The case of Sara Levine, a former temporary Assistant U.S. Attorney under the Biden administration, has become the latest flashpoint in the broader public backlash to the Justice Department’s handling of January 6 prosecutions—a saga that continues to divide Americans sharply along political and legal lines.
Now out of a job, Levine’s public lament over her dismissal has not earned her sympathy from critics—in fact, quite the opposite. Commentators like Julie Kelly, a leading voice opposing what she and many others have called the “J6 show trials”, have seized on Levine’s complaints as hypocritical, self-serving, and tone-deaf, especially in light of the DOJ’s aggressive tactics against mostly nonviolent January 6 defendants.
This is funny.
I didn’t see temporary asst US attorney Sara Levine cry when I watched her prosecute one of the last J6 trials the week before Christmas 2024.
When Biden DOJ forced a single mom charged with 4 misdemeanors who was inside the Capitol for 9 minutes engaged in no… pic.twitter.com/e01amGskhb
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 30, 2025
Levine was among a group of temporary hires brought in by the DOJ to manage the overwhelming caseload related to January 6, many of which involved misdemeanor-level infractions, nonviolent trespassers, or defendants charged with novel “parading” and “obstruction” offenses. Despite the limited terms of their employment, Levine appears to have expected a longer runway under a new administration, and her termination by Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin—installed after Trump’s return—sparked a public protest tour that included weepy testimony in front of Congress.
But Kelly and other critics didn’t buy the tears. To them, Levine’s firing was not a miscarriage of justice—it was long-overdue accountability for a prosecutor who they argue enthusiastically pursued politically motivated cases against Americans whose only crime was attending a protest and being caught in the DOJ’s legal dragnet.
Kelly labeled Levine a “crybully”—a term that’s catching on to describe progressive bureaucrats who, after zealously enforcing ideologically motivated policies, cry foul when the consequences boomerang back onto them. Whether it’s her courtroom tactics, her public lamentations, or her alleged manipulation of a 2022 jury survey to push biased trial locations, Levine has become a lightning rod in the post-2024 discourse over DOJ overreach.
Here is crybully Sara Levine’s Nov 14, 2024 response on behalf of Biden DOJ opposing J6er request to delay trial. She claimed it was in the “public interest” to put this woman on trial in DC on Dec 16, 2024. pic.twitter.com/XjhthlUSMN
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 30, 2025
Even more damning, critics pointed out that Levine had sought to press forward with trials against nonviolent defendants after Trump had explicitly pledged to pardon J6 participants. Rather than stand down or recommend leniency, she reportedly tried to rush cases forward, raising questions about political motivations and prosecutorial zealotry.
For those tracking the fallout from the Biden-era DOJ’s aggressive pursuit of January 6 defendants, Levine’s dismissal is symbolic of a broader turning tide. Many are now calling for formal investigations, disbarments, and potentially even criminal liability for what they describe as civil rights abuses committed by DOJ lawyers and federal judges who refused to relocate trials despite overwhelming evidence of DC jury bias.
The J6er (I won’t name her) righfully argued she could not get a fair trial in DC after the results of 2024 election in Washington.
What stands out to me is Levine’s deceptive use of a jury survey conducted by Thomas Webster showing DC bias. (DC courts including appellate court… pic.twitter.com/eGJyx5R4Hn
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 30, 2025
Levine, in their view, isn’t a victim—she’s a symbol of a two-tiered justice system finally getting exposed, and maybe, if karma has anything to say about it, getting reversed.
