Presidents, Patriots, and the First Amendment: Can President Trump Legally Praise Putin?
By Chat GPT
5/12/25
Q. Does Pres. Trump have the legal right to express support for Russia as to the Russia-Ukrainian war when a lot of people think that stand is against American foreign policy interests? And isn't the president the ultimate determiner of what is in our best foreign interests? Does this come under the President's 1st amendment rights, just as it does with the rest of us, or is he a special exception who does not have that 1st amendment right to speech like the rest of us?
A. President Donald Trump’s favorable remarks about Vladimir Putin and criticism of U.S. support for Ukraine have ignited a firestorm. His opponents call it unpatriotic or even treasonous. But in a country founded on free speech and governed by the Constitution, the issue is not how the comments are perceived—but whether they are lawful.
The answer is yes. President Trump’s statements are constitutionally protected, and indeed, as the current head of state, he possesses wide discretion to set and express foreign policy—even when it runs counter to tradition or popular opinion.
The First Amendment Applies to Presidents, Too
The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech for everyone—including the President of the United States. There is no exception carved out for speech that diverges from conventional foreign policy positions or criticizes longstanding alliances.
Presidents have historically used their office to challenge prior policies. Think of Woodrow Wilson’s neutrality, FDR’s early reluctance to confront Nazi Germany, or Richard Nixon’s overtures to Communist China. These weren’t illegal—they were constitutional exercises of executive leadership.
Even if the public or Congress disagrees, the President retains the right to voice and implement his views, unless constrained by statute or treaty.
The President Shapes Foreign Policy
Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and the chief architect of foreign policy. This authority was emphasized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), which described the President as the “sole organ” of the federal government in international relations.
So, when President Trump expresses skepticism about NATO or support for negotiations with Russia, he isn’t merely offering an opinion—he’s performing his constitutional role.
Whether his views are controversial or unconventional is politically relevant—but not legally disqualifying.
Treason? Not Even Close
Some critics reach for the most inflammatory accusation: treason. But treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution (Art. III, §3) as levying war against the U.S. or “adhering to [its] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Expressing admiration for a foreign leader, proposing peace talks, or questioning military aid does not meet that bar—not even remotely.
No court has ever held that a President’s statements, by themselves, constitute treason—no matter how unorthodox or unpatriotic they might sound.
Dangerous Speech? That’s a Political Judgment
Under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech cannot be punished unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and likely to do so. President Trump’s foreign policy views, no matter how divisive, fall far outside that exception.
The appropriate check on presidential speech is not prosecution—it is political accountability: elections, congressional oversight, and the public square.
Dissent in the Oval Office Is Not New
History is replete with examples of presidents who challenged the foreign policy consensus:
• FDR defied isolationists to support Britain before WWII.
• Reagan negotiated with the “evil empire” despite years of Cold War hostility.
• Obama negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran amid fierce bipartisan criticism.
President Trump’s views on Russia may provoke outrage, but he follows in a long tradition of American leaders willing to break foreign policy molds.
Conclusion: A Constitutional Right and Presidential Power
President Trump is not only allowed to express controversial views about Russia—he is constitutionally empowered to reshape U.S. foreign policy based on those views. That power is not unchecked, but it is real. If the public or Congress disagrees, they have political tools—not legal ones.
Calling such speech “treason” or “illegal” is not just inaccurate—it risks undermining the very freedoms we claim to defend.
In America, we don’t jail presidents for their opinions. We debate them, we oppose them, or we vote them out. That’s how constitutional government works—even in times of global conflict and political strife.
********************************
Part 2
Q. Do a lot of Americans think that Russia is a Communist country, and Putin is a communist dictator? And is Russia an automatic symbol of communism to a lot of Americans?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, many Americans—especially older generations or those less familiar with post-Soviet geopolitics—still conflate modern Russia with Soviet-style communism, and often view Vladimir Putin as a "communist dictator" despite the current reality being quite different. This stems from a combination of historical memory, political rhetoric, and oversimplified media portrayals. Let’s break it down:
1. Historical Legacy: Cold War Conditioning
• For decades during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the primary adversary of the United States and the leader of the global communist bloc.
• Russia, as the largest Soviet republic, was often seen as synonymous with communism.
• American culture, media, and education during the 20th century instilled a deep-seated association: Russia = Communism = Enemy.
• For Baby Boomers and Gen X, that association remains psychologically sticky, even though the USSR dissolved in 1991.
2. Is Russia Communist Today? No.
• Modern Russia is not a communist country. It is a federal semi-presidential republic with a capitalist economy dominated by oligarchic state-private alliances.
• The Communist Party of the Russian Federation exists, but it is an opposition party and does not govern.
• The ruling party is United Russia, which espouses nationalism, authoritarianism, and “managed democracy”—not communism.
3. Is Putin a Communist Dictator?
• No, not in the classical sense. Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian strongman, but his ideology is not Marxist-Leninist.
• Putin promotes Orthodox Christian nationalism, imperial nostalgia, and anti-Western sentiment, but not state socialism or classless communism.
• He has also made explicit efforts to rehabilitate the image of the Russian Empire and the Orthodox Church, not the Communist Party.
4. Why Do Some Americans Still Use “Communist” as a Label?
• In U.S. political discourse, especially in populist or right-wing rhetoric, “communist” is often used as a general insult for any authoritarian or anti-American regime.
• Some Americans may label Putin a communist out of habit, confusion, or as shorthand for “bad foreign leader aligned against the U.S.”
• Media simplifications, limited foreign affairs education, and ideological tribalism all reinforce this conflation.
5. So Is Russia Still a “Symbol of Communism”?
• To some Americans, yes—particularly older generations, Cold War veterans, or those who don’t distinguish between Soviet history and modern geopolitics.
• To more informed or younger Americans, Russia is more accurately seen as an autocratic, nationalist, corrupt capitalist state—not a communist one.
Conclusion
While Russia today is not communist, many Americans still reflexively associate it with communism, and some wrongly describe Putin as a communist dictator. This is more about historical memory and rhetorical shorthand than political reality.
***************
Part 3
And when did Ukraine become a "democratic" state, and under which American-led circumstances did it become so?
