SCOOP:
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) September 24, 2025
DOJ sources tell me that Assistant US Attorney Will Rosenzweig was FIRED yesterday after he was exposed for running an anti-Trump blog.
He was working in the Healthcare fraud unit at the DOJ in Miami, Florida. https://t.co/1VdnFe1c0E
Uh oh. A few more of the supposed details here at the FB page embedded in the Loomer tweet.
I can't find the blog, but if anyone has a link, please post it in the comments. And if Will wants to comment on what happened, I will certainly post it above the fold.
More details as I find them out.
UPDATE -- Here is the feed from the person who broke the story and it has some of the blog posts there.
8 comments:
Seems important to note that he didn’t blog any of this while serving as an AUSA, per the links you posted
Yeah you can’t have a guy with the ability to form rational and accurate judgments in advance be an AUSA these days.
Yeah, it's very confusing what is actually wrong here. Federal employees are allowed to discuss politics and post their opinions, even on issues of partisan politics, outside of their work.
This is confusing? Would you keep your job if you ran a blog criticizing your boss? Not saying he should have lost his job, but this is not confusing. And all those who remain at the US Attorney’s Office are complicit anyway.
something something something... freedom of speech... something something something
You seem confused though. The president is not the "boss" of any AUSA.
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. USA Today reported in 2020, this was a "…standard set by Janet Reno in 1993. At the start of her tenure as attorney general for then-President Bill Clinton, Reno went on to fire 93 attorneys out of 94 U.S. federal districts. Since that time there has been an understanding that the president has the right to hire his own people to get his policies enacted." Should apply to AUSAs too
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2020/06/25/opposing-view-u-s-attorneys-serve-presidents-pleasure/3261794001/
I mean, if there's one thing that SCOTUS has made clear (including by effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor this week), it is that the president of the United States effectively has plenary authority over the executive branch. So not sure why you think an AUSA would not ultimately answer to the president.
Post a Comment