Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

DOGE Is Just Getting Warmed Up. DOGE has tapped into some of the most sensitive and valuable data in the world. Now it’s starting to put it to work.
by Brian Barrett
Politics
Wired.com
Apr 18, 2025 1:28 PM
https://www.wired.com/story/doge-is-jus ... ily_Active

It’s April, and the US is experiencing a self-inflicted trade war and a constitutional crisis over immigration. It’s a lot. It’s even enough to make you forget about Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency for a while. You shouldn’t.

To state the obvious: DOGE is still out there, chipping away at the foundations of government infrastructure. Slightly less obvious, maybe, is that the DOGE project has recently entered a new phase. The culling of federal workers and contracts will continue, where there’s anything left to cull. But from here on out, it’s all about the data.

Few if any entities in the world have as much access to as much sensitive data as the United States. From the start, DOGE has wanted as much of it as it could grab, and through a series of resignations, firings, and court cases, has mostly gotten its way.

In many cases it’s still unclear what exactly DOGE engineers have done or intend to do with that data. Despite Elon Musk’s protestations to the contrary, DOGE is as opaque as Vantablack. But recent reporting from WIRED and elsewhere begins to fill in the picture: For DOGE, data is a tool. It’s also a weapon.

Start with the Internal Revenue Service, where DOGE associates put the agency’s best and brightest career engineers in a room with Palantir folks for a few days last week. Their mission, as WIRED previously reported, was to build a “mega API” that would make it easier to view previously compartmentalized data from across the IRS in one place.

In isolation that may not sound so alarming. But in theory, an API for all IRS data would make it possible for any agency—or any outside party with the right permissions, for that matter—to access the most personal, and valuable, data the US government holds about its citizens. The blurriness of DOGE’s mission begins to gain focus. Even more, since we know that the IRS is already sharing its data in unprecedented ways: A deal the agency recently signed with the Department of Homeland Security provides sensitive information about undocumented immigrants.

It’s black-mirror corporate synergy, putting taxpayer data in the service of President Donald Trump’s deportation crusade.

It also extends beyond the IRS. The Washington Post reported this week that DOGE representatives across government agencies—from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Social Security Administration—are putting data that is normally cordoned off in service of identifying undocumented immigrants. At the Department of Labor, as WIRED reported Friday, DOGE has gained access to sensitive data about immigrants and farm workers.

And that’s just the data that stays within the government itself. This week NPR reported that a whistleblower at the National Labor Relations Board claims that staffers observed spikes in data leaving the agency after DOGE got access to its systems, with destinations unknown. The whistleblower further claims that DOGE agents appeared to take steps to “cover their tracks,” switching off or evading the monitoring tools that keep tabs on who’s doing what inside computer systems. (An NLRB spokesperson denied to NPR that DOGE had access to the agency’s systems.)

What could that data be used for? Anything. Everything. A company facing a union complaint at the NLRB could, as NPR notes, get access to “damaging testimony, union leadership, legal strategies and internal data on competitors.” There’s no confirmation that it’s been used for those things—but more to the point, there’s also currently no way to know either way.

That’s true also of DOGE’s data aims more broadly. Right now, the target is immigration. But it has hooks into so many systems, access to so much data, interests so varied both within and without government, there are very few limits to how or where it might next be deployed.

The spotlight shines a little less brightly on Elon Musk these days, as more urgent calamities take the stage. But DOGE continues to work in the wings. It has tapped into the most valuable data in the world. The real work starts when it puts that to use.

[admin]

Federal Judge Extends Block on DOGE’s Access to Social Security Data
by Jacob Knutson
DemocracyDocket
April 18, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... e=hs_email

A federal judge Thursday extended restrictions on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) accessing Americans’ personal data held by the Social Security Administration (SSA).

District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander said the plaintiffs in the case — a coalition of unions and retirees represented by Democracy Forward* — were likely to succeed in arguing that the SSA giving DOGE access to the sensitive information likely violated the Privacy Act and other federal laws.

“The issue here is not the work that DOGE or the Agency want to do. The issue is about how they want to do the work,” Judge Hollander, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote.

“The DOGE Team seeks access to the [personally identifiable information] that millions of Americans entrusted to SSA, and the SSA Defendants have agreed to provide it,” she added. “For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records. This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.”

The order prevents DOGE officials, including Musk, from accessing and tampering with electronic systems at SSA and requires them to destroy any personal information they may possess.

However, the judge’s order allows the SSA to give DOGE staffers access to data that’s been redacted or stripped of anything personally identifiable, if they undergo training and background checks.

“This decision sends a clear message to Elon Musk and his DOGE minions to keep their hands off Social Security,” Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said in a statement. “This regime of billionaires is wreaking havoc on the Social Security Administration – rolling out plans to cut services, sowing confusion, disregarding court orders and then denying how their actions will hurt those most vulnerable.”

*Democracy Docket Founder Marc Elias is the chair of Democracy Forward’s board.

**********************

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... afl-cio-v/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... afl-cio-v/

Case 1:25-cv-00596-ELH Document 48 Filed 03/20/25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

AMERICAN FEDERTION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, el al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al.

Defendants.

Civil Action No. ELH-25-0596

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is this 20th day of March 2025, at 2:12 p.m. by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO," ECF 21) is GRANTED.'

a. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Social Security Administration ("SSA"), Leland Dudek, and Michael Russo (collectively, "SSA Defendants"), and any and all of their agents and employees, and any person working in concert with them, directly or indirectly, are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from granting access to any SSA system of record containing personally identifiable information ("PH"), as defined in paragraph 10 hereof, or PH obtained, derived, copied, or exposed from any SSA system of record, including, but not limited to, records known as the Enterprise Data Warehouse ("EDW"), Numident, Master Beneficiary Record ("MBR"), and Supplemental Security Record ("SSR"), to the Department of Government Efficiency ("DOGE"); the United States DOGE Service; the United States DOGE Service Temporary Organization; members of the DOGE Team established at the Social Security Administration, as defined in § 10(a); Elon Musk; Amy Gleason; and/or any DOGE Affiliate, as defined in § 10 (b);

b. U.S. DOGE Service, U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, Elon Musk, and Amy Gleason (collectively, "DOGE Defendants"), as well as all SSA DOGE Team members and DOGE Affiliates, shall disgorge and delete all non-anonymized PH data in their possession or under their control, provided from or obtained, directly or indirectly, from any SSA system of record to which they have or have had access, directly or indirectly, since January 20, 2025;

c. All DOGE Defendants, as well as all SSA DOGE Team members and DOGE Affiliates, are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from installing any software on SSA devices, information systems, or systems of record, and shall remove any software that they previously installed since January 20, 2025, or which has been installed on their behalf;

d. All DOGE Defendants, as well as all SSA DOGE Team members and DOGE Affiliates, are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from accessing, altering, or disclosing any SSA computer or software code.

2. This Order does not preclude SSA from providing members of the DOGE Team with access to redacted or anonymized data and records of SSA. However, no data shall be provided unless and until the persons to whom access is to be provided have received all training that is typically required of individuals granted access to SSA data systems, including training regarding federal laws, regulations, and policies governing the privacy of PII; a background investigation is completed, comparable to the quality of background investigation conducted for SSA employees whose duties involve access to PII; detailing agreements are completed for any individual who is assigned to the DOGE Team from another agency; and all required Agency paperwork is completed, including execution of the SSA documents acknowledging the Systems Sanctions Policy and the duty to protect PII.

3. SSA may provide members of the DOGE Team with access to discrete, particularized, and non-anonymized data, in accordance with the Privacy Act, and in accordance with the conditions set forth herein: SSA must first comply with the provisions in § 2 of this Order and, in addition, SSA must first obtain from the DOGE Team member, in writing, and subject to possible review by the Court, a detailed explanation as to the need for the record and why, for said particular and discrete record, an anonymized or redacted record is not suitable for the specified use. The general and conclusory explanation that the information is needed to search for fraud or waste is not sufficient to establish need.

