it maintains clear lines of accountability and prevents inappropriate or politicized influence on the DOJ by the White House. Changing this policy would politicize (or weaponize) the DOJ in a very literal sense, as well as undermine the independence of the DOJ. Moreover, if you have more people involved in the communication chain, you’re diluting responsibility and making it more difficult to track who is responsible for specific decisions or actions.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“When a new President takes office, he will need to decide expeditiously how to handle any major ongoing litigation or other pending legal matters that might present a challenge to his agenda.”
,p>Well, holy shit, if that ain’t a smoking gun. This is 100% an admission that if Trump wins, he’ll simply pardon himself for all of the crimes he has both been convicted of and/or is currently under indictment for, and close any investigations into himself and his cronies, effectively making himself/his government above the law. He even includes the considering reversing any legal decisions they don’t like:
“To offer guidance, the White House Counsel must get up to speed as quickly as possible on all significant ongoing legal challenges across the executive branch that might affect the new Administration’s policy agenda and must be prepared at the outset of the Administration to present recommendations to the President, including recommendations for reconsidering or reversing positions of the previous Administration in any significant litigation.” (Project 2025, Section 1.1: White House Office, Rick Dearborn, page 60, paragraph 2.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“To offer guidance, the White House Counsel must get up to speed as quickly as possible on all significant ongoing legal challenges across the executive branch that might affect the new Administration’s policy agenda and must be prepared at the outset of the Administration to present recommendations to the President, including recommendations for reconsidering or reversing positions of the previous Administration in any significant litigation.”
In the preceding paragraph, Dearborn admitted that if Trump wins, he’ll simply pardon himself for all of the crimes he has both been convicted of and/or is currently under indictment for, and close any investigations into himself and his cronies, effectively making himself/his government above the law. “When a new President takes office, he will need to decide expeditiously how to handle any major ongoing litigation or other pending legal matters that might present a challenge to his agenda.” (Project 2025, Section 1.1: White House Office, Rick Dearborn, page 60, paragraph 2.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“As the Carter presidency was winding down, the U.S. Department of Justice and top lawyers at the OPM contrived with plaintiffs to end civil service IQ examinations because of concern about their possible impact on minorities.”
This is deliberately misleading. Civil Servants were subjected to a civil service exam, not an IQ test. And the exams were brought back starting in 2012. It is true that the Carter administration agreed to abolish it in 1981 after several discrimination cases. Under the Obama Administration, the OPM began to introduce an improved merit exam called USAHire (this is the one that was in test beginning in 2012.)
It’s interesting and telling that the authors would deliberately call it an IQ test when it isn’t, then point out that minorities were failing it. This is thinly veiled racism. They made a false statement about what kind of test it was, so that they could make an argument that minorities (must) have lower IQs, for no other reason but to be racist.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: The Bureaucracy here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowing that claims of collusion with Russia were false, collaborated with Democratic operatives to inject the story into the 2016 election through strategic media leaks, falsified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications, and lied to Congress.”
We’re off to a bad start, here. Many people have written about this far better than I and a greater length. In fact, there are entire books written detailing Trump’s proven collusion with Russia.
I address this at some length in the analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“Personnel within the FBI engaged in a campaign to convince social media companies and the media generally that the story about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop was the result of a Russian misinformation campaign—while the FBI had possession of the laptop the entire time and could have clarified the authenticity of the source.”
“The DOJ engaged in conduct to chill the free speech rights of parents across the United States in response to supposed “threats” against school boards, yet it failed to engage in any concerted campaign to protect the rights of Americans who actually were terrorized by acts of violence like those perpetrated against pregnancy care centers.”
This is a false equivalency wrapped in an overstatement. The term “chilling effect” suggests that the DOJ’s actions made parents afraid to speak out for fear of legal or governmental consequences. He gives no examples of this happening, nor could I find any.
Hamilton could be talking about local schoolboards having people arrested for disruptive behavior, of which there is more than one example, but also would be local law enforcement’s purview, not the Department of Justice. It’s laughable for him to claim that local schoolboard meetings are somehow under the purview of the Department of Justice.
The idea that if the DOJ hadn’t been so focused on squashing free speech at schoolboard meetings, they could have prevented pro-life health care clinics from being vandalized by pro-choice advocates, is ludicrous. (And yes, he’s talking about that, not the FAR more common incidents of pregnant women seeking care who are terrorized by pro-life advocates.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“The department has devoted unprecedented resources to prosecuting American citizens for misdemeanor trespassing offenses or violations of the FACE Act while dismissing prosecutions against radical agents of the Left like Antifa.”
We might have our first mention of the ANTIFA boogeyman, here! Here’s the difference. ANTIFA is an ideology, which is short for “anti-fascism.” Know who used to be anti-fascism? EVERYONE IN AMERICA. My grandfathers were ANTIFA. Back then, they just called it the U.S. Navy. Being anti-fascist is not a crime. Misdemeanor trespassing IS a crime. Violations of the FACE Act ARE CRIMES. (The FACE act is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it a federal crime to use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to prevent individuals from obtaining or providing reproductive health care services.)
The false equivalence/whataboutism is strong with this one. He’s actually suggesting that being anti-fascist, while committing no crimes, is on par with terrorizing pregnant women or trespassing (and seems to be suggesting that terrorizing pregnant women shouldn’t be prosecuted with any enthusiasm.) The secondary false equivalence is the idea that terrorizing pregnant women is equally as offensive as trespassing.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“The department has consistently threatened that any conduct not aligning with the liberal agenda “could” violate federal law—without actually taking a position that the conduct in question is illegal—using the prospect of protracted litigation and federal sanctions to chill disfavored behavior such as with state efforts to restrict abortion or prevent genital mutilation of children.”
Note that he provides zero examples of the DOJ threatening to prosecute people for crimes for not “aligning with the liberal agenda.”
The phrase “genital mutilation of children” is particularly inflammatory and misleading. It refers to gender-affirming surgeries, but using this term intentionally evokes a sense of horror and human rights violations, conflating a medical and ethical debate about transgender healthcare with the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), a widely condemned cultural practice. The language here is designed to provoke outrage rather than engage in a good faith debate about gender-affirming care.
This statement is intended to fearmonger, inflame, and create further cultural division. Are trans children undergoing genital surgeries? No. Gender-affirming care can start as early as age 11, and can be things like allowing the child to dress as they want, and be called the names they want. Sometimes it means reversible hormone therapy. Surgery is held off until the trans child is legally an adult20, with extremely limited exceptions.
“The general recommendation is for gender affirming surgeries to be done after age 18 with limited exceptions,” Dr. Michael Irwig, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, wrote in an email. “The patient should always be of an age where they have adequate maturity including the ability to understand the potential risks and benefits of any treatment.” [Source]21
In short, nobody is out there “mutilating childrens’ genitals”, unless you count circumcision.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.