* WTTW…
The former head of Chicago’s FBI field office claims he was forced into retirement and used as a “scapegoat” by top federal prosecutor Andrew Boutros to cover “for his own misconduct” and that of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Douglas DePodesta, who abruptly resigned his position over the summer, is suing Boutros, the FBI, Department of Justice and other top Trump administration officials in a bombshell complaint which alleges he was forced out and blamed for the botched “Broadview Six” prosecution.
“To deflect attention from his own malfeasance, Boutros began a campaign within the Department of Justice to blame DePodesta for the unraveling of the case,” the 38-page lawsuit states. “Despite knowing that the case was dismissed because of improprieties by those under Boutros’ supervision … Boutros repeatedly complained to his superiors in Washington that DePodesta was responsible for the disintegration of the Broadview Six case.”
* The Tribune…
Boutros, who was forced to drop the charges in May amid accusations of prosecutorial misconduct, has tried to paint Washington’s involvement in the case as minimal.
But DePodesta alleged in the lawsuit that he and Boutros met personally with now-Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and others at the Chicago FBI headquarters on Oct. 7, 2025, shortly before Boutros’ office first took the case to the grand jury.
“During this meeting, Defendant Boutros discussed the Broadview Six investigation with his superiors in the Department of Justice and other law enforcement officers,” DePodesta alleged in the suit.
The lawsuit also accused Boutros of unlawfully pushing the FBI to open investigations in other Midway Blitz cases even when DePodesta and others — including Boutros’ own prosecutors — pushed back and said the evidence wasn’t there.
* CBS Chicago…
In his lawsuit DePodesta claims Boutros used him to “deflect attention from his own failings.” […]
“[Deputy Director of the FBI, Christopher Raia] told DePodesta that….Boutros told his superiors in the Department of Justice that DePodesta and his sister-in-law [Nancy DePodesta], a prominent defense attorney in Chicago who represented Michael Rabbitt, one of the Broadview Six defendants, had conspired to destroy the Broadview Six case,” according to the filing. “Deputy Director Raia said that Defendant Boutros had created a stir with his allegations against DePodesta and those allegations were communicated to FBI Director Kashyap Patel.”
DePodesta claims he had no role in deciding to seek charges against the Broadview Six and never spoke with his sister-in-law about the case.
“Boutros understood his statements were false, he intentionally made those statements to force DePodesta out, and his false statements had their intended effect,” according to the lawsuit.
* Sun-Times…
“The American people need to know what is happening within their government,” DePodesta, Chicago’s former FBI special-agent-in-charge, told the Sun-Times in an interview.
DePodesta acknowledged the lawsuit will likely put a target on his back. But, he insisted, “I will not let fear silence me.”
“I was forced to leave my job,” DePodesta said. “I was ordered to leave my job.” […]
DePodesta said he learned through a phone call, “completely out of the blue,” that he’d need to leave his job in Chicago. The news came from a top official, he said. But the brass also made clear to him that the decision was “not performance-based.”
* More DOJ news…
* Press release | AG Raoul assures voters of federal poll monitor obligations: Attorney General Kwame Raoul today issued a statement to remind voters that the Department of Justice has historically utilized poll monitors during elections to ensure compliance with federal voting laws. Raoul also assured voters that federal poll monitors cannot interfere with the administration of elections in any way. “Federal poll monitors are not new to this election. Historically, the Department of Justice has deployed monitors to ensure compliance with federal voting laws, and we understand that the department will undertake those efforts on Election Day in a small number of polling locations in the state of Illinois and across the country. My office has been in contact with the DOJ, and we have no reason to believe that monitors will be engaged in anything inconsistent with traditional monitoring efforts.”
* Illinois Times | Federal agents expected at polling places in Sangamon County: Voters may find federal agents at their polling site on Election Day. Sangamon County Clerk Don Gray said his office was informed that representatives from the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will monitor 19 polling sites in the county. […] “This is just the first time they’ve come to us,” he said. Gray, a Republican, said he’s not alarmed. “The Department of Justice has a longstanding history of monitoring elections nationwide,” he said. “So, they’ve always been a qualified agency for monitoring elections, especially since the federal government has federal elections at stake.”
* Center Square | Groups remain alert as DOJ plan swaps armed agents for observers at polls: ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka said trained federal elections observers being sent strictly to observe the carrying out of an election isn’t as out of the ordinary as ICE or FBI agents being sent would’ve been. “It is often true that the Department of Justice and federal officials will send observers to different parts of the country. Those observers are the same as other election observers from political parties,” Yohnka said. “Those things are perfectly appropriate, they’re perfectly consistent with what the DOJ has done for years.”
- Annon'in - Monday, Nov 2, 26 @ 12:45 pm:
Looks like the charmed life DOJ and USA in Northern District have lived for decades is crashing down on them. HMMM. Wondering cases have kinks in them?
- Big Dipper - Monday, Nov 2, 26 @ 1:00 pm:
I hope the ARDC has its eyes on this.
- Bored Chairman - Monday, Nov 2, 26 @ 1:18 pm:
What lawyer would take this case? There’s no cause of action. Political theater the day before an election. No way it survives a motion to dismiss.
- Big Dipper - Monday, Nov 2, 26 @ 1:32 pm:
His attorney is a well-known former federal prosecutor so I bet he is more knowledgeable on whether a cause of action exists than an anonymous commenter.