Maurene Comey urges DOJ colleagues to stand up to 'abuses of power' in memo after her firing
"Every person lucky enough to work in this office constantly hears four words to describe our ethos: Without Fear or Favor. Do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons without fear of retribution and without favor to the powerful," she wrote in a memo Thursday to her colleagues.
Comey was fired by the Justice Department on Wednesday. She was a key figure in high profile cases such as the trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs and the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who died in prison, has been the subject of conspiracy theories that have become a major source of contention between President Donald Trump and some of his supporters.
Comey said she was not given a reason and that her termination was done via a memo.
A source familiar with the matter told NBC News on Wednesday that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York cited Article II of the Constitution, which establishes the executive power of the president.
In her memo, Comey talked about how "fear was never really conceivable" during her nearly ten-year tenure for the Southern District of New York.
"We don't fear bad press; we have the luxury of exceptional security keeping us physically safe; and, so long as we did our work with integrity, we would get to keep serving the public in this office," she wrote. "Our focus was really on acting 'without favor.' That is, making sure people with access, money, and power were not treated differently than anyone else; and making sure this office remained separate from politics and focused only on the facts and the law."
But, Comey said, they are now in a "new phase where 'without fear' may be the challenge."
"If a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain. Do not let that happen," the memo read. "Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims. Of dedication to truth above all else."
Her father, James Comey, has for years been in a public feud with Trump. James Comey was one of the key figures in launching a probe of Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
During his first term as president, Trump fired James Comey, and earlier this month, his administration launched a criminal investigation targeting him and former CIA Director John Brennan. The details of the investigation remain unclear.
When asked at a press briefing Thursday about the firing, the White House said, "This was a decision made by the Department of Justice."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents.
The Guardian
12 hours ago
- The Guardian
US appeals court indiciates it might declare Trump's birthright citizenship order unconstitutional
Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of the US president's hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based first US circuit court of appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the federal justice department as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the US supreme court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order as unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the supreme court. Eric McArthur, a justice department attorney, said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the US constitution's 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the US civil war, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. 'It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right' to the children of people in the US without documentation, he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the supreme court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the US to non-citizen parents. 'We have an opinion by the supreme court that we aren't free to disregard,' said David Barron, the chief US circuit judge who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on the Republican's first day back in the Oval Office on 20 January, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included Leo Sorokin, a US district judge in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. 'The supreme court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens,' Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority US supreme court on 27 June sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the ninth circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the first circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. Separately, in an immigration-related ruling on Friday, US district Judge Jia Cobb in Washington DC blocked the Trump administration from fast-tracking the deportation of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were paroled into the country under humanitarian programs during Joe Biden's presidency. Cobb said it served the public interest to put on hold the Department of Homeland Security's expedited removals for those who entered with temporary parole rather than cause irreparable harm to immigrants by allowing them.
Reuters
13 hours ago
- Reuters
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
Aug 1 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide.