4. On or before March 24, 2025, at I :00 p.m. EDT, the SSA Defendants SHALL FILE a Status Report documenting the actions that they have taken to comply with this Order, and certifying the following:

a. That no DOGE Defendant, DOGE Team member, or DOGE Affiliate shall be provided with access to any SSA systems, whether or not anonymized, unless and until these persons have been provided with all training that is typically required of individuals granted access to the SSA data systems, including training regarding federal laws, regulations, and policies governing the privacy of personally identifiable information;

b. That no DOGE Defendant, DOGE Team member, or DOGE Affiliate shall have access to any SSA system of records, whether or not anonymized, unless and until a background investigation is completed, comparable to the quality of investigation for SSA employees whose duties involve access to PII, and that all required Agency paperwork is completed, including execution of the SSA documents acknowledging the Systems Sanctions Policy and the duty to protect PII;

c. As to individuals detailed to SSA from another agency, only DOGE Team members whose detail agreements are complete shall have access to any SSA records;

d. An explanation of why each DOGE Defendant,. DOGE Team member, and/or DOGE Affiliate is in need of non-anonymized access to the PII in each SSA data system to which access is sought.

5. The Court may require further Status Reports, which may, in tum, require the SSA Defendants and the DOGE Defendants to provide further detail as to their compliance activities. The Court may also enter further orders as necessary to ensure compliance with this Order.

6. This Order applies to SSA at every and any place where record systems are located, maintained, accessed, or available.

7. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), each plaintiff organization SHALL POST BOND with the Clerk of the Court in the sum of $250, for a total of $750, due by 12:00 p.m. EDT on March 24, 2025.

8. Unless the Court orders otherwise, pursuant to a motion for extension, this Order SHALL EXPIRE fourteen (14) days after entry. See Rule 65(b)(2).

9. The parties shall meet and confer to discuss a schedule for any request for limited discovery, and a briefing schedule for a preliminary injunction motion, if necessary, and shall file a joint status report on these matters by 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 2025.

10. For purposes of this Order, the following definitions apply:

a. The Court has not been provided with the names of the people who are assigned to SSA to implement the DOGE agenda. Because the number of people and the people themselves may change, the definition of the term is fluid. But, as used herein, the term "DOGE Team" refers to any person assigned to SSA to fulfill the DOGE agenda, including Executive Order 14,158.

b. "DOGE Affiliate" shall mean any employee, agent, officer, contractor, special government employee, or consultant employed by or affiliated in any way with the Department of Government Efficiency, the United States DOGE Service, the United States DOGE Service Temporary Organization, members of the DOGE Team established at the Social Security Administration; any SSA employee, contractor, special government employee, or consultant working on or implementing the DOGE agenda; anyone who has been granted access by SSA to SSA records for the purpose of implementing the DOGE agenda with respect to SSA; and any persons working, directly or indirectly, in concert with any of the above individuals;

c. "Personally identifiable information" or "PH" shall mean "information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual," and shall include, inter alia, Social Security numbers; medical records; mental health records; medical provider information; medical and mental health treatment records; employer and employee payment records; employee earnings; addresses; bank records; tax information.

__________________
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

[admin]

'60 Minutes' chief resigns, saying show's independence was compromised
by David Folkenflik
NPR.org
April 22, 20253:26 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-53 ... -paramount

The longtime head of CBS' 60 Minutes resigned Tuesday, as the network's parent company contemplates a settlement with President Trump over his lawsuit focusing on an interview the show did with then-Vice President Kamala Harris last fall.

In an emotionally charged meeting Tuesday afternoon, and again in a note to staff released publicly shortly after, the show's executive producer, Bill Owens said he was departing after 37 years with CBS News following months of heavy-handed treatment of the show by corporate leaders.

Owens, only the third leader of the show in its more than half-century history, did not explicitly cite Trump. But the president's open rancor toward 60 Minutes looms over all. Corporate parent Paramount and its controlling owner, Shari Redstone, are seeking the approval of federal regulators to sell it to the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison. The billionaire software mogul is a friend of Trump who visited the president at the White House earlier this year.

"Over the past months, it has also become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it. To make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience," Owens wrote. "So, having defended this show- and what we stand for – from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward."

At the meeting, according to two attendees, Owens said he had "lost independence from corporate." (The two people required anonymity to speak publicly due to the fraught professional environment at the show and the network.)

60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, a longtime collaborator and friend of Owens, told colleagues, "This isn't something Bill is doing of his own volition: There was no choice in any of this," according to one of the attendees.

Last fall, before regaining office, Trump sued CBS' parent company Paramount in his personal capacity. Trump pointed to the fact that the network aired two different versions of an answer Harris gave about Israel and Gaza – one on Face the Nation and the other on 60 Minutes. He demanded the network release the transcript of the raw interview, which it ultimately did this year once Trump was in office and his chief broadcasting regulator sought it. Trump was later joined by a Congressional ally in his lawsuit and doubled his demand to $20 billion.

Legal observers spanning the ideological spectrum say Trump does not have a good case. His lawsuit spuriously alleges election interference by CBS over the kind of discretionary editorial choices that routinely confront broadcast journalists, they say.

Redstone had been outspoken about the massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas in October 2023. She was rankled by some CBS coverage of Gaza, including a CBS Mornings segment last fall and a 60 Minutes story in January.

Owens has repeatedly told colleagues he would refuse to apologize to Trump. The chief executive of CBS News and Stations, Wendy McMahon, also has opposed settling.

According to an attendee of Tuesday's meeting, McMahon appeared tearful and told the people assembled that she had been supportive of everything that Owens had done.

In her own note announcing Owens' departure, McMahon wrote, "working with Bill has been one of the great privileges of my career. Standing behind what he stood for was an easy decision for me, and I never took for granted that he did the same for me."

She said CBS News already had begun conversations with correspondents and senior leaders about the next steps for the show. Owens' deputy Tanya Simon, a longtime 60 Minutes producer whose father was a correspondent for the show, will run the program for now; the network says it will be led permanently by someone who comes from within its ranks.

Lawsuit equates interview with "voter interference"

In Trump's lawsuit, filed before a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas, Trump's lawyers argued that CBS engaged in "unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive and substantial news distortion."

"It's laughable and it's an affront to the First Amendment," Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at Northwestern University who focuses on issues involving free speech and presidential powers, says of Trump's case. "His concern first and foremost is to intimidate the press."

Redstone, Paramount's controlling owner, has billions of dollars at stake in the potential sale of the company. The deal is under formal review by the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump's pick as chairman, Brendan Carr. The FCC is reviewing the acquisition because it entails the transfer of Paramount's licenses to use the public airwaves for its 27 local television stations.

Carr gave ballast to Trump's suit by requesting CBS share raw footage and full transcripts of the 60 Minutes Harris interview, which was one of Trump's demands. Carr did so after reviving a complaint against CBS that had been filed by a conservative public interest group. Carr's Democratic predecessor had dismissed the complaint in her final days in office.

CBS had previously refused to release the raw materials, citing the importance of maintaining journalistic independence from governmental interference.

Shortly after Carr's request, CBS announced it was legally required to comply, though the network had challenged the agency's requests and demands in the past. (One such appeal, over a complaint filed by the late former President Jimmy Carter, reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981.)

After receiving the unedited material, the FCC publicly posted links to it. CBS swiftly followed suit. The network also published a statement that said the material showed there had been no bias in how it presented the Harris interview.

A plea to stay the course

Carr told Fox News that day that an investigation was warranted under "news distortion" concerns because CBS played different answers on two different programs in response to the same question.

"The [federal] policy says you can't, you know, swap answers out to make it look like somebody said something entirely different," Carr said. "Clearly, the words of the answers were very different."

