The Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Justice Department is coming under fire after reports that some of its personnel have an apparent political bias against the targets of their investigations. 

The OIG says its mission is to ‘detect and deter fraud, waste, abuse, and misconduct by conducting objective, independent, and impactful oversight of the Department, its programs, and the conduct of its personnel.’ 

OIG personnel are non-political employees and do not shift with changes to the executive branch. Inspector General Michael Horowitz was confirmed by the Senate in 2012.

However, recent reporting and documents reviewed by Fox News Digital reveal that some OIG personnel, including ones responsible for overseeing investigations into Trump administration political appointees, appear to have partisan bias.

America First Legal (AFL) on Wednesday sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the DOJ to investigate the ‘existence of politically motivated employees in positions that demand impartiality.’ 

‘The Department’s Office of Inspector General itself describes that ‘[i]n light of today’s wide-spread lack of trust and negative views of government, a key facet of the Department’s challenge of strengthening public trust is ensuring that DOJ personnel fulfill their duties without any actual or perceived political influence or partisan consideration,’’ the FOIA request states. 

‘Despite this unambiguous obligation to avoid the appearance of political or partisan considerations, there is evidence that the Office of the Inspector General is deeply infected with partisan actors,’ it says.

According to documents reviewed by Fox News Digital, one OIG attorney, Deborah Falk Zerwitz, has donated 35 times to Democrats or Democrat-linked entities since 2007, totaling $6,466.

Zerwitz is currently overseeing OIG’s investigation into the department’s 2020 probe into deaths in state-run nursing homes in New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Pennsylvania. 

On her X account, Zerwitz ‘liked’ dozens of political posts including disparaging posts about then-Attorney General Bill Barr and Trump appointees, including one post saying all White House lawyers drafting executive orders should be ‘disbarred,’ and one accusing Barr of promoting a ‘myth of unaccountable career prosecutor.’ 

Another post she appeared to have ‘liked’ said, ‘We need to send Donald Trump packing, but we can’t stop there. We need to boot his Republican enablers out of office — at every level of government.’

She also ‘liked’ posts that referenced ‘Trump and his racist homophobic cult members,’ and one that read ‘Attention QANON, MAGAT Fascists,’ and ended with, ‘SO F— OFF.’  She also liked a post that accused Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., of ‘eroding our democracy.’

Jennifer Ramella, another OIG lawyer investigating DOJ’s nursing home death probe, donated 33 times between 2020 and 2022 to the Democratic PAC ActBlue, totaling over $300.

Another is Christina Monta, a former OIG counsel who led the investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s probe into reports of potential issues with a few mail-in ballots at the Luzerne County Board of Elections in 2020.

Monta, according to FEC data, made several contributions to ActBlue and Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaign, totaling $1,014.50 between 2019 and 2020.

Monta was counsel in one of the first cases DOJ litigated to allow biological males into women’s bathrooms in 2015. She also joined the DOJ’s challenge of Texas’ voter ID law around the same time.

‘It is imperative that Americans learn whether these views persist within the Department of Justice, certainly meeting the Department’s standard that a ‘matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence,’ especially as we approach a Presidential election,’ AFL’s FOIA request states. 

‘It is vital for our democracy and trust in government that those in government with duties to be impartial do not wield their power by targeting political opponents,’ they said. 

A spokesperson for the OIG told Fox News Digital, ‘Consistent with the First Amendment, Citizens United, and federal law, the OIG respects the constitutional rights of its employees, and of all citizens.’

‘The OIG’s work is fact-based and objective, as evidenced by our reports on FISA abuses, Operation Fast and Furious, and decades of other oversight. Our ongoing work meets the same standards,’ the spokesperson said. 

In 2019, the OIG released a report on FISA abuses in the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and outlined their investigation process: 

‘As part of the standard practice in our reviews, we provided a draft copy of this report to the Department and the FBI to conduct a factual accuracy review. Also consistent with our standard practice, we contacted individuals who were interviewed as part of the review and whose conduct is addressed in this report, and certain other witnesses, to provide them an opportunity to review the portions of the report that pertain to their testimony to the OIG. With limited exceptions, these witnesses availed themselves of this opportunity, and we provided those who did conduct such a review with the opportunity to provide oral or written comments directly to the OIG concerning the portions they reviewed, consistent with rules to protect classified information.’

The Civil Service Reform Act also prohibits OIG from discriminating against employees based on their political affiliations. 

Gene Hamilton, AFL executive director, said in a statement that, ‘if the ‘watchdog’ is a mere partisan bulldog, it does not deserve to exist.’

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Justice Department is coming under fire after reports that some of its personnel have an apparent political bias against the targets of their investigations. 

