On Tuesday, the White House took steps to keep things uncertain. Bill Essay, who leads as Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor, is the latest in a series of controversial appointments.
Essayli, a former Riverside County Councilman and an ally of Trump, was appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this month. Interim appointees need to be confirmed by the US Senate within 120 days. Yet, Trump never officially nominated Essayli for Senate confirmation, which likely would have faced strong opposition from California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff.
So, the fate of Essayli now rests with the local Federal Judiciary Committee. It seems he will continue to serve as the prosecutor after the interim period ends on Wednesday, getting another 210 days before undergoing a formal confirmation process.
Initially reported by Fox News, his status was later confirmed by federal law enforcement sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, as they weren’t authorized to comment to the media.
The communications office for the US Attorney in Los Angeles directed all inquiries to the White House, which has not responded to the investigation as of yet.
This move reflects the Trump administration’s strategy of utilizing legal loopholes to keep US attorney appointees in place beyond their interim status.
In upstate New York, the Judiciary Committee declined to confirm John A. Salcone III as the US Attorney for that district. In response, Bondi appointed Salcone to a lower role, yet he effectively wielded the powers of a top federal prosecutor.
Salcone later indicated in a letter to a US District Judge, which was made public, that he was designated as the first US Attorney for the Upstate District of New York and is now representing it “indefinitely.”
In New Jersey, Trump’s pick, Alina Haba, was rejected by the Judiciary Committee. Haba, one of Trump’s former personal attorneys, lacked experience as a law enforcement officer before being proposed for the role. Bondi reacted by dismissing Desiree Lee Grace, a long-term prosecutor, who had previously been appointed to replace Haba.
Ultimately, Trump revoked Haba’s appointment and appointed her as acting US attorney, raising legal concerns amongst experts regarding both cases.
Haba’s situation has reportedly led to disruptions in federal court hearings, grand jury proceedings, and plea bargains in New Jersey, as questions linger over her authority.
In a related development, Trump extended a similar interim appointment for Cigal Chatta, Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, whose term was also about to expire on Tuesday.
Essayli’s tenure as LA’s top federal prosecutor is marked by controversy.
Shortly after taking office, he faced criticism over his handling of a case involving LA County Sheriff’s Deputy Trevor Kirk, who was found to have used excessive force during an incident that occurred while responding to a robbery. According to court documents, the woman involved was neither armed nor had committed a crime.
This decision did not arise from any new evidence regarding Kirk’s guilt or innocence, yet it led to the resignation of several veteran prosecutors.
One prosecutor, who wished to remain anonymous out of fear for retribution, described the environment under Essayli as chaotic and overly aggressive, prioritizing the president’s agenda over effective law enforcement.
Essayli has enforced strict measures against demonstrators during protests concerning the administration’s immigration policies in Southern California, but reports suggest he struggles to support those cases in court.
Multiple federal law enforcement sources told the Associated Press that many protest-related prosecutions initiated by Essayli have not even reached significant trial stages. Records indicate that out of nearly 40 filed cases related to alleged demonstrations or immigration interference, only seven resulted in charges.
At one notable moment, sources told the AP that Essayli pressured his staff to overlook DOJ protocols and push for prosecutions based on weak evidence.
The US Attorney’s Office dismissed allegations regarding these issues, labeling them as “factual inaccuracies and anonymous gossip.” The statement provided no details to clarify the disagreement.