The transcripts and videos appear to show that CBS editors pulled from slightly different points in the same response, with Harris speaking vaguely as she attempted to sidestep controversy over the incendiary issue of Israel and Hamas.

After the transcript's release, Trump denounced CBS. "CBS should lose its license, and the cheaters at 60 Minutes should all be thrown out, and this disreputable 'NEWS' show should be immediately terminated," Trump posted online. (CBS as a network doesn't hold a license; the local stations on which it is broadcast do.)

On April 13, Trump doubled down, accusing 60 Minutes of treating him unfairly and saying he was "honored" to be suing the show, CBS and Paramount.

"They did not one, but TWO, major stories on 'TRUMP,' one having to do with Ukraine, which I say is a War that would never have happened if the 2020 Election had not been RIGGED, in other words, if I were President and, the other story was having to do with Greenland, casting our Country, as led by me, falsely, inaccurately, and fraudulently," Trump posted to Truth Social.

In his parting note, Owens urged the 60 Minutes staff to stay the course.

"60 Minutes will continue to cover the new administration, as we will report on future administrations. We will report from War zones, investigate injustices and educate our audience. In short, 60 Minutes will do what it has done for 57 years," he said.

[admin]

Judge Halts Trump’s Anti-Voting Executive Order
by Jacob Knutson
April 24, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... ive-order/

A U.S. judge Thursday blocked federal agencies from carrying out key parts of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order on elections.

The Democratic Party, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund and others are challenging Trump’s order, calling it an unprecedented assault on states’ constitutional authority to run their own elections, and warning that it could disenfranchise large numbers of voters.

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, granted the groups’ request for a preliminary injunction against several parts of Trump’s order, though she allowed other provisions to remain in effect.

Kollar-Kotelly suggested that the order vastly exceeded the scope of the president’s constitutional powers.

“The President is free to state his views about what policies he believes that Congress, the EAC, or other federal agencies should consider or adopt,” the judge wrote. “But in this case, the President has done much more than state his views: He has issued an ‘Order’ directing that an independent commission ‘shall’ act to ‘require’ changes to an important document, the contents of which Congress has tightly regulated.”

“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States — not the President — with the authority to regulate federal elections,” the judge added.

Among its many changes, Trump’s order directed the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — an independent bipartisan agency — to change a federal voter registration form to require eligible voters to show proof of citizenship.

Kollar-Kotelly said EAC commissioners and other senior commission officials are barred from taking steps to add a proof of citizenship requirement to the form. She said plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the citizenship requirement is unconstitutional.

The requirement would bar millions of voters who lack easy access to citizenship documents from using the National Mail Voter Registration Form and could force states to rapidly shift their registration procedures. If states don’t or can’t comply, Trump’s order directs the EAC to punish them by withholding federal funding.

The Trump administration argued against the preliminary injunction by claiming that the government has not taken any steps to implement the citizenship requirement.

But the Democratic Party last week presented a letter in a court filing — first reported by Democracy Docket — that suggested the EAC had begun to do so by asking states for input on how to implement the requirement. (The Democratic Party is represented in the case by Elias Law Group (ELG). ELG Firm Chair Marc Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket.)

“In short, the letter reveals that — contrary to Defendants’ representations to the Court—the EAC has, in fact, already begun to implement [the citizenship requirement],” Kollar-Kotelly said.

The judge added that the letter also indicates that the EAC is interpreting the executive order as an “instruction” and not a suggestion as the Trump administration argued in court.

The EAC’s Standards Board, which is composed of over 100 state and local election officials, held a hearing in North Carolina Thursday to discuss the implementation of Trump’s order, according to the meeting agenda.

“I’m glad to see that the provisions of Trump’s unlawful executive order that would have disenfranchised American citizens across the nation have been put to a halt, but the work doesn’t stop here,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in a statement. “Trump is abusing his power in an attempt to make it harder for voters to fight back at the ballot box. We cannot let him diminish the strength of our elections or dilute the voice of the American people.”

The judge denied plaintiffs’ request to halt provisions directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to “take all necessary action” against any states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day and directing the EAC to withhold federal funding from states that count votes they received after Election Day.

The judge said the objections against those provisions were premature or should be brought by states. Democratic attorneys general in 19 states have challenged the mail voting provisions in their own lawsuit against Trump’s order.

For now, Kollar-Kotelly also declined to bar federal agencies from giving state officials access to federal systems to verify the citizenship or immigration status of people registering to vote or who are already registered. She also declined to block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from reviewing states’ public voter registration lists.

However, the judge warned that could change if plaintiffs show that the agencies and DOGE have “a specific, imminent plan” to violate the Privacy Act and other federal laws.

[admin]

Judge Halts Trump’s Mass Firings at Consumer Finance Watchdog Agency
by Jacob Knutson
DemocracyDocket
April 18, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... ted-judge/

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from gutting an independent agency tasked with protecting people from financial fraud.

During a Friday hearing, District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, said she was “deeply concerned” about President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire almost all of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) employees.

Jackson previously ordered the Trump administration to halt attempts to dismantle the CFPB until she rules on the merits of a lawsuit from union groups and consumer protection organizations seeking to preserve the bureau.

Yesterday, the Trump administration sent layoff notices to around 1,500 of the CFPB’s 1,700 workers, saying the workers’ access to the bureau’s computer systems would be cut off on Friday evening.

After the notices were sent, plaintiffs in the case asked Jackson to intervene, arguing that the mass firings would violate her previous order by preventing the bureau from carrying out its congressionally mandated duties.

“It is unfathomable that cutting the Bureau’s staff by 90 percent in just 24 hours, with no notice to people to prepare for that elimination, would not ‘interfere with the performance’ of its statutory duties,” the plaintiffs said in a filing Thursday.

Jackson said during the hearing that she would not allow the Trump administration to follow through with the layoffs and scheduled a hearing for April 28 to receive testimony from officials directing the effort.

[admin]

Federal judge accuses White House of ‘bad faith’ in Kilmar Ábrego García case. Trump administration pushes back within hours of judge’s castigation as court battle with executive branch intensifies
by Joanna Walters and Sam Levine in New York and agencies
The Guardian
Wed 23 Apr 2025 10.13 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -bad-faith

The federal court that has found itself in a pitched battle with the executive branch over the summary removal of Salvadorian Kilmar Ábrego García despite a previous order against deportation has now accused the Trump administration of “bad faith” in the case – but received fresh pushback within hours.

US district judge Paula Xinis had given the Trump administration until 6pm ET on Wednesday to provide details to support its claims that it does not have to comply with orders to return the man to the US, where he was living and working in Baltimore, because of special privilege.

Xinis castigated the administration late on Tuesday saying it is ignoring court orders and obstructing the legal process.

“For weeks, defendants have sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this court’s orders,” Xinis wrote.

“Defendants have known, at least since last week, that this court requires specific legal and factual showings to support any claim of privilege. Yet they have continued to rely on boilerplate assertions. That ends now,” she added, giving the new deadline for information.

However, late on Wednesday morning, the Trump administration took fresh counter steps against the federal judge’s orders to produce information about the steps it has taken, if any, to return Ábrego García to the US after he was, by the government’s admission, mistakenly removed to El Salvador without even a court hearing.

Drew Ensign, a deputy assistant attorney general, filed a sealed motion asking for a stay of the order to provide sworn testimony and documents about efforts to return the man, who was living and working in Baltimore and subject to court protection against deportation to his native El Salvador before he was arrested by the immigration authorities last month and detained then removed.

The White House asked Xinis for a stay of seven days of her order and was also requesting relief from providing daily status updates on Ábrego García’s status and any efforts to get him back to the US.

The US supreme court ordered the Trump administration nearly two weeks ago to facilitate Ábrego García’s return to the US from a notorious Salvadorian prison, rejecting the White House’s claim that it couldn’t retrieve him despite the administration having admitted previously in court that it had sent him out of the country by mistake.