ChatGPT said:
Ukraine’s evolution into a democratic state has been messy, contested, and incomplete, but it has generally moved toward democracy since gaining independence in 1991. However, its progress has been heavily influenced by American and European support, especially after two major popular uprisings—the Orange Revolution (2004) and the Euromaidan Revolution (2013–2014).
Here's a structured overview of when and how Ukraine became a “democratic” state, and how the U.S. helped shape that process:
Ukraine’s Path Toward Democracy
• 1991: Independence from the Soviet Union
Ukraine declared independence on August 24, 1991, and confirmed it by popular referendum in December 1991.
The first president, Leonid Kravchuk, was a former Communist official, and the early 1990s were marked by oligarchic capitalism, corruption, and weak institutions.
While technically a republic with elections, democracy was largely nominal in the 1990s.
• 2004: The Orange Revolution
Presidential elections in 2004 were widely seen as rigged in favor of pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych.
Massive protests erupted in Kyiv, culminating in the Orange Revolution.
The U.S. supported civil society groups, election monitors, and independent media via USAID, NED (National Endowment for Democracy), and other channels.
A re-run of the election led to a victory for pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko.
U.S. Role: While not a direct “regime change,” American NGOs and State Department programs helped fund democratic activism. Russia denounced it as a CIA-backed color revolution.
• 2010–2014: Authoritarian Backslide and Euromaidan
Yanukovych returned to power in 2010 and began consolidating authoritarian control.
In 2013, he rejected an EU Association Agreement, triggering mass protests—known as the Euromaidan Revolution or Revolution of Dignity.
Violent crackdowns in early 2014 led to Yanukovych fleeing the country.
• U.S. Role: The U.S. openly supported Euromaidan activists, with Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland visiting the square. Leaked calls revealed U.S. interest in shaping post-Yanukovych leadership.
• 2014–Present: Post-Revolution Reform and War
After 2014, Ukraine undertook democratic reforms, strengthened its parliament, and cracked down on corruption (with limited success).
Russia responded by annexing Crimea and backing separatists in eastern Ukraine.
In 2019, comedian-turned-reformer Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected president with a strong anti-corruption and pro-Western mandate.
• U.S. Role: After 2014, the U.S. significantly increased support for Ukrainian democracy, defense, anti-corruption efforts, and integration with NATO and the EU. This support further deepened the West/Russia divide.
So When Did Ukraine Become “Democratic”?
There is no single date when Ukraine became a true democracy, but the post-2014 period, especially after the Euromaidan uprising, is when democratic institutions began to solidify—under direct Western encouragement and with U.S. strategic backing.
It is still a hybrid system, with corruption, oligarchic influence, and wartime martial laws complicating the picture. But it holds competitive elections, has relatively free media (compared to Russia), and a vibrant civil society.
Summary of American-Led Circumstances
Year / Event / U.S. Involvement
1991 Independence Recognized Ukraine; began aid programs
2004 Orange Revolution Funded NGOs, election monitoring; supported pro-democracy protests
2013–14 Euromaidan Supported civil society; criticized Yanukovych; encouraged EU alignment
2014–2022 Post-Maidan Funded reforms, training, military assistance; aligned with NATO strategy
2022–Now Russian invasion Massive U.S. military, economic, and democratic support
*******************
Part 4
Q. What is the role and history of Victoria Nuland in Ukraine's "democracy building" exercise?
ChatGPT said:
Victoria Nuland has played a central and highly visible role in the U.S. government's efforts to influence Ukraine’s political trajectory, particularly during key democratic upheavals. A career diplomat and foreign policy heavyweight, Nuland has served as a senior architect of U.S. policy toward Ukraine across both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Her involvement spans nearly two decades, peaking during the 2013–2014 Euromaidan Revolution, when she became both a symbol of U.S. support for democracy and, in the eyes of critics, a lightning rod for accusations of American regime meddling.
Who Is Victoria Nuland?
Career: U.S. diplomat with posts under Cheney, Clinton, Obama, and Biden.
Key Roles:
• U.S. Ambassador to NATO (2005–2008)
• State Dept. Spokesperson under Secretary Hillary Clinton (2011–2013)
• Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (2013–2017)
• Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2021–2024) under President Biden
She is married to neoconservative writer Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
Victoria Nuland’s Role in Ukraine
1. Pre-Euromaidan Diplomacy (2013)
• As Assistant Secretary of State, Nuland pressed the Yanukovych government to sign an EU Association Agreement.
• When President Yanukovych rejected it in favor of closer Russian ties, mass protests erupted in Kyiv—the start of the Euromaidan movement.
2. “Cookies on the Maidan” (December 2013)
• Nuland visited protesters in Independence Square (Maidan) and handed out food, symbolizing U.S. solidarity with anti-Yanukovych demonstrators.
• This was widely broadcast and criticized by Russia as direct interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs.
3. The Leaked Call ("F* the EU") — February 2014**
• A phone call between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked online.
• They discussed preferred opposition leaders and how to “glue this thing together.”
• Nuland said “F* the EU**,” reflecting frustration with EU diplomacy.
• Russia used the leak as proof of U.S. orchestration of regime change.
Key Quote:
“Yats is the guy... He’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.”
(referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who soon became prime minister)
4. Post-Revolution Period (2014–2016)
• Nuland remained deeply involved in shaping U.S. support for Ukraine’s transitional government.
• Promoted anti-corruption measures, constitutional reforms, and NATO integration.
• Worked on U.S. military and financial assistance packages.
• Helped isolate Russia diplomatically and build support for sanctions after Crimea’s annexation.
5. Under Biden (2021–2024)
• Returned as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
• Advocated continued military and economic support to Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.
• Championed the narrative that Ukraine’s democratic resilience is critical to U.S. national interest.
Controversy & Criticism
Russia’s View: “Regime Change Architect”
• Nuland is a frequent target of Russian propaganda, portrayed as a “color revolution” puppet master.
• The 2014 leak and public support for regime change are cited as proof of U.S. interference.
Criticism from Non-Interventionists
• Critics, including some on the American right and left, argue that Nuland helped provoke Russia into aggression by pushing NATO alignment and regime change.
Summary of Nuland’s Impact
Period / Action / Effect
2013 Advocated EU alignment Sparked tension with Yanukovych
2013–14 Supported Maidan protesters Emboldened revolutionaries, angered Russia
Feb 2014 Leaked call Damaged EU-U.S. unity, exposed backchannel strategy
2014–16 Supported reform agenda Boosted U.S. influence in post-Yanukovych Ukraine
2021–24 Led State Dept. policy under Biden Central figure in post-2022 support for Ukraine
Final Thought
Victoria Nuland's role in Ukraine is emblematic of modern U.S. democracy promotion: a mix of diplomacy, realpolitik, soft power, and strategic containment of adversaries like Russia. Whether seen as a champion of democratic values or an agent of foreign interference, she has undeniably been one of the most influential American officials in shaping Ukraine’s current political direction.
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon May 12, 2025 5:02 pm
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue May 13, 2025 2:22 am
Trump Thinks He Can Get Around Due Process by Suspending Habeas Corpus? Federal Judges Disagree!
by Glenn Kirschner
May 12, 2025
Donald Trump apparently thinks the Constitution is inconvenient, getting in the way of his fervent desire to deport anyone and everyone he wants out of the United States.
His latest unconstitutional scheme is to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, which enables people being confined by Trump's executive branch to challenge the legality of their detention.
Trump and his henchmen, guys like Stephen Miller, apparently think they can unilaterally suspend habeas corpus? The problem for them is the federal courts disagree, including Republican/conservative icon, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Transcript
so friends donald trump and his little
minions like steven miller and others
find the constitution really
inconvenient because it's stopping them
from doing what they want to do
fortunately federal judges continue to
insist that trump's executive branch
abide by the
constitution let's talk about that
because justice
[Music]
matters hey all glen kersner here so
friends donald trump really wants to
deport folks doesn't he i mean starting
with immigrants but does anybody doubt
that he'll make his way to imprisoning
and deporting his political opponents
and heck anybody who displeases him but
there's a problem for donald trump a
real challenge it is that pesky
constitutional right of due process
notice and opportunity to be heard by a
judge because it's not donald trump who
makes the ultimate decision whether
somebody can be properly detained and
deported no it's a
judge and trump and steven miller and
those of their ilk don't like that one
little bit so they're cooking up a new
scheme and federal judges are sounding
alarm bells
let's start with some new reporting in
politico headline judges warn trump's
mass deportations could lay groundwork
to ensnare americans and that article
begins a fundamental promise by
americans founders that no one should be
punished by the state by the government
without a fair hearing is under threat a
growing chorus of federal judges say and
here's what some of those federal judges
are saying quote "when the courts say
due process is important we're not
unhinged we're not radicals." us
district judge anna reyes a washington
dcbased appointee of president joe biden
said at a recent hearing quote "we are
literally trying to enforce a process
embodied in probably the most
significant document with respect to
people's rights against tyrannical
government oppression." that's what
we're doing here okay and friends it's
not just judges who were appointed by
presidents who happen to be democrats
that are sounding the alarm about what
trump and company are trying to do
there's this from a judge appointed by
president ronald reagan
quote "if today the executive claims the
right to deport without due process,"
and this was judge wilkinson speaking
about immigrants in the context of the
abrego garcia case if the executive the
president claims the right to deport
without due process and in disregard of
court orders what assurance will there
be tomorrow that it will not deport
american citizens and then disclaim
responsibility to bring them home
wondered j harvey wilkinson a ronald
reagan appointee to the richmondbased
fourth circuit court of appeals judge
wilkinson described an incipient crisis
but also an opportunity to rally around
the rule of law and in the abrego garcia
opinion judge wilkinson went on to say
this and what asurances shall there be
that the executive the president will
not train its broad discretionary powers
upon its political enemies
the threat even if not the actuality
would always be president and the
executive's obligation to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed would
lose its meaning and friends can i
reference just one more judge or
actually in this case a supreme court
justice who believes that the
constitutional due process right of
notice and opportunity to be heard by a
judge are pretty damn important
it's a fight the judges are increasingly
casting as existential rooted in the
fifth amendment's guarantee that no
person shall be deprived of life liberty
or property without due process of law
the word person courts have noted makes
no distinction between citizens or
non-citizens
the supreme court has long held that
this fundamental promise extends to
immigrants in deportation proceedings in
a 1993 opinion justice antinine scalia
called that principle well
established that's right friends supreme
court justice antinine scalia it doesn't
get any more conservative in recent
generations on the supreme court than
justice scalia and he said "it is well
established that citizens and
noncitizens enjoy due process rights."
but donald trump and steven miller don't
like that they don't like the kind of
things that reagan appointed judge
harvey wilkinson say about how everyone
every person enjoys due process rights
notice and opportunity to be heard by a
judge they don't like courts having
their say they don't like the
constitution having its say donald trump
doesn't seem to be fond of the whole
checks and balances that are necessary
to the lawful operation of our
government so they are hatching a new
unconstitutional
scheme just get rid of due process
altogether
extinguish the right of the people to
notice an opportunity to be heard by
suspending the process that protects
that right the writ of habius corpus
what we refer to as the great writ it is
the writ it is the vehicle the mechanism
the procedure that protects people
citizens and non-citizens alike from
being unlawfully
imprisoned
unconstitutionally detained by the
executive branch by the trump
administration
and here's some of the reporting
regarding this new
unconstitutional scheme miller trump and
others are cooking
up trump administration's threat to
suspend core us legal right sparks
outcry and
alarm and that article begins "legal
experts and democrats expressed growing
alarm over the weekend that trump
administration officials are openly
discussing unilaterally suspending
habius corpus a bedrock american legal
right without the approval of congress
the rid of habius corpus which dates
back centuries grants anyone detained in
the us the right to see a judge
challenged the government's evidence
against them and present a defense but
white house deputy chief of staff steven
miller downplayed its significance on
friday suggesting that the
administration could move to suspend it
unilaterally
quote "that's an option we're actively
looking at," miller told reporters at
the white house steven vladic a
constitutional law professor at
georgetown university described miller's
statement on substack as factually and
legally nuts and called it the most
remarkable and remarkably scary comments
about federal courts that i think we've
ever heard from a senior white house
official
other legal scholars strongly challenged
miller's assertion that the president
could unilaterally suspend habius corpus
latin for that you have the body and let
me just add here essentially the writ of
habius corpus is a writ that can be
ordered issued by a judge directing the
government the executive branch to bring
me the body of the person you are
detaining
vladic and three other experts said that
a legal consensus has existed for
decades that only congress has the
authority to suspend the right the rid
of habius corpus they noted that article
one of the constitution which describes
congress's powers states the privilege
of the writ of habius corpus shall not
be suspended unless when in cases of
rebellion or invasion the public safety
may require it ilia sman a law professor
at george mason university called
miller's claim that the president has
the power to unilaterally suspend habius
corpus false quote "habius corpus can
only be suspended under the constitution
in times of invasion or insurrection
none of that is happening now said sman
a libertarian legal scholar and the
simon chair of constitutional studies at
the libertarian kato institute quote and
it can only be done by congress not the
president acting on his own
sman and jonathan adler a law professor
at case western reserve university cited
a 2004 supreme court ruling in which
conservative justice sandre de o' conor
concluded that only congress has the
authority to suspend habius corpus
justice okconor also emphasized that
habius corpus has acted as a critical
check on the executive branch's power in
other words a critical check on donald
trump's power to unlawfully detain
individuals in the us and one more time
let's go to the guru of all things
conservative on the supreme court
justice
scalia supreme court justice antinine
scalia a conservative icon agreed in an
opinion of his own that the power to
suspend habius corpus rests solely with
congress he also said that the executive
branch the trump administration cannot
unilaterally round up americans and hold
them in detention without charge even in
times of rebellion
you know friends these conservative
icons who are revered in republican
circles justice scalia justice okconor
judge wilkinson all prove to any
thinking person's
satisfaction that donald trump and
steven miller are
unconstitutional
hacks i would go so far as to call them
constitutional cannibals
and yet what do we hear from the
republicans in
congress
crickets i mean are they really going to
let donald trump destroy our
constitution terminate our
constitutional construct of government
or at some point will they cross the
aisle to save democracy
you know to our republican friends i
would say in a world of donald trump's
and stephen
miller's be a liz
cheney be an adam
kinzinger just cross the aisle to save
democracy because
justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and i look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]
by Glenn Kirschner
May 12, 2025
Donald Trump apparently thinks the Constitution is inconvenient, getting in the way of his fervent desire to deport anyone and everyone he wants out of the United States.
His latest unconstitutional scheme is to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, which enables people being confined by Trump's executive branch to challenge the legality of their detention.
Trump and his henchmen, guys like Stephen Miller, apparently think they can unilaterally suspend habeas corpus? The problem for them is the federal courts disagree, including Republican/conservative icon, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Transcript
so friends donald trump and his little
minions like steven miller and others
find the constitution really
inconvenient because it's stopping them
from doing what they want to do
fortunately federal judges continue to
insist that trump's executive branch
abide by the
constitution let's talk about that
because justice
[Music]
matters hey all glen kersner here so
friends donald trump really wants to
deport folks doesn't he i mean starting
with immigrants but does anybody doubt
that he'll make his way to imprisoning
and deporting his political opponents
and heck anybody who displeases him but
there's a problem for donald trump a
real challenge it is that pesky
constitutional right of due process
notice and opportunity to be heard by a
judge because it's not donald trump who
makes the ultimate decision whether
somebody can be properly detained and
deported no it's a
judge and trump and steven miller and
those of their ilk don't like that one
little bit so they're cooking up a new
scheme and federal judges are sounding
alarm bells
let's start with some new reporting in
politico headline judges warn trump's
mass deportations could lay groundwork
to ensnare americans and that article
begins a fundamental promise by
americans founders that no one should be
punished by the state by the government
without a fair hearing is under threat a
growing chorus of federal judges say and
here's what some of those federal judges
are saying quote "when the courts say
due process is important we're not
unhinged we're not radicals." us
district judge anna reyes a washington
dcbased appointee of president joe biden
said at a recent hearing quote "we are
literally trying to enforce a process
embodied in probably the most
significant document with respect to
people's rights against tyrannical
government oppression." that's what
we're doing here okay and friends it's
not just judges who were appointed by
presidents who happen to be democrats
that are sounding the alarm about what
trump and company are trying to do
there's this from a judge appointed by
president ronald reagan
quote "if today the executive claims the
right to deport without due process,"
and this was judge wilkinson speaking
about immigrants in the context of the
abrego garcia case if the executive the
president claims the right to deport
without due process and in disregard of
court orders what assurance will there
be tomorrow that it will not deport
american citizens and then disclaim
responsibility to bring them home
wondered j harvey wilkinson a ronald
reagan appointee to the richmondbased
fourth circuit court of appeals judge
wilkinson described an incipient crisis
but also an opportunity to rally around
the rule of law and in the abrego garcia
opinion judge wilkinson went on to say
this and what asurances shall there be
that the executive the president will
not train its broad discretionary powers
upon its political enemies
the threat even if not the actuality
would always be president and the
executive's obligation to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed would
lose its meaning and friends can i
reference just one more judge or
actually in this case a supreme court
justice who believes that the
constitutional due process right of
notice and opportunity to be heard by a
judge are pretty damn important
it's a fight the judges are increasingly
casting as existential rooted in the
fifth amendment's guarantee that no
person shall be deprived of life liberty
or property without due process of law
the word person courts have noted makes
no distinction between citizens or
non-citizens
the supreme court has long held that
this fundamental promise extends to
immigrants in deportation proceedings in
a 1993 opinion justice antinine scalia
called that principle well
established that's right friends supreme
court justice antinine scalia it doesn't
get any more conservative in recent
generations on the supreme court than
justice scalia and he said "it is well
established that citizens and
noncitizens enjoy due process rights."
but donald trump and steven miller don't
like that they don't like the kind of
things that reagan appointed judge
harvey wilkinson say about how everyone
every person enjoys due process rights
notice and opportunity to be heard by a
judge they don't like courts having
their say they don't like the
constitution having its say donald trump
doesn't seem to be fond of the whole
checks and balances that are necessary
to the lawful operation of our
government so they are hatching a new
unconstitutional
scheme just get rid of due process
altogether
extinguish the right of the people to
notice an opportunity to be heard by
suspending the process that protects
that right the writ of habius corpus
what we refer to as the great writ it is
the writ it is the vehicle the mechanism
the procedure that protects people
citizens and non-citizens alike from
being unlawfully
imprisoned
unconstitutionally detained by the
executive branch by the trump
administration
and here's some of the reporting
regarding this new
unconstitutional scheme miller trump and
others are cooking
up trump administration's threat to
suspend core us legal right sparks
outcry and
alarm and that article begins "legal
experts and democrats expressed growing
alarm over the weekend that trump
administration officials are openly
discussing unilaterally suspending
habius corpus a bedrock american legal
right without the approval of congress
the rid of habius corpus which dates
back centuries grants anyone detained in
the us the right to see a judge
challenged the government's evidence
against them and present a defense but
white house deputy chief of staff steven
miller downplayed its significance on
friday suggesting that the
administration could move to suspend it
unilaterally
quote "that's an option we're actively
looking at," miller told reporters at
the white house steven vladic a
constitutional law professor at
georgetown university described miller's
statement on substack as factually and
legally nuts and called it the most
remarkable and remarkably scary comments
about federal courts that i think we've
ever heard from a senior white house
official
other legal scholars strongly challenged
miller's assertion that the president
could unilaterally suspend habius corpus
latin for that you have the body and let
me just add here essentially the writ of
habius corpus is a writ that can be
ordered issued by a judge directing the
government the executive branch to bring
me the body of the person you are
detaining
vladic and three other experts said that
a legal consensus has existed for
decades that only congress has the
authority to suspend the right the rid
of habius corpus they noted that article
one of the constitution which describes
congress's powers states the privilege
of the writ of habius corpus shall not
be suspended unless when in cases of
rebellion or invasion the public safety
may require it ilia sman a law professor
at george mason university called
miller's claim that the president has
the power to unilaterally suspend habius
corpus false quote "habius corpus can
only be suspended under the constitution
in times of invasion or insurrection
none of that is happening now said sman
a libertarian legal scholar and the
simon chair of constitutional studies at
the libertarian kato institute quote and
it can only be done by congress not the
president acting on his own
sman and jonathan adler a law professor
at case western reserve university cited
a 2004 supreme court ruling in which
conservative justice sandre de o' conor
concluded that only congress has the
authority to suspend habius corpus
justice okconor also emphasized that
habius corpus has acted as a critical
check on the executive branch's power in
other words a critical check on donald
trump's power to unlawfully detain
individuals in the us and one more time
let's go to the guru of all things
conservative on the supreme court
justice
scalia supreme court justice antinine
scalia a conservative icon agreed in an
opinion of his own that the power to
suspend habius corpus rests solely with
congress he also said that the executive
branch the trump administration cannot
unilaterally round up americans and hold
them in detention without charge even in
times of rebellion
you know friends these conservative
icons who are revered in republican
circles justice scalia justice okconor
judge wilkinson all prove to any
thinking person's
satisfaction that donald trump and
steven miller are
unconstitutional
hacks i would go so far as to call them
constitutional cannibals
and yet what do we hear from the
republicans in
congress
crickets i mean are they really going to
let donald trump destroy our
constitution terminate our
constitutional construct of government
or at some point will they cross the
aisle to save democracy
you know to our republican friends i
would say in a world of donald trump's
and stephen
miller's be a liz
cheney be an adam
kinzinger just cross the aisle to save
democracy because
justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and i look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue May 13, 2025 4:31 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 15, 2025 2:09 am
Donald Trump speaks at Saudi-US investment forum in Riyadh – watch live
Guardian News
The US president, Donald Trump, speaks at the Saudi-US investment forum in Riyadh, which is being attended by some of America's top bankers, tech executives, Saudi officials and business leaders
Guardian News
The US president, Donald Trump, speaks at the Saudi-US investment forum in Riyadh, which is being attended by some of America's top bankers, tech executives, Saudi officials and business leaders
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 15, 2025 5:35 pm
Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri released after ICE detention in Texas
by Gloria Pazmino and Emily R. Condon
CNN
5/15/25
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/14/us/judge ... -khan-suri
Georgetown University post-doctoral fellow Badar Khan Suri has been ordered released by a US district judge in Virginia. Georgetown University
Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri was released from a federal detention center in Texas on Wednesday, marking at least the third time a detained student or academic targeted by the Trump administration because of their protest activity or affiliation was released from immigration detention.
Earlier on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, issuing her ruling from the bench, said the government had failed to provide any evidence to continue to detain Khan Suri, who has been held in a Texas immigration detention facility for two months.
“I gave the government multiple opportunities to submit any type of filing to controvert these claims or support their opposition to these motions and they declined,” Tolliver Giles said.
The judge ordered Khan Suri’s release without bond, only requiring him to continue living in Virginia and to attend court proceedings in person. Khan Suri will be able to attend his deportation proceedings virtually, which are unfolding in Texas, Tolliver Giles said.
Badar Khan Suri (left) is photographed leaving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on Wednesday. Phuong Tran/ACLU
Khan Suri is one of several non-citizen international scholars, faculty and students who have been detained or targeted for immigration enforcement as part of the Trump administration’s effort to target noncitizens who have participated in pro-Palestinian activism. Others include Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Madawi and Momodou Taal.
Last month, a Vermont judge ordered Columbia University student and permanent US resident Mohsen Mahdawi to be released. Mahdawi helped organize pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia and was detained during a citizenship appointment.
In Vermont last week, a judge ordered the release of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national and Tufts University student who was detained a year after she co-authored an op-ed in the school newspaper which was critical of the school’s response to the war in Gaza.
The cases have raised thorny legal questions about jurisdiction as well as First Amendment rights to free speech, which extend to both citizens and noncitizens under the US Constitution.
“He should have never been arrested and jailed for his constitutionally protected speech, just because our government disagrees with him,” said Sophia Gregg, an attorney for the ACLU, who argued on Khan Suri’s behalf Wednesday.
Khan Suri’s attorneys said his detention was “punitive in purpose” and a retaliatory measure for his advocacy for Gaza and association with his wife and her father, a government official in Gaza, during the hearing.
His wife, Mapheze Saleh, is a Palestinian American. Saleh is also a former employee of the Qatari-based news network Al Jazeera and the daughter of Ahmed Yousef, a former adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader assassinated by Israel in Iran last year.
Khan Suri, who has not been charged with a crime, has been in the United States since 2022 on a valid visa. According to court documents, Khan Suri is a post-doctoral fellow and taught a course focused on South Asian minority rights at Georgetown.
The Trump administration revoked Khan Suri’s visa and accused him of having ties to Hamas, a terrorist organization. He was detained by masked federal officers outside his home in Rosslyn, Virginia, in March. He was moved across multiple state lines shortly after his arrest before being held in custody in a Texas detention center.
Saleh, who was in court during Wednesday’s proceedings, said her husband has told her he wears his detention “as a badge of honor” because he believes he was targeted because of his wife’s Palestinian background.
“Badar is a scholar, a researcher and a lover of freedom, truth and justice. I’m proud to be his wife and the mother of his three children,” Saleh said. “I’m a Palestinian woman who feels the pain of my people in Gaza. I’m also an American who believes in the freedom of speech. We are here in US, to live, to learn, to research and practice our profession, not to be separated as a family, not to be tortured, not to be disappeared, and definitely not to be to put in the detention center for no crime.”
by Gloria Pazmino and Emily R. Condon
CNN
5/15/25
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/14/us/judge ... -khan-suri
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... i-v-trump/
Suri v. Trump (1:25-cv-00480)
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Last Updated: May 14, 2025, 3:58 p.m.
Assigned To: Patricia Tolliver Giles
Referred To: William B. Porter
64. May 14, 2025. Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles: Motions Hearing held on 5/14/2025.Appearances of Counsel for Petitioner and Counsel for Respondents.RE: 20 MOTION for Release on Bond filed by Badar Khan Suri - MATTER ARGUED AND GRANTED; 5 MOTION to compel respondents to return petitioner to this district filed by Badar Khan Suri - DENIED AS MOOT; Respondents Oral Motion to Stay Release DENIED. ORDER TO FOLLOW. Court Reporter: S. Wallace (pmil, ) (Entered: 05/14/2025)
65. May 14, 2025. ORDER, for the reasons stated in open court, Petitioner's 20 Motion for Release on Bond is GRANTED and Petitioner's 5 Motion to Compel Respondents to Return Petitioner to this District is DENIED as moot; Petitioner Dr. Khan Suri is to be immediately released on his personal recognizance during the pendency of his habeas proceedings subject to the following conditions: (see Order for details); Respondents shall not attempt to re-detain Petitioner without providing 48-hours notice to the Court and Petitioner's counsel; Respondent's request to stay this Court's decision pending appeal is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles on 05/14/25. (pmil, ) (Entered: 05/14/2025)
Georgetown University post-doctoral fellow Badar Khan Suri has been ordered released by a US district judge in Virginia. Georgetown University
Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri was released from a federal detention center in Texas on Wednesday, marking at least the third time a detained student or academic targeted by the Trump administration because of their protest activity or affiliation was released from immigration detention.
Earlier on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, issuing her ruling from the bench, said the government had failed to provide any evidence to continue to detain Khan Suri, who has been held in a Texas immigration detention facility for two months.
“I gave the government multiple opportunities to submit any type of filing to controvert these claims or support their opposition to these motions and they declined,” Tolliver Giles said.
The judge ordered Khan Suri’s release without bond, only requiring him to continue living in Virginia and to attend court proceedings in person. Khan Suri will be able to attend his deportation proceedings virtually, which are unfolding in Texas, Tolliver Giles said.
Badar Khan Suri (left) is photographed leaving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on Wednesday. Phuong Tran/ACLU
Khan Suri is one of several non-citizen international scholars, faculty and students who have been detained or targeted for immigration enforcement as part of the Trump administration’s effort to target noncitizens who have participated in pro-Palestinian activism. Others include Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Madawi and Momodou Taal.
Last month, a Vermont judge ordered Columbia University student and permanent US resident Mohsen Mahdawi to be released. Mahdawi helped organize pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia and was detained during a citizenship appointment.
In Vermont last week, a judge ordered the release of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national and Tufts University student who was detained a year after she co-authored an op-ed in the school newspaper which was critical of the school’s response to the war in Gaza.
The cases have raised thorny legal questions about jurisdiction as well as First Amendment rights to free speech, which extend to both citizens and noncitizens under the US Constitution.
“He should have never been arrested and jailed for his constitutionally protected speech, just because our government disagrees with him,” said Sophia Gregg, an attorney for the ACLU, who argued on Khan Suri’s behalf Wednesday.
Khan Suri’s attorneys said his detention was “punitive in purpose” and a retaliatory measure for his advocacy for Gaza and association with his wife and her father, a government official in Gaza, during the hearing.
His wife, Mapheze Saleh, is a Palestinian American. Saleh is also a former employee of the Qatari-based news network Al Jazeera and the daughter of Ahmed Yousef, a former adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader assassinated by Israel in Iran last year.
Khan Suri, who has not been charged with a crime, has been in the United States since 2022 on a valid visa. According to court documents, Khan Suri is a post-doctoral fellow and taught a course focused on South Asian minority rights at Georgetown.
The Trump administration revoked Khan Suri’s visa and accused him of having ties to Hamas, a terrorist organization. He was detained by masked federal officers outside his home in Rosslyn, Virginia, in March. He was moved across multiple state lines shortly after his arrest before being held in custody in a Texas detention center.
Saleh, who was in court during Wednesday’s proceedings, said her husband has told her he wears his detention “as a badge of honor” because he believes he was targeted because of his wife’s Palestinian background.
“Badar is a scholar, a researcher and a lover of freedom, truth and justice. I’m proud to be his wife and the mother of his three children,” Saleh said. “I’m a Palestinian woman who feels the pain of my people in Gaza. I’m also an American who believes in the freedom of speech. We are here in US, to live, to learn, to research and practice our profession, not to be separated as a family, not to be tortured, not to be disappeared, and definitely not to be to put in the detention center for no crime.”
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 15, 2025 6:05 pm
Gabbard fires officials who released memo contradicting Trump’s Venezuela gang claims. Two highest-ranking employees fired due to opposition to Trump, says Tulsi Gabbard’s office, without giving examples
by Coral Murphy Marcos and agency
Wed 14 May 2025 20.57 EDT
The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ce-firings
Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, has fired the two highest-ranking officials at the National Intelligence Council (NIC) just weeks after the council released an assessment that contradicted Donald Trump’s justification for using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process.
Mike Collins was serving as acting chair of the NIC before he was dismissed alongside his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof. They each had more than 25 years of intelligence experience.
The two were fired because of their opposition to the US president, Gabbard’s office said in an email on Wednesday, without offering examples.
“The director is working alongside President Trump to end the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community,” the office said.
The firings follow the release of a declassified memo from the NIC that found no coordination between Venezuela’s government and the Tren de Aragua gang. The Trump administration had given that as reasoning for invoking the Alien Enemies Act and deporting Venezuelan immigrants. The intelligence assessment was released in response to an open records request filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
The latest round of intelligence firings comes as Gabbard and her team aim to eliminate what they view as bias and inefficiency within the intelligence community. On X, formerly Twitter, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, Alexa Henning, said the NIC officials, whom she referred to as “Biden holdovers”, were removed for “politicizing intelligence”.
While it’s not uncommon for new administrations to replace senior officials with their own picks, the firings of two respected intelligence officials who had served presidents of both parties have prompted concern. US congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said he’s seen no details to explain the dismissals.
“Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the President’s political agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical,” Himes said in a statement.
Though it’s not widely known to the public, the NIC plays a key role in the country’s spy services, helping combine intelligence gathered from different agencies into comprehensive assessments used by the White House and senior national security officials.
Collins was considered one of the intelligence service’s top authorities on East Asia. Langan-Riekhof has served as a senior analyst and director of the CIA’s strategic insight department and is an expert on the Middle East.
Attempts to reach both were unsuccessful on Wednesday. The CIA declined to comment publicly, citing personnel matters.
Gabbard also is consolidating some of the intelligence community’s key operations, moving some offices now located at the CIA to buildings for the office of the director of national intelligence (ODNI), her office said. They include the NIC as well as the staff who prepare the president’s daily brief, the report to the president that contains the most important intelligence and national security information.
The move will give Gabbard more direct control over the brief. While the brief is already ODNI’s responsibility, the CIA has long played a significant role in its preparation, providing physical infrastructure and staffing that will have to be moved to ODNI or recreated.
Gabbard oversees and coordinates the work of 18 federal intelligence agencies. She has worked to reshape the intelligence community – eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs under Trump’s orders and creating a taskforce to examine ways to cut costs and consider whether to declassify material relating to Covid-19 and other topics.
Gabbard also has vowed to investigate intelligence leaks and end what she said was the misuse of intelligence for political aims.
The Associated Press contributed reporting
by Coral Murphy Marcos and agency
Wed 14 May 2025 20.57 EDT
The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ce-firings
Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, has fired the two highest-ranking officials at the National Intelligence Council (NIC) just weeks after the council released an assessment that contradicted Donald Trump’s justification for using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process.
Mike Collins was serving as acting chair of the NIC before he was dismissed alongside his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof. They each had more than 25 years of intelligence experience.
The two were fired because of their opposition to the US president, Gabbard’s office said in an email on Wednesday, without offering examples.
“The director is working alongside President Trump to end the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community,” the office said.
The firings follow the release of a declassified memo from the NIC that found no coordination between Venezuela’s government and the Tren de Aragua gang. The Trump administration had given that as reasoning for invoking the Alien Enemies Act and deporting Venezuelan immigrants. The intelligence assessment was released in response to an open records request filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
The latest round of intelligence firings comes as Gabbard and her team aim to eliminate what they view as bias and inefficiency within the intelligence community. On X, formerly Twitter, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, Alexa Henning, said the NIC officials, whom she referred to as “Biden holdovers”, were removed for “politicizing intelligence”.
While it’s not uncommon for new administrations to replace senior officials with their own picks, the firings of two respected intelligence officials who had served presidents of both parties have prompted concern. US congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said he’s seen no details to explain the dismissals.
“Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the President’s political agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical,” Himes said in a statement.
Though it’s not widely known to the public, the NIC plays a key role in the country’s spy services, helping combine intelligence gathered from different agencies into comprehensive assessments used by the White House and senior national security officials.
Collins was considered one of the intelligence service’s top authorities on East Asia. Langan-Riekhof has served as a senior analyst and director of the CIA’s strategic insight department and is an expert on the Middle East.
Attempts to reach both were unsuccessful on Wednesday. The CIA declined to comment publicly, citing personnel matters.
Gabbard also is consolidating some of the intelligence community’s key operations, moving some offices now located at the CIA to buildings for the office of the director of national intelligence (ODNI), her office said. They include the NIC as well as the staff who prepare the president’s daily brief, the report to the president that contains the most important intelligence and national security information.
The move will give Gabbard more direct control over the brief. While the brief is already ODNI’s responsibility, the CIA has long played a significant role in its preparation, providing physical infrastructure and staffing that will have to be moved to ODNI or recreated.
Gabbard oversees and coordinates the work of 18 federal intelligence agencies. She has worked to reshape the intelligence community – eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs under Trump’s orders and creating a taskforce to examine ways to cut costs and consider whether to declassify material relating to Covid-19 and other topics.
Gabbard also has vowed to investigate intelligence leaks and end what she said was the misuse of intelligence for political aims.
The Associated Press contributed reporting
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 15, 2025 7:06 pm
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... ezuela.pdf
Approved for release by ODNI on 5/5/2025, Case No. DF-2025-00379
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL
SENSE OF THE COMMUNITY MEMORANDUM
7 April 2025 SOCM 2025-11374
(b)(3) [DELETE] Venezuela: Examining Regime Ties to Tren de Aragua
* (U) This assessment was prepared under the auspices of the National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Western Hemisphere. It was drafted by the National Intelligence Council (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. Classified By: (b)(3) [DELETE] Derived From: (b)(3) [DELETE] Declassify On: (b)(3) [DELETE] (b)(3) [DELETE]
(b)(3) [DELETE] Tren de Aragua (TDA) is a transnational gang based in Venezuela that has spread to at least seven South America and Caribbean countries, operating in loosely-organized cells of localized, individual criminal networks. TDA leaders have historically been located and broadly benefitted from various permissive conditions and incapacities in Venezuela. They probably communicate to varying degrees with some TDA cells in other countries, although other cells probably operate and coordinate amongst themselves independently, judging from DHS reporting (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. Some self-described TDA criminal entities or individuals lack direct ties to TDA leadership but still use the TDA moniker for reputational benefits, complicating the IC’s ability to identify and track authentic group members and networks.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] TDA formed around 2007 in the Tocoron Prison located in Aragua State, Venezuela, which served as its initial base of operations. The group’s senior founders and probable core leaders are Hector Guerrero Flores, a.k.a. Nino Guerrero or El Nino, Yohan Jose Romero a.k.a. Johan Petrica, and Larry Alvarez Nunez, a.k.a. Larry Changa. Alvarez Nunez is in Colombian custody.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] In recent years, TDA leadership has faced setbacks, including losing their centralized location in Tocoron Prison and having several senior TDA leaders arrested in Colombia by the Colombian National Police. In 2023, the Venezuelan regime cleared TDA from Tocoron Prison, although the group’s leaders were able to escape in the operation, possibly assisted by low-level Venezuelan military and political leaders, judging from DHS reporting. The regime may have expelled TDA from the prison to undercut regional press alleging TDA ties to disputed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, or to disrupt further destabilizing activities by gang members inside Venezuela.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] TDA and other Venezuelan organized criminal groups have spread to other countries, aided by the movement of the larger body of Venezuelan migrants into Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States, in particular. Nicaragua and Panama have also reported encountering TDA affiliates, (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. From 2021 to 2024 there was a spike in Venezuelan encounters at the US-Mexico border, in which some TDA members could have been present as they have generally moved with Venezuelan migrant communities and profit from human trafficking and migrant smuggling. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. The small size of TDA’s cells, its focus on low-skill criminal activities, and its decentralized structure make it highly unlikely that TDA coordinates large volumes of human trafficking or migrant smuggling.
(b)(3) [DELETE] Maduro Regime Probably Maintains Ad Hoc Links to Some Criminal Groups in Venezuela
(b)(3) [DELETE] Maduro regime leadership probably sometimes tolerates TDA's presence in Venezuela, and some government officials may cooperate with TDA for financial gain. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] instances of regime officials' cooperation with various armed and criminal groups, such as Colombia's National Liberation Army or Los Colectivos, have been ad-hoc and reportedly driven by the regime's desire for help controlling territory or deterring a perceived threat of invasion, or for individual financial gain.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] The Madura regime generally does not impede illegal armed and criminal groups from operating in Venezuela, but it does combat and seek to contain them when it fears they could destabilize the regime or when corrupt deals sour. Venezuela 's security services lack the capacity to fully control Venezuelan territory, giving the regime an interest in cooperating with armed groups for insight and control in areas outside the services' traditional areas of operation. Furthermore, combatting such groups often results in personnel losses, probably encouraging the regime to at times cooperate with some groups instead of contesting them.
• b)(3) [DELETE] Some mid- to low-level Venezuelan officials probably profit from TDA's illicit activities, according to (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] and press reporting. For example, local military officials have alerted other armed and criminal groups conducting aerial drug shipments to Venezuelan Air Force patrols and might have alerted TDA leadership of a planned raid in 2023 against the prison that was its base of operations.
(b)(3) [DELETE] Maduro Regime Probably Not Directing TDA Activities
(b)(3) [DELETE] While Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States. The IC bases this judgment on Venezuelan law enforcement actions demonstrating the regime treats TDA as a threat; an uneasy mix of cooperation and confrontation rather than top-down directives characterizing the regime's ties to other armed groups; and the decentralized makeup of TDA that would make such a relationship logistically challenging. Furthermore, most of the IC judges that intelligence indicating that regime leaders are directing or enabling TDA migration to the United States is not credible and would need (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] reporting (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] corroborated (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. While FBI analysts agree with the above assessment, they assess some Venezuelan government officials facilitate TDA members' migration from Venezuela to the United States and use members as proxies in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and the United States to advance what they see as the Maduro regime's goal of destabilizing governments and undermining public safety in these countries, based on DHS and FBI reporting as of February 2024.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] Venezuelan intelligence, military, and police services view TDA as a security threat (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] and operate against it in ways that make it highly unlikely the two sides would cooperate in a strategic or consistent way, according to (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] and press reporting (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. In late January, at least two Venezuelan National Guard units arrested TDA members in Venezuela in separate operations.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] Since at least 2016, Venezuelan security forces have periodically engaged in armed confrontations with TDA, resulting in the killing of some TDA members, according to (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(3) [DELETE] The IC has not observed the regime directing TDA, including to push migrants to the United States, which probably would require extensive (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] coordination and funding between regime entities and TDA leaders that we would collect. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. The IC also recognizes the regime appreciates migration as a safety valve, allowing discontented Venezuelans to leave. US border encounters of Venezuelan national have decreased since January because of migrant perceptions of new US enforcement policies. Since late January, border encounters have plummeted more than 80 percent, according to (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] reaching the lowest level in decades.
• (b)(3) [DELETE]. The limited IC reporting suggesting a link between TDA and some Venezuelan officials aimed at facilitating TDA migration to the United States (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. In some cases, reporting warns that these sources could also be motivated to fabricate information. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
(b)(3) [DELETE]. Some regime officials are probably willing to capitalize on migration flows for personal financial or other benefits, even though the Maduro regime probably is not systematically directing Venezuelan outflows, such as to sow chaos in receiving countries. The intelligence record indicates Venezuelans have migrated voluntarily, often at great personal risk, to flee political instability and near-collapse of Venezuela's economy. The IC attributes increased migration flows, including the spike in US arrivals from 2021 to 2024 (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] of Venezuelan nationals -- which could include some TDA members -- to a variety of push and pull factors, including socioeconomic conditions, family ties to the United States, and migrants' perceptions of US and regional enforcement. At the same time, Maduro has not taken meaningful steps to curb migration, highlighting his partial accountability, probably because it has helped him retain power by having dissidents leave the country, increasing remittances to Venezuela that help ease economic strains for remaining populations, and allowing the regime to spend less on social services. The Maduro regime may have also welcomed the logistical, