Trump fires chief prosecutor who investigated Epstein

ALSO INSIDE: Class-action lawsuit could stop courthouse ambushes by ICE agents

Jul 17, 2025

Cam here 👋 bringing you your daily dose of what people are doing – good, bad, and otherwise – in the world of politics. We’re diving into the stories you won’t see anywhere else. And remember, you can also keep up with me over on TikTok and Bluesky.

And if you’re looking for a little more from COURIER, Akilah Hughes goes down the tradwives, MAHA, and women’s wellness pipeline in the latest episode of “How is This Better?”

Since day one of Trump’s political career, people have desperately attempted to normalize his absurd abuses of power and blatant corruption – and 10 years later, much of corporate media remains a victim of their own attempts to return to a sense of normalcy.

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

Donald Trump used his presidential authority Wednesday to directly fire a federal prosecutor known for working on some of the highest-profile sex trafficking cases of the 21st century, including investigations of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Sean “Diddy” Combs.

No explanation was given for the removal of Maurene Comey, who was an assistant US attorney and chief of the Southern District of New York’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit, other than the assertion of removal powers granted to the president in the US Constitution. During her decade as a public prosecutor, Comey led cases against a number of powerful figures charged with sex crimes, including the 2019 arrest of 11 men running an underage trafficking ring — one of only a handful of trafficking prosecutions during Trump’s first term.

“Every person lucky enough to work in this office constantly hears four words to describe our ethos: Without Fear or Favor,” Comey wrote in a farewell email to her colleagues. “But we have entered 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.”

Comey’s removal comes as the Trump administration has been accused of protecting the clients of Epstein, who died in prison while awaiting trial for allegedly facilitating sex with minors for his rich and powerful associates. Comey was a prosecutor in Epstein’s case; Trump was one of his known associates.

The White House almost immediately tried to frame Comey’s removal as unrelated to her proximity to Epstein’s case, and claimed that, instead, it’s her proximity to her father, former FBI chief James Comey, that drew Trump’s ire. Soon after she was fired, Trump administration sources framed it to reporters as the result of an “untenable” situation because Comey’s father was “constantly going after the administration.”

But Comey’s employment was tenable when Trump’s firing of her father in 2017 sparked a two-year special investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. She remained with the DOJ unharassed throughout Trump’s entire first term, was left out of Trump’s mass firing of US attorneys when he began his second term, and had weathered the subsequent purges relatively unscathed.

Despite this, nearly every headline announcing Comey’s termination is couched in a “sins of her father” narrative, adding unsubstantiated complexity to an otherwise straightforward situation. It effectively dooms the story to mainstream outlets’ “both sides” approach, while giving far-right media an opportunity to provide cover for what looks to be a Comey family tradition: a justice-obstructing pink slip from the country’s chief executive.

Whether or not justice is being obstructed is still unclear, as the DOJ’s investigation into Epstein remains closed. Trump is facing pressure like never before, however, to provide something substantial from the investigation into Epstein, and in the event Trump caves, there will be one less investigator on the job who specializes in uncovering the crimes of someone the president considers a “terrific guy.”

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Class-action lawsuit alleges collusion between ICE agents and DOJ

The Trump administration in May gave ICE agents the green light to arrest people at court buildings, which has led to the detention of law-abiding immigrants, deportation of vulnerable asylum-seekers, and the arrest of at least one government official.

While arresting someone demonstrating a willingness to follow the law isn’t illegal, the latest iteration of courtroom ambushes may be. Immigrant rights groups, led by the nonprofit legal firm Democracy Forward, sued the Trump administration Wednesday over alleged collusion between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to deny immigrants their Fifth Amendment rights.

According to the class-action lawsuit, the DOJ is instructing immigration attorneys and judges to dismiss cases of immigrants when they show up for court. Without a case, ICE agents on-site are then able to arrest them and issue an expedited removal for deportation.

“People seeking refuge, safety, or relief should not be arrested, detained, and deported without a chance to be heard and given due process,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward. “We are in court to defend the rule of law, stop this abuse of power, and ensure that justice and not political agendas guide the immigration system.”

Because the suit is filed as a class action, it’s eligible for a universal injunction, meaning a judge can order the Trump administration to pause the questionable practice while it is litigated in court.

US Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District

Since taking office in 2003, Rep. Rogers has:

Sponsored 99 bills, two of which have been signed into law
Knowingly received over $30,000 in campaign contributions from a money laundering PAC
Threatened to beat up a voter who asked him about ethically questionable contributions to his wife’s campaign for county judge
Tried to start a fight with former Rep. Matt Gaetz on the House floor over a committee assignment
Almost been appointed to be Trump’s Defense Secretary, but had to stay in the House so Republicans wouldn’t lose their majority
Blamed ISIS for the 2016 mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando and voted against designating attacks against LGBTQ people as a hate crime

Fun Facts

Rep. Rogers was an ardent supporter of former President George Bush's invasion of Iraq—so much so that he hired one of the conflict’s most prolific alleged war criminals. Chris Brinson worked on Rogers’ staff starting in 2003 and was his chief of staff for about a decade. He came fresh from military service as a US Army Reserve Captain during the Iraq War, where he participated in the ongoing human rights violations that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison.

As a reminder, this is the torture racket uncovered by 60 Minutes, which published photos showing American soldiers dragging naked prisoners on leashes and shocking them with electric wires. Prisoners were also forced to masturbate in front of female soldiers.

For his involvement in the physical and psychological torture, rape, and murder that occurred under his watch, Brinson was reprimanded by the US Army. From there, he went straight to Rogers’ office, where he was welcomed with open arms.

“Chris’ influence on my office is immeasurable; my staff in Alabama and DC revere him, and without his help, I would not have successfully run for two chairmanships,” Rogers said of Brinson. “I have some of the longest-serving staff on Capitol Hill and that’s in part to what Chris has done for our team.”

Personally, Rogers’ net worth has fluctuated considerably since he’s been in Congress. Financial disclosures put him right around the $1 million mark when he first took office, but the liabilities he took on over the years landed him a spot on the list of poorest members of Congress by 2018, with about $600,000 worth of debt. He seems to have bounced back, somewhat; his latest disclosure from 2023 shows he’s around $250,000 in the black.

Progressive Caucus-backed Adelita Grijalva wins special election

COURIER recently produced REPRESENT, a docuseries on Deja Foxx, a Gen Z abortion rights activist who decided to run for Congress. Our producers chronicled her highs and lows on the campaign trail — a path that ended Tuesday with Foxx’s loss in the Democratic primary.

Her opponent, Adelita Grijalva, ran on a similar platform and plan if elected, but had years of experience in elected office to back it up. Her time in public service seems to have helped carry her to victory, and diffused accusations that Grijalva is a political nepo baby, riding on the coattails of her father’s success.

Just before the election, COURIER’s Arizona newsroom, The Copper Courier, published an excellent profile on Grijalva, written by reporter Alyssa Bickle:

For 23 years, Rep. Raúl Grijalva served Arizona’s seventh congressional district, championed progressive values, and spoke out against social, racial, and economic injustice. But on March 13, 2025, he lost the battle to lung cancer, leaving his seat in the US House open.

Now, his daughter, Adelita Grijalva, is the Democratic frontrunner in the special election which aims to fill his spot.

However, Grijalva chafes at the idea that she’s part of some political dynasty and just some establishment Democrat — a critique she’s faced from one of her primary opponents, 25-year-old activist and social media content creator Deja Foxx.

The term, she said, “is sort of discounting any contribution of mine, but really discounting my father’s contribution as well,” in an interview with The Copper Courier. “I ascribe to a servant leadership model.”

Check out Bickle’s full story on Grijalva here.

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.