Ábrego García and more than 200 Venezuelans were flown to El Salvador by the US authorities last month without due process despite a federal court order for them not to leave the US and for any flights containing them that were in the air to turn around.

His wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, who has been campaigning for his release, has had to flee to a secret location because her address was revealed when US officials mistakenly posted a document featuring it on the internet, according to a Washington Post report. Donald Trump claims Ábrego García is a violent gangster but the authorities have not substantiated that allegation in court. He has not been charged with any crimes.

The supreme court and other federal courts have begun flexing their muscles to push back on Donald Trump’s efforts to defy judicial orders, escalating a hugely consequential battle over the rule of law.

Both the US president and the president of El Salvador have claimed they can’t return Ábrego García. The administration has also claimed the right to “government privilege” or other secrecy rules.

Xinis on Tuesday said those claims, without any facts to back them , reflected a “willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations”.

Two other federal judges also on Tuesday extended temporary blocks on some deportations of Venezuelan migrants and signaled that Trump’s invocation of a 1798 law historically used in wartime to speed up their removal from the US may not survive judicial review.

Denver-based US district judge Charlotte Sweeney wrote in a ruling that Trump’s administration must give Venezuelan migrants detained in Colorado notice 21 days in advance before any removals from the US under the Alien Enemies Act and must inform them of their right to challenge their removal.

And at a court hearing in Manhattan, US district judge Alvin Hellerstein appeared inclined to require the administration to notify Venezuelans at least 10 days in advance before removing them under that 18th-century law, and afford people due process, as required by the US constitution.

“This is not a secret court, an inquisition in medieval times. This is the United States of America,” Hellerstein said.

Hellerstein also said Trump’s 15 March proclamation invoking the law to fly the men to a prison in El Salvador may run afoul of the constitution’s eighth amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has begun revoking the temporary legal status of people who entered the country via an online appointment app at the US-Mexico border, as had been dreaded in some communities since Trump said: “Get ready to leave.”

More than 900,000 people came to the US legally, many after waiting for months south of the border in precarious conditions as they tried daily to snag one of the limited appointment on the Biden administration-created mobile phone app CBPOne.

Cancellation notices began landing in people’s inboxes in late March without warning, some telling recipients to leave immediately and others giving them seven days.

Targets also included some US citizens, particularly immigration lawyers, the Associated Press reported, who, according to authorities, were unintended recipients.

CBP confirmed in a statement that it issued notices terminating temporary legal status under CBP One. It did not say how many, just that they weren’t sent to all beneficiaries. Attorneys say some CBP One beneficiaries may still be within a one-year window to file an asylum claim or seek other relief. Notices have also been sent to others whose removal orders are on hold under other forms of temporary protection.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting

[admin]

Trump's FBI ARRESTS A JUDGE for Allegedly Interfering In An Immigration Enforcement Matter
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
Apr 25, 2025

The Washington Post reported, "Wisconsin judge arrested by FBI, charged with obstructing immigration arrest."

Curiously, FBI Director Kash Patel first posted then deleted information about this arrest. This video takes on the the nature of the allegations against the judge, and of Patel's ill-advised post-and-delete regarding the arrest.

If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts and mission, you can becoming a Team Justice patron at:



Transcript

[Glenn Kirschner] So friends Kash Patel's FBI which of
course equals Donald Trump's
FBI just arrested a Milwaukee Circuit
Court judge accusing her of interfering
with immigration
enforcement Let's talk about that
because justice matters
Hey all Glen Kersner here So friends
today we're going to start with the new
reporting about an extraordinarily
troubling development
And I say it's an extraordinarily
troubling development because either a
judge committed federal felony crimes
or this is an unjustified arrest of a
judge and a further indication of the
rampant lawlessness of the Trump
administration This thing is either one
or the other
So we're going to turn right to the new
reporting This from the Washington Post
Headline Wisconsin judge arrested by FBI
charged with obstructing immigrant
arrest And that article begins "Federal
prosecutors have charged a Milwaukee
judge with obstructing an immigration
arrest operation the first known
instance of the Justice Department
pursuing a criminal case against a local
official for allegedly interfering with
immigration enforcement since President
Donald Trump returned to office FBI
Director Cash Patel announced the arrest
of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah
Dugan in a post on the social media
platform X which he deleted moments
after posting Patel accused Dugan of
intentionally misdirecting federal
agents who arrived at the courthouse to
detain an immigrant who was set to
appear before her in an unrelated
proceeding And this now deleted post
from Patel Quote "Thankfully our agents
chased down the perp on foot and he's
been in custody since," Patel wrote But
the judge's obstruction created
increased danger to the public The FBI
declined to comment on why Patel had
deleted his post announcing Dugan's
arrest At a brief appearance in federal
court in Milwaukee on Friday prosecutors
said Dugan has been charged with counts
of obstruction and concealing a person
from arrest the most serious of which
are punishable by up to five years in
prison Quote "Miss Dugan wholeheartedly
regrets and protests her arrest Her
attorney told Magistrate Judge Steven D
Quote "It was not made in the interest
of public safety and we ask that the
court allow her release." Judge D
released Dugan from custody to await
future court proceedings According to
reporting by the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel ICE agents arrived in Dugan's
courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial
hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz a
30-year-old Mexican national who was
facing misdemeanor battery charges in
Wisconsin Judge Dugan asked the agents
to leave and speak to the circuit
court's chief judge The Journal Sentinel
reported by the time they returned
Flores Ruiz had left Quote "We believe
Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected
federal agents away from the subject to
be arrested in her courthouse Eduardo
Flores Ruiz allowing the subject an
illegal alien to evade arrest." Patel
wrote in his post "Judges in some
jurisdictions across the country have
criticized ISIS's efforts to locate and
detain migrants at
courouses They say those efforts have
made migrants unwilling to show up as
victims or witnesses in unrelated
hearings because they're afraid they
might face
arrest." Okay friends let's tackle three
main takeaways
One it is horrifically poor judgment for
FBI Director Cash Patel to announce on
social media the arrest of a judge only
to have to take his own post
down Something seem a little fishy there
friends
Two what Cash Patel posted and took down
was quote "We believe Judge Dugan
intentionally misdirected federal agents
away from the subject to be arrested in
her
courthouse." We
believe Well let me tell you Sport you
better have something more than your
belief that the judge committed a crime
You damn well better have probable cause
strong admissible evidence satisfying
the burden of probable cause to believe
the judge committed a crime And you sure
better have had an arrest warrant before
you locked up a judge and not just your
belief such that you made a probable
cause arrest without an arrest warrant
though I mean that would seem even too
reckless for a guy like Cash Patel until
you remember that a judge found that
Cash Patel was quote not a credible
witness when he testified on behalf of
Donald Trump in that insurrection trial
out in
Colorado So maybe he arrested the judge
without an arrest
warrant Cash Patel also posted and
deleted Thankfully our agents chased
down the perp on foot and he's been in
custody since Okay so first of all Cash
what are you in a Jimmy Kagny movie
Chase down the per on foot But really
more
importantly you don't disclose
facts You don't relate evidence of what
happened in connection with a particular
arrest Why because you're poisoning the
potential jury pool in the event this is
actually a legitimate arrest that
results in a trial You don't just start
posting on social media what happened
during the course of the arrest But you
know that's law enforcement
101 So I wouldn't really expect you to
know anything about that
Number three the judge's lawyer also
made a statement in this case at this
initial court hearing Here's what the
lawyer said Quote "Miss Dugan
wholeheartedly regrets and protests her
arrest It was not made in the interest
of public safety and we ask that the
court allow her
release." So what did the lawyer for the
judge not say
The lawyer didn't say my client Judge
Dugan committed no crime The lawyer
didn't say "My client is innocent of
these charges and of any
wrongdoing." No The lawyer said that the
judge regrets and protests her
arrest Maybe that's a tell Maybe not
What we don't know is whether the judge
committed a crime whether this was a
legitimate arrest pursuant to a lawfully
issued arrest
warrant and whether this was the right
thing to do
We don't know if this is more of the
Trump
administration's
lawlessness
unconstitutionality abuse of office
abuse of power overreach trampling on
states rights etc etc Because we know
that judges from coast to coast
including Republicanapp appointed judges
have been finding one after another that
Donald Trump and his administration is
engaged in likely
unconstitutional conduct and unlawful
conduct I mean judges appointed by
Ronald Reagan of all Republican
presidents have said that some of Donald
Trump's executive orders are blatantly
unconstitutional That's a quote Another
Reagan appointed judge said if Donald
Trump can you know unlawfully deport
Abrego Garcia well then he's going to
unlawfully deport American citizens and
his political opponents These are
Republican-appointed
judges So we know that Donald Trump and
his administration has been engaging in
lawless and unconstitutional conduct day
after day So is this more of that same
pattern or was this a legitimate arrest
because a judge violated the law And let
me tell you friends if judges violate
the law they should be held
accountable because the rule of law has
to be applied without fear or favor I
don't care if you're a judge or you're a
career drug dealer It doesn't matter For
example probable cause The standard to
arrest somebody is probable cause You
don't need more probable cause because
the person you're seeking to arrest is a
judge and less probable cause because
well it's just a drug dealer No the law
applies equally If it to if it is to
have any meaning at all the law has to
apply equally including to
judges And you know
why Because
justice
matters But friends we will keep an eye
on this story to see what evidence
develops because just because Cash Patel
tells me this is a righteous arrest
supported by probable cause and
admissible evidence I won't believe that
for a minute until I see that evidence
with my own
eyes Friends as always please stay safe
Please stay tuned and I look forward to
talking with you all again tomorrow