The OIG says its mission is to ‘detect and deter fraud, waste, abuse, and misconduct by conducting objective, independent, and impactful oversight of the Department, its programs, and the conduct of its personnel.’ 

OIG personnel are non-political employees and do not shift with changes to the executive branch. Inspector General Michael Horowitz was confirmed by the Senate in 2012.

However, recent reporting and documents reviewed by Fox News Digital reveal that some OIG personnel, including ones responsible for overseeing investigations into Trump administration political appointees, appear to have partisan bias.

America First Legal (AFL) on Wednesday sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the DOJ to investigate the ‘existence of politically motivated employees in positions that demand impartiality.’ 

‘The Department’s Office of Inspector General itself describes that ‘[i]n light of today’s wide-spread lack of trust and negative views of government, a key facet of the Department’s challenge of strengthening public trust is ensuring that DOJ personnel fulfill their duties without any actual or perceived political influence or partisan consideration,’’ the FOIA request states. 

‘Despite this unambiguous obligation to avoid the appearance of political or partisan considerations, there is evidence that the Office of the Inspector General is deeply infected with partisan actors,’ it says.

According to documents reviewed by Fox News Digital, one OIG attorney, Deborah Falk Zerwitz, has donated 35 times to Democrats or Democrat-linked entities since 2007, totaling $6,466.

Zerwitz is currently overseeing OIG’s investigation into the department’s 2020 probe into deaths in state-run nursing homes in New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Pennsylvania. 

On her X account, Zerwitz ‘liked’ dozens of political posts including disparaging posts about then-Attorney General Bill Barr and Trump appointees, including one post saying all White House lawyers drafting executive orders should be ‘disbarred,’ and one accusing Barr of promoting a ‘myth of unaccountable career prosecutor.’ 

Another post she appeared to have ‘liked’ said, ‘We need to send Donald Trump packing, but we can’t stop there. We need to boot his Republican enablers out of office — at every level of government.’

She also ‘liked’ posts that referenced ‘Trump and his racist homophobic cult members,’ and one that read ‘Attention QANON, MAGAT Fascists,’ and ended with, ‘SO F— OFF.’  She also liked a post that accused Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., of ‘eroding our democracy.’

Jennifer Ramella, another OIG lawyer investigating DOJ’s nursing home death probe, donated 33 times between 2020 and 2022 to the Democratic PAC ActBlue, totaling over $300.

Another is Christina Monta, a former OIG counsel who led the investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s probe into reports of potential issues with a few mail-in ballots at the Luzerne County Board of Elections in 2020.

Monta, according to FEC data, made several contributions to ActBlue and Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaign, totaling $1,014.50 between 2019 and 2020.

Monta was counsel in one of the first cases DOJ litigated to allow biological males into women’s bathrooms in 2015. She also joined the DOJ’s challenge of Texas’ voter ID law around the same time.

‘It is imperative that Americans learn whether these views persist within the Department of Justice, certainly meeting the Department’s standard that a ‘matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence,’ especially as we approach a Presidential election,’ AFL’s FOIA request states. 

‘It is vital for our democracy and trust in government that those in government with duties to be impartial do not wield their power by targeting political opponents,’ they said. 

A spokesperson for the OIG told Fox News Digital, ‘Consistent with the First Amendment, Citizens United, and federal law, the OIG respects the constitutional rights of its employees, and of all citizens.’

‘The OIG’s work is fact-based and objective, as evidenced by our reports on FISA abuses, Operation Fast and Furious, and decades of other oversight. Our ongoing work meets the same standards,’ the spokesperson said. 

In 2019, the OIG released a report on FISA abuses in the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and outlined their investigation process: 

‘As part of the standard practice in our reviews, we provided a draft copy of this report to the Department and the FBI to conduct a factual accuracy review. Also consistent with our standard practice, we contacted individuals who were interviewed as part of the review and whose conduct is addressed in this report, and certain other witnesses, to provide them an opportunity to review the portions of the report that pertain to their testimony to the OIG. With limited exceptions, these witnesses availed themselves of this opportunity, and we provided those who did conduct such a review with the opportunity to provide oral or written comments directly to the OIG concerning the portions they reviewed, consistent with rules to protect classified information.’

The Civil Service Reform Act also prohibits OIG from discriminating against employees based on their political affiliations. 

Gene Hamilton, AFL executive director, said in a statement that, ‘if the ‘watchdog’ is a mere partisan bulldog, it does not deserve to exist.’

As the U.S. weighs sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) over potential arrest warrants for Israeli officials, some experts have questioned the value of the court, given its track record since its founding.

‘[The ICC] has been around for over two decades, [but] it has less than 10 successful prosecutions,’ Orde Kittrie, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and law professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, told Fox News Digital. ‘It’s spent over $2 billion. It’s been really ineffective.’

As of July 2022, 31 cases have appeared before the ICC, which resulted in 10 convictions and four acquittals. The court has issued 37 arrest warrants, with 21 people ultimately detained while 12 people remain at large, according to the European Union’s External Action Service.

The ICC’s total annual budget for 2023 totaled around $183,500,000, which is an increase of around $34,500,000 or around 20% increase from 2022’s budget. 

Member states each bear a portion of the overall budget based on the size of their economies, with the most significant funds coming from large European economies, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Brazil, according to the Journal of Human Rights. 

Japan ranked as the largest contributor in 2022 with around $26,850,000, while Germany and France rank thereafter with around $19,000,000 and $14,400,000, respectively.

Appropriations for the court are divided into nine categories: the Judiciary, Office of the Prosecutor, the Registry, Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties, Premises, Secretariat of the Trust Fund for Victims, Permanent Premises Project – Host State Loan, Independent Oversight Mechanism and Office of Internal Audit. The court also notes that ‘assets that the Court holds are normally not held to generate commercial returns and are therefore non-cash generating assets,’ meaning it must build its budget from contributions alone. 

Even with that sizable budget, and the significant increase year over year, the court relies heavily on the cooperation of members to enable its operations. Outgoing Registrar Peter Lewis in 2023 said the court faced an unprecedented workload – even before taking on the investigation into alleged crimes in the Gaza Strip – and that state parties’ cooperation remained crucial to any success.

US sanctions

This makes any sanctions against the organization a potentially crippling measure: Then-President Trump in 2020 authorized an asset freeze and family entry ban against ICC officials after the court opened investigations into alleged U.S. war crimes conducted in Afghanistan. 

‘The ICC Prosecutor … thinks the Biden administration is more interested in a cozy relationship with the ICC than with protecting Israelis and Americans from its power grab,’ Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust as well as president of Human Rights Voices, told Fox News Digital.

‘If President Biden does not immediately invoke the American Service Members Protection Act, terminate all cooperation and support of the ICC, and use his authority to sanction ICC officials for their outrageous prosecution – actually persecution – of the democratic representatives of the Jewish state … justice will have been dealt a disastrous blow,’ Bayefsky said.

The Biden administration increased its cooperation with the ICC, offering assistance and intelligence to the court to bolster its investigation into alleged Russian war crimes during the invasion of Ukraine, though Kittrie noted that the ICC case against Putin ‘hasn’t made a difference’ and possibly merely added ‘some sense’ of legitimacy for the ICC prosecutor. 

Bayefsky and others have urged the Biden administration to invoke the American Servicemembers Protection Act and sanction the ICC in response to any arrest warrants for Israeli officials. 

During a speech in the Rose Garden on Wednesday at a press conference with Kenyan President William Ruto, Biden reiterated that the U.S. ‘made our position clear on the ICC … we don’t recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC, the way it’s being exercised, and it’s that simple. We don’t think there’s an equivalence between what Israel did and Hamas did.’

The Rome Statute counts 124 signatories, including most of Africa, Europe and South America, but it does not include some notable holdouts: the United States, China, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and Turkey, among others. 

The Biden administration reversed the sanctions but reinforced the position that the U.S. continued to ‘disagree strongly with the ICC’s actions relating to the Afghanistan and Palestinian situations.’ 

The Center for Constitutional Rights argued that the sanctions delayed critical investigations at the ICC, ‘directly and indirectly negatively’ impacting the work at the ICC, though perhaps not as drastically as the U.S. would have hoped.

Instead, the group argued that the sanctions created a difficult working relationship for the ICC and any potential collaborators, such as civil society organizations, investigators, lawyers and victims who would worry about facing similar sanctions for helping the ICC.

The ICC, which commenced operations in 2002, bases its authority on the signatories of the Rome Statute, which outlines four core international crimes that the court will prosecute: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression, all of which are ‘not subject to any statute of limitations’ but limited to only crimes that occurred after the statute came into force.

President Clinton signed the statute in 2000, but he demanded that the eventual ICC should address ‘fundamental concerns’ before he or any other U.S. president considered putting the statute before the U.S. Senate for ratification. The Bush administration took it a step further, withdrawing the U.S. signature and instead adopting the American Servicemembers Protection Act.

Also known as the ‘Hague Invasion Act,’ the law allows the president to use ‘all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release’ of U.S. or allied citizens detained or imprisoned by the ICC.

The bill also prevents the U.S. from providing support for the ICC, per Sec. 2004: The U.S. is prohibited from responding to requests for cooperation, of providing support to the court (including from law enforcement), of helping with extradition and using appropriated funds to assist the court, among others.