Trump’s Top Lawyers ALL GET FIRED but REFUSE TO LEAVE

🚨 The Squatters of Justice: How Lawless Loyalists Are Tainting the Federal Courts

The very foundation of justice in the United States is being undermined by a breathtaking display of lawless defiance from a cadre of Trump-appointed federal prosecutors. In a scenario that reads more like a dystopian political satire than reality, federal judges across the country are being forced to fire interim United States Attorneys—only to have those individuals refuse to leave their offices, continuing to sign official court documents as the top federal prosecutor. This isn’t just bureaucratic red tape; this is a brazen, unprecedented attack on judicial authority and the integrity of the criminal justice system, jeopardizing public safety and the rule of law.

The Judicial Veto and the Art of Refusal

The power structure for appointing United States Attorneys is clear: the President nominates, and the Senate confirms. When the Senate is in recess or deliberations are ongoing, an interim U.S. Attorney can be appointed. However, this interim period has a firm time limit—typically 120 days. After that period, federal law grants federal judges the explicit authority to either extend the term of the interim prosecutor or to fire them, appointing a replacement from within the office, usually the First Assistant U.S. Attorney. This judicial backstop is a critical mechanism designed to prevent executive overreach and ensure continuity and stability in federal law enforcement.

What we are witnessing is a systemic rejection of this authority. Judges have, on multiple occasions, exercised their right to fire these interim prosecutors, often due to concerns over their qualifications or the illegitimate nature of their appointments. Yet, these individuals, often lacking any prior federal prosecutorial experience, are simply staying put. They have become squatters in the Department of Justice, operating under the delusion that they are exempt from the judicial rulings that govern their very position.

Tainted Justice: The Lindsay Halligan Case

The most publicized, yet far from only, example of this astonishing defiance involves Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA). Halligan, who reportedly had no prior federal prosecutorial experience, was disqualified by a federal judge. The ruling made it explicitly clear: she was not the U.S. Attorney, lacking the necessary Senate confirmation or judicial approval.

Her response? Complete and total contempt for the court.

Halligan continues to sign her name on court filings—including indictments—as the U.S. Attorney, as if the judicial ruling was nothing more than a minor suggestion. This has led to the utterly humiliating spectacle of federal judges literally crossing out her name on court documents or adding asterisks to mark her status as an unlawful, unrecognized authority.

The repercussions are not limited to her personal embarrassment. Her role has already led to the dismissal of two high-profile, politically-motivated cases—against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James—because the process was tainted by an unlawful prosecutor. But the danger extends far beyond these cases. Every single criminal case, every indictment, every plea agreement signed or overseen by Halligan (and her counterparts in other districts) is now fundamentally jeopardized. Defense attorneys now have a clear, powerful argument on appeal: that their client’s rights were violated because the prosecution was led by a person with no legal standing—a lawless prosecutor. This places an incalculable risk on public safety and the certainty of judicial outcomes.

The Spread of Delusion: Other Districts and the “Nener” Defense

This shocking behavior is not an isolated incident; it’s a coordinated, systemic rot. In the District of New Jersey, Alina Haba has reportedly engaged in similar antics, continuing to present herself as the U.S. Attorney despite judicial intervention, and having a comparable lack of relevant experience.

But the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) central argument—or lack thereof—is perhaps the most grotesque display of institutional decay. In the EDVA case, the DOJ’s pathetic defense essentially boiled down to a legalistic, bad-faith child’s retort: “The judge said she was fired, but didn’t explicitly say she had to remove her name from the documents! Nener, nener!” This is not the sober, principled reasoning of the nation’s top law enforcement agency; it’s the defiant flailing of an institution in shambles, willing to sacrifice its credibility and the rule of law for the sake of political loyalty.

In the New Jersey case, the situation was arguably even more chaotic. After the court fired Haba and rightfully appointed the First Assistant U.S. Attorney to take the role, Haba and her allies then attempted to fire that legitimate successor and re-seize the position, essentially arguing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the act of firing the court’s choice somehow transferred the authority back to the very person the court had rejected. This is not governance; it is a coup d’état of the office, a breathtaking act of political and institutional vandalism.

Lawlessness as Loyalty: The Core of the Crisis

This stunning level of brazen lawlessness is rooted in a single, destructive principle: loyalty to a political figure matters more than adherence to the Constitution, statutory law, or judicial authority. The loyalty test has superseded competence, qualifications, and legality. The administration, and the political operatives backing these squatters, have made it clear that they are willing to completely jeopardize the integrity of criminal cases, risk public safety, and alienate the entire federal judiciary simply to keep their political operatives in positions of power.

The very concept of the Department of Justice—an institution meant to uphold the law impartially—has been rendered meaningless. It has become a political tool, a “world bizarro department” where the rule of law is a suggestion to be ignored with impunity. The DOJ has not only tolerated this blatant defiance of federal courts but has actively backed the squatters with frivolous legal arguments, essentially giving the judicial branch the institutional equivalent of two middle fingers.

This crisis is not just about a few disgruntled, unqualified prosecutors; it’s about the systemic destruction of norms, laws, and the essential separation of powers. When federal judges are forced to literally edit court documents to remove the names of supposed U.S. Attorneys who have been fired and when law enforcement officials believe they can simply declare a judicial ruling null and void, the republic is in grave danger. The credibility of federal law enforcement is in tatters, and the road back to institutional legitimacy will be long and arduous, demanding an immediate and uncompromising stand against these squatters of justice.