****

BREAKING: Trump's FBI ARRESTS JUDGE In Milwaukee
by Tim Miller and Sam Stein
The Bulwark
Apr 25, 2025

FBI agents arrested a Milwaukee judge for allegedly obstructing an immigration arrest in her courtroom. Tim Miller and Sam Stein break down what this shocking move means, how it fits into Trump’s broader strategy of intimidation, and why it could have a chilling effect on the justice system.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan arrested, charged with 2 felonies in ICE case

https://www.jsonline.c...
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/25/fbi-arr ... aukee.html



Transcript

Hey everybody Tim Miller from The Bulwark
here with managing editor Sam Stein
we have breaking news uh FBI director
Cash Patel uh says that he has arrested
a judge uh in Milwaukee Wisconsin uh on
the charge of obstructing uh the arrest
of an uh of an immigrant uh an arrest an
FBI operation to arrest an immigrant I
guess in her court i'm going to read the
tweet from Cash Patel that he since
deleted um so we'll get into that in a
second but uh he wrote just now "The FBI
arrested Judge Hannah Dugen out of
Milwaukee Wisconsin on charges of
obstruction after evidence of Judge
Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest
operation we believe Judge Dugan
intentionally misdirected federal agents
away from the subject to be arrested in
her courthouse Eduardo Ruiz allowing the
subject and illegal alien to evade
arrest thankfully our agents chased down
the perp on foot and he's been in
custody since but the judge's
obstruction incre created increased
danger to the public we'll have more to
share soon um so he tweeted that then
deleted it um it was unclear why but I
guess Sam now we have confirmation that
this judge has been arrested yeah we
were all sort of confused about why he
deleted it um which led to us wondering
if if it was real um normally you would
have like sort of a coordinated uh
announcement around this stuff it's all
very bizarre but then Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel has a piece that says the um
that the arrest was confirmed uh by a
local US Marshall Services actually
sorry DC US Marshall Services
spokesperson for them said that she this
judge was arrested at 8 a.m at the
Milwaukee County Courthouse and is in
federal custody so just let that sink in
uh we have arrested a local judge and
detained her in federal custody uh over
immigration proceedings um I can't
recall anything remotely like this
yeah i mean obviously like we're going
to have to wait for more details to
emerge before you get into total
speculation mode but just like at the
top level like arresting a judge over
not like some other private crime but
of their job like of of judging like
like something that is part of their
taking foreign bribes yeah I can see
that right yeah yeah sure or a judge
that is also happens to be a murderer or
whatever okay right right but this is a
judge like in the pro in the process of
we we presume judging work um so that is
the arrest is the arrest is that I think
the allegation specifically is they
tipped off a person who was going to be
arrested by ICE and tried to let this
alleged target of the um ICE officials
evade arrest and so that it's an
obstruction charge now I'm not This is
again maybe a bit beyond my expertise
sending the FBI after a judge over this
uh as opposed to sort of trying to
adjudicate in less dramatic fashion is a
choice right like that's a choice well
here's another choice the way that you
announce it I mean like I guess he's
deleted but like that we have the FBI
director right like this wasn't you know
Bob Mueller wasn't out there being like
we nabbed him you know like we nabbed
him like you know this the idea of doing
this as ostentatiously as possible um is
is also a choice and it is and I think
that is what we can speak on you know
with full information right now because
what they're trying to do here is
intimidate people they're trying to
intimidate officers of court they've
already gone after lawyers representing
undocumented migrants and so they are
trying to intimidate anybody that wants
to give any aid and comfort to people
that are in this country not illegally
and like and and and this is like a huge
shot across the bow and effort right and
like that is what that is this is like
un obviously and I think you have to put
it in the context of what's been
happening for like the past couple weeks
which is the the administration's had a
series not just a series like a torrent
of judicial uh decisions handed down
against them many of which have
restricted what they want to do on
immigration and they've responded by
ratcheting up the rhetoric by saying you
know this is a judicial coup these are
liberal justices issuing nationwide
injunctions they've tried to you know
challenge the idea of being able to do
nationwide injunction
And they've basically been trying to
fight this through more or less PR and
legal battles and now this to me and
it's being presented this way too is
them responding to the justice system by
actually flexing you know real Yeah the
power of their department justice
exactly and so now you've pitted two
parts of the justice justice system
against each other yep no there's no
doubt about that and I also think this
is notable in the context of the Trump
in Time interview that came out this
morning because Trump was pressed by
Time magazine about uh the way that he's
defied the Supreme Court and it's
interesting that Trump's rhetoric on
this is like he he is almost trying to
ratchet it down like he is hiding behind
lawyers right like I and I think Trump
thinks Trump thinks that the safe play
here is to be like you know I'm just I'm
just whatever my lawyers tell me what oh
if Cash Patel if if Pam Bondi says this
judge needs to be arrested oh okay
nothing I can do you know I'm not invol
like my hands are clean on this one oh
oh if the Supreme Court says I got to
bring back Garcia but but Pam Bondi and
my lawyers say that that they interpret
it differently well okay I got nothing
right and so this is like the game Trump
plays where they can intimidate they can
act
extrajudicially um and and he is trying
to like avoid like personal
accountability for it by by saying "Okay
this is this is this is what those guys
are doing this is over there right it's
he he gets a little bit of a shield
right they're his human shield." And so
if this blows up in his face or in the
administration's face he'll just say
"Well Cash decid just went ahead and did
it." And you know what i thought you
guys didn't want me to interfere with
the DOJ i thought you guys didn't want
me to politicize you know it's like I
I'm I'm instructing you to investigate
Chris Krebs in this case on one hand but
then on the other hand when you guys go
out and do something I'm like "Oh I
can't do anything about that." You know
like this is the way that he's trying to
have it i think it's important just to
like be blunt about that so that you
know to uh to kind of expose like the
how you know they're going to try to
have it both ways what's the I I How
does this play out from here right like
obviously this judge is not is going to
challenge her arrest i mean she's not
going to like just say "Yeah you got
me." No and and the secondary question
is how does the other courts react to
this right like there is sort of a
fraternalism around the judicial system
judges should in theory be appalled that
one of their own was arrested uh but I
am curious and also how does it go for
more adjudication of local immigration
cases right like if you're a local judge
and you're you're trying to figure out
what the right thing to do is around the
adjudication of this stuff you know
obviously they want you to think well
the FBI might come knocking on your door
if you go in the wrong direction here's
what I think i I think that the judicial
system will fight back and that we'll
see a lot of push back from from judges
and but here's what here's what I also
think will happen it's like a million
different fires right now there's going
to be a chilling effect though i just
there's going to be a chilling effect
man I not you know there are great s
people out there who work for nonprofits
who advocate for migrant groups who will
not be who will not be cowed by this but
there will be people that look at this
and are just like gh you know I can't
I'm not I don't want to deal with the
Trump DOJ you know if I'm housing an
illegal migrant if I'm doing something
like I I I do think that there will that
this that is where they will be
successful i think they will eventually
lose again we don't know the details of
this particular case but like they will
continue to lose these broader fights in
the courts where they're breaking the
constitution but I think that they will
succeed in the chilling effect and
that's really
that's really bleak it's it's somewhat
it's somewhat related here but the whole
immigration thing there's like two
parallel storylines going on and I think
you hit on it one is like the big
national headline stories Brega Garcia
Audrey or Andre uh the barber um and
then and those are taken 95% of the
auction but then the 5% is what's
happening locally uh the stuff like in
Milwaukee and that's actually more
consequential uh in a way because this
is where you're starting to see some
really you know kind of nasty stuff and
so I someone passed on our tips line
which by the way using tips line is
great what is it called the borg.comtips
thank you i appreciate it yeah okay so
there's a local story out of Dayton uh
about a barber and this guy who has been
here for you know decades Honduran
native he's been here in illegally but
forever uh he's had uh you know sort of
an understanding with local officials
where he would wear a monitoring
bracelet as his asylum process went
through the system and this is so messed
up but they basically said to him this
is how it reads it says ICE called
Rodriguez the guy and told him he didn't
need his bracelet anymore and he should
come to the blue ash Kentucky office to
have it removed what officials didn't
tell him is that he would be arrested
and sent to the Butler County Ohio jail
where he's being ha held currently jail
records show this is the stuff it's this
local stuff i know it's horrible it's
this local stuff that's happening all
over the country now we're seeing it
here and there and then of course in
Milwaukee now you have this
confrontation this arrest of a judge
this is what I think is like the real
story and I think this is also what's
contributing to a lot of the backlash
against Trump is that people don't like
this i don't think normal Americans
are like "Yeah let's have a judge get
arrested by the FBI because they might
have like tipped off you know you know
someone here illegally." I think that
stuff is the stuff that people require
all right much more on this to come our
colleague Adrian Kurskio uh who writes
our immigration newsletter which you
guys can check out at the blog.com uh
we'll do more reporting on this um and
uh yeah send us tips if you got tips
/tips and subscribe to us on YouTube

[admin]

Ukraine abandoned by allies: UK & France Pull Out Troops, Leaving Only Trainers Behind!
by Times Now World
Premiered Apr 25, 2025 #EU #ukraine #russia

Britain and France have quietly shelved plans to deploy ground troops in Ukraine, opting instead to send military trainers far from the frontlines. The move marks a significant retreat from earlier ambitions to protect key Ukrainian sites, with growing fears of direct conflict with Russia. As Macron and Starmer step back, Zelensky is once again left facing Moscow alone — and the EU’s military resolve is in question.



Transcript

what once looked like a bold show of
strength from Britain and Europe is now
quietly being reworked into a more
cautious scaledback military commitment
to Ukraine
britain is now likely to scrap proposals
to send tens of thousands of ground
troops to defend key Ukrainian
infrastructure a plan originally floated
to protect cities ports and nuclear
plants under a potential post ceasefire
peacekeeping mission
the Times which reviewed internal
deliberations reported that the risk of
direct confrontation with Russia was
deemed too high a source involved in the
UKled Coalition of the willing said the
proposed force was always inadequate to
provide real deterrence noting the risks
are too high and the force is inadequate
for such a
task in a sharp pivot the UK and its
European partners are now expected to
shift their focus toward reinforcing and
rearming Ukraine's military with a
stronger emphasis on air and maritime
protection over ground
presence british and French military
trainers are set to be deployed to
western Ukraine far from active front
lines to fulfill earlier commitments to
Keefe officials hoped this limited
deployment could still signal long-term
support while avoiding
escalation aircraft would patrol
Ukrainian skies offering air cover to
Western trainers on the ground meanwhile
Turkey is expected to play a significant
maritime role under the most likely
scenarios now under discussion
the UK Ministry of Defense declined to
confirm the current iteration of plans
describing it as speculation
a spokesperson told the Times that
advanced operational planning for land
sea and air support continues across the
coalition
according to the Times it had been
France not Britain that initially pushed
hardest for a more muscular military
presence on Ukrainian soil however
London had long viewed such a deployment
as a dangerous
overreach the trainers reassure by being
there the same source said but they are
not a deterrence or protection force
british planners remain wary of a
scenario where a ceasefire collapses and
foreign troops become entangled in
renewed
hostilities a situation that could
stretch NATO's eastern flank thin and
risk dragging the alliance into direct
conflict
russia meanwhile has preemptively
rejected any proposal involving foreign
troops in Ukraine valentina
Matvienko chair of the Russian
Federation Council made Moscow's
position unmistakably clear russia will
never participate in any negotiations or
any talks to discuss the terms for this
potential deployment she said
the idea was doomed to fail from the
very beginning we will never support
this because these are issues concerning
our country's security our sovereignty
no matter under what flag they do it
under what guise NATO or not NATO these
are troops from countries unfriendly to
us who are fighting against Russia who
still harbor the idea of inflicting a
strategic defeat on us it is
inconceivable that they would be
deployed in Ukraine russia will never
allow this it is impossible unrealistic
the covens and gatherings that they hold
every now and then well they can keep on
having fun diplomatic sources told the
Times that the talks now revolve around
crafting a compromise that won't require
Ukraine to abandon all its red lines
while pressuring Moscow to shift its own
behind closed doors Western officials
are betting that stepping back from
boots on the ground might just be the
concession Moscow needs to rethink its
hardline terms a strategic gamble that
could either open the door to peace or
be read as
retreat
heat heat

[admin]

Trump BLOWS UP as White House IMPLODES
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Apr 25, 2025

Open warfare and dirty laundry airing has broken out WITHIN the Trump Administration, as its Department of Transportation publicly accuses its own lawyers in the DOJ of being either "incompetent" having committed "malpractice" or they are working for the "resistance" against Trump, because they screwed up and inadvertently filed with the court a secret, privileged attorney client memo pointing out the legal argument weaknesses in the DOT's own case against NY State related to the Feds efforts to kill the congestion tolls in the City. Popok explains how between the brain drain of talent fleeing the US Attorneys' Office in Manhattan, and the stress and pressure on the ones that stayed, mistakes in the middle of the night like attaching the wrong document to a court filing can happen, but that doesn't explain the unhinged response by Trump's own cabinet to attack its lawyers in public.



Transcript

The sheer ingenuity and
creativity of the Trump administration's
Department of Justice and their
screw-ups in court seems to be boundless
this makes the 62 Mets look like
murderers row we have a new one sit down
for this one everybody we now have a war
that's broken out where the Department
of
Transportation as the client is
attacking in the open its lawyers that
work in the same government at the
Department of Justice in the Southern
District of New York's office because
three lawyers there obviously gassed
obviously emotionally and physically
drained uploaded the wrong document to
the official docket of a case involving
ving New York State against the
transportation uh department because
there the transportation department's
trying to quash New York State's ability
to control congestion and traffic with
toll congestion toll pricing in
Manhattan remember that's the one where
Donald Trump uh put up a phony Time
magazine uh article an illustration with
him as the king of New York remember
that one yeah well there's a $9 charge
if you come into Manhattan below 60th
Street and it's reduced uh
transportation by like 13% that's a good
thing so there's a lawsuit it's before
Judge Lyman judge Lyman gets an entry on
the docket right electronic docket where
entries for papers are recorded at 9:20
last night docket number 65 it's
supposed to be a letter addressed to him
on behalf of the uh the feds the uh
Southern District New York lawyers
representing the Department of Justice
about some you know procedural issue
about some recordkeeping issue that they
want to it was a relatively minor who
cares letter except they uploaded when
they went to their computer I guess they
couldn't see it they uploaded they
uploaded Instead of the letter to Judge
Lyman dated the 24th they upload
uploaded an internal document containing
secret attorney client recommendations
and advice to the Department of
Transportation from their own lawyers in
which the lawyers declared that your
position in this case Secretary Duffy
for transportation is not going to go
over well with Judge Lyman we'll give
you another way to do it but the two
major arguments that you're making are
not going to work you should drop them
now that's something that in cander with
the attorney client privilege and the
litigation privilege you give to your
client yeah you may put it in a memo i
often give my advice orally because of
this reason what happened is they didn't
mark it clearly as attorney client
privilege which I always would do in red
letters and when they were uploading it
somebody got the number wrong or the
file number wrong and instead of
uploading the letter addressed to Judge
Lyman they they uploaded their own
internal secret confidential attorney
client memo crap it all over their case
but trying to give them another way and
now the transportation department is up
in arms yelling and screaming at their
lawyers and the lawyers have been
reassigned isn't this fun you see what
happens when you take what used to be
the proud institution of the Southern
District of New York and the elite
Manhattan prosecutors and you make
everybody quit because you're forcing
them to drop cases against Mayor Adams
and others and you're making them do
things that are unethical and everybody
leaves the group that stays is
overworked and underpaid and they make
mistakes like this let's dive into it
with relish here on Legal AF while
you're here speaking of relish I'll give
you all the hot dog but here's the
relish hit the subscribe i'm like in a
baseball mood hit the subscribe button
as we continue to grow our prodemocracy
channel all right let me break down what
happened here back in February the state
of New York run by Governor Hokll great
great governor she files a lawsuit
against the Department of Transportation
the Trump administration because they're
screwing with her about the um about the
toll congestion tolling they want to
stop the program she's allowed to do the
program under the federal under a
federal grant where to
address traffic i mean traffic is just I
mean having lived there and worked there
for years traffic is out of control in
Manhattan you know there's only three or
four bridges and tunnels on the way in
it's gridlock if there's any slight
event going on or police disturbance or
the United Nations is in town it is
complete and utter madness so they've
been trying to get a handle on that they
want to reduce the amount of cars coming
into the city i mean you've got taxis
then you got Ubers then you got lifts
then you got scooters then you got
people driving in from Jersey and
Brooklyn and Staten Island it's a mess
so they they imposed this congestion
toll $9 you know what it's done it's
reduced the amount of traffic in the
city by a lot not a little there are six
million less cars coming into the city
every day because of it and traffic is
down 13% that's a good thing but to
Donald Trump who wants to be the king of
New York it's a terrible thing got to
get rid of it so he's So the New York
sues over it to get a declaration that
they can do it and it's litigating
normal course okay backdrop though
there's like a context here southern
district is rocked with an ethics
scandal where where senior lawyers like
uh like Miss Sassoon and several others
are fired fired quit fired because
they're being forced to do unethical
things and unprofessional things by the
Department of Justice now run by Donald
Trump's former criminal lawyer henchmen
and so they all start leaving like
Danielle Sassoon nine-page letter i
can't do this anymore this is
unprofessional and unethical i have you
know we want to reindict Mayor Adams not
drop the indictment and then Ed Kim he
he replaces her he gets fired then
another one comes in he gets fired and
while and Donald Trump all he wants to
do is put his golf buddy Jay Clayton who
used to be the head of the Securities
and Exchange Commission under Donald
Trump literally it's his it's the golf
buddy of Howard Lutnick the commerce
secretary and Donald Trump that's how he
got the job i mean whatever so he was a
US attorney once before they give him
back the job in fact in filings they
make to the court they misstate his
title he is not I assure you the United
States attorney for Manhattan Jay
Clayton he is at best the acting interim
US attorney for Manhattan for at least
four more months until he can get
confirmed but be why quibble so
everybody's leaving quinton leaving but
you know there are some lawyers left
they got nowhere to go and and whatever
it is and three lawyers in particular I
don't mean to call them out but it's in
the public domain it's three lawyers
actually I'm not going to call them out
it's it's three lawyers one happens to
be the deputy chief of the civil
division for litigation in the Manhattan
DA's office you know pretty good job
been out for about 20 years the other
two lawyers are relatively junior um all
right so they you know you you give
advice you write memos you know to your
law to your client you say "This is the
good part of your case this is the bad
part of your case that we should
emphasize this we should deemphasize
that we should develop this record and
they basically gave Duffy I'm not going
to read you a letter it's been sealed
now although I do have a copy uh they
they um from the docket they uh argue
you know the merits of the case and they
give Duffy the uh or somebody working
for Duffy Aaron Hendrickson the senior
trial attorney at the Department of
Transportation they give her advice we
should emphasize this this is a loser
before Judge Lyman fix this this is the
better argument you know what lawyers do
i mean what you don't do is you don't
send that onto the public docket for
your adversary to see and for me to
report on and so they immediately
figured out well 30 minutes later they
figured out when the media saw it bing
bing bing bing bing bing phones blowing
up i'm sure this is the worst day in
these three relatively young lawyers
lives and they get um they got to file
now a few minutes later 30 40 minutes
later a letter to Judge Lyman i'm
already getting nervous for them and
here's what the here's what that letter
said dear Judge Lyman at 9:04 p.m last
night the undersigned council
inadvertently uploaded an attorney
client communication from this office to
do Department of Transportation to ECF
which is the electronic filing docket
system you know you click some buttons
you attach some documents and it uploads
rather than a letter intended for your
honor immediately upon realizing this
error at 9:18 all right so it took him
14 minutes we contacted all council of
record via email advising them advising
them of this inadvertent filing of a
privileged communication and requesting
that they not download the document or
if they did to delete it um and then the
clerk put a temporary seal on it 948
accordingly we respectfully request that
the court remove or permanently seal
docket number 65 and hold that the
inadvertent filing does not constitute a
waiver of the attorney client privilege
uh we sincerely apologize for any
inconvenience respectfully these three
lawyers on behalf of Jay Clayton United
States Attorney for Southern District
now that did not satisfy the Department
of Transportation and Sean Duffy who I
think is married to somebody on Fox News
who went cuckoo crazy and started
publicly attacking their own lawyers
that work in the same government out
loud here's here's what
um here's what they had to say on that
one so they start
complaining the Department of uh
Transportation starts complaining that
this is legal malpractice this is a
continued fall from grace for the
Southern District of New York and it's
either incompetence or it is a form of
resistance on behalf of these lawyers so
they're they're not saying it was an
innocent error it wasn't an honest error
they're rejecting that and they're
attacking their own lawyers so the
Department of Justice led by Pam Bondi
and ultimately Donald Trump decided they
had to transfer the case out of the
Southern District of New York and sent
it to main justice in Washington for
them to handle it more closely but have
you ever seen such a thing this is like
when the FBI and the Department of
Justice were battling it out in the
early days of the Trump administration
this time around now you've got the
client yelling at the uh yelling at the
lawyers accusing them of being not only
incompetent but unprofessional and
having intentionally leaked something in
order to undermine their case which is a
serious charge to make against a lawyer
especially a series of young lawyers now
listen I went through the LinkedIn for
some of these lawyers i mean one in
particular I don't know she reposted
something about somebody complaining
about being fired from US aid by the
Trump administration probably not the
smartest thing to do but I don't really
care about their politics errors happen
have I ever sent an attorney everybody
who's a
lawyer who participates in electronic
discovery an exchange of documents in
the hundreds of thousands if not
millions of pages everyone I know has
made an error one time in their life
where they've sent inadvertently an
attorney client privilege document to
the other side it happens you know
there's just a sheer volume of documents
you know you you use platforms and
databases to try to sort it through you
use AI to help you but sometimes it's
just human error something slips through
and there's a procedure under the
federal rules to reclaim that to claw it
back so it doesn't harm the client it
happens and I'm not here to defend i
don't know exactly what happened here
but I highly doubt that these three
lawyers for the Department of Justice's
Southern District of New York decided to
and on behalf of you know supporting
their colleagues who quit sacrificed
their professional ethics by hitting the
inadvertent button if they did that they
would have just left it there you know
they knew it was going to get picked up
by the media all right so they can fix
this it does it's not helping to bash
them they shouldn't be airing the dirty
laundry if you know what I mean and
transferring these people away from the
case but but that's that's the Trump
administration and we're going to see
more of these screw-ups not less how
many times have we had accidental issues
with the Trump administration oops we
deported and removed Kilmar Abrego Garcia
to El Salvador oops we we posted the
address for Obrego Garcia's wife and now
she's had to move into hiding oops it's
always an oops and it's because they by
hollowing out all of these institutions
and having a brain drain right where
where the smart people leave leaving
behind the rest and now they're
overworked and underpaid bad things
happen bad bad things happen when people
don't want to work for this
administration and that's what we're
watching i'll continue to follow it
right here on Legal AF

[admin]

Trump Claims He’s Negotiating With China on Trade. China Says Otherwise. President Trump said that “we’re meeting with China” on tariffs, comments aimed at soothing jittery financial markets. But Chinese officials say no talks have taken place.
By Ana Swanson and Jonathan Swan
New York Times
April 25, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/p ... nping.html

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

President Trump, whose trade war with China has rattled financial markets and threatened to disrupt huge swaths of trade, suggested on Friday that he had been in touch with Xi Jinping, China’s president, even as Chinese officials insisted that no negotiations were occurring.

In an interview with Time on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Xi had called him, though he declined to say when, and asserted that his team was in active talks with China on a trade deal. Asked about the interview outside the White House on Friday morning, the president reiterated that he had spoken with the Chinese president “numerous times,” but he refused to answer when pressed on whether any call had happened after he imposed tariffs this month.

Mr. Trump’s comments appeared aimed at creating the impression of progress with China to soothe jittery financial markets, which have fallen amid signs that the world’s largest economies are in a standoff. The S&P 500 is down 10 percent since Mr. Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration.

But the president’s claims of talks have been rejected by Chinese officials, who have repeatedly denied this week that they are actively negotiating with the United States.

“China and the U.S. have not held consultations or negotiations on the issue of tariffs,” Guo Jiakun, the spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, said in a news conference on Friday. “The United States should not confuse the public.”

Chinese officials have repeatedly said the United States should stop threatening China and engage in dialogue on the basis of equality and respect. On Thursday, He Yadong, a spokesman for China’s Commerce Ministry, said there were “no economic and trade negotiations between China and the United States.”

“Any claims about progress in China-U.S. economic and trade negotiations are baseless rumors without factual evidence,” he said. The Chinese Embassy in Washington declined to comment

“As we have always stated, President Trump’s team continues to correspond with their Chinese counterparts,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. “The president remains optimistic about securing a fair trade deal with China.”

Mr. Trump ratcheted up tariffs on Chinese imports to a minimum of 145 percent this month, in a bid to force China into trade negotiations. But Chinese officials responded by issuing their own tariffs on American products and clamping down on exports to the United States of minerals and magnets that are necessary for many industries, including the defense sector.

The Chinese also appear to have ignored Mr. Trump’s suggestions that the best way to resolve the issue would be for Mr. Xi to get in touch with him directly. With the two governments at an impasse, businesses that rely on sourcing products from China — varying from hardware stores to toymakers — have been thrown into turmoil. The triple-digit tariff rates have forced many to halt shipments entirely.

Trump officials have admitted that the status quo with China on trade is not sustainable, and some have considered paring back levies on the country. But the White House insists it will not do that unless a deal is reached for China to do the same.

Asked in the Time interview if he would call Mr. Xi if the Chinese leader did not call first, Mr. Trump said no.

“We’re meeting with China,” he said. “We’re doing fine with everybody.”

Mr. Trump also said, without evidence, that he had “made 200 deals.” He claimed that he would finish and announce them in the next three to four weeks.

“I have been reporting on economics, trade and international relations for over a decade, from both China and the U.S. I aim to underpin my work with data and numbers, as well as give voice to the personal stories of people I encounter in my reporting.”

Trump announced higher “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly 60 countries at the beginning of April. The White House has since said it received requests from dozens of countries to negotiate trade terms, and Peter Navarro, the White House trade adviser, has said the administration would strike “90 deals in 90 days.”

Ms. Leavitt said this week that the Trump administration had received 18 proposals on paper and that the trade team was “meeting with 34 countries this week alone.”

But many trade experts have expressed skepticism, given that past U.S. trade deals have taken on average over a year to negotiate.

The president told Time that trade with countries like China had been unfair and needed to be changed. “You can’t let them make a trillion dollars from us,” he said.

Mr. Trump said he would look individually at companies seeking exemptions from tariffs. He also said he had a list of products that would be fine to import. “There are some products I really don’t want to make here,” he said.

But Mr. Trump insisted that tariffs were encouraging companies to move back to the United States, and that he would consider having high tariffs a year from now a “total victory” because the country would be “making a fortune.”

“This is a tremendous success,” he said. “You just don’t know it yet.”

In public, Mr. Trump has been saying that his tariffs are working out well, that countries are coming to him begging for deals and that everything will work out beautifully for the American people.

In private, the president’s team has been less cheery. Major retailers have briefed Mr. Trump on their expectations for empty store shelves if his tariffs are kept in place. His top economic advisers, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, were so alarmed by the sell-off in the bond markets, and the potential for a widespread financial panic, that they urged Mr. Trump to put a 90-day pause on his reciprocal tariffs two weeks ago.

Since then, his team has focused on how to de-escalate his trade war with China without appearing to have capitulated.

Mr. Trump and some of his advisers believed that the Chinese economy would be highly vulnerable to U.S. tariffs, given the country’s dependence on exporting to the United States. But they appear to have misunderstood the extent of the president’s leverage over Mr. Xi.

Chinese officials have made clear, through their statements to the news media, that they have not appreciated the bullying tone from Mr. Trump and that any negotiations need to be run through a formal process.

Beijing has also carefully censored and curated information in China about the trade war, and emphasized the country’s resilience and ability to withstand pain.

Mr. Trump, meanwhile, has seen his poll numbers drop. His approval rating on the economy — always a strength for him — has now become a weakness. Republican lawmakers fear a wipeout in the 2026 midterms, compounding the pressure on Mr. Trump to make deals that will restore a sense of economic well-being.

Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University and the former head of the China division for the International Monetary Fund, said both countries seemed to recognize the need to begin negotiations but each wanted to initiate them on their own terms.

“The narrative in Beijing seems to have shifted in recent days, with policymakers there stiffening their backs and feeling that they can ride this out,” he said. “Their perception seems to be that the Trump team will come to them as the U.S. economy is suffering proportionately more damage from the escalating trade war.”

Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics for The Times and is based in Washington. She has been a journalist for more than a decade.

Jonathan Swan is a White House reporter for The Times, covering the administration of Donald J. Trump.

A version of this article appears in print on April 26, 2025, Section A, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Says Talks Are On, But China Says Otherwise.

© 2025 The New York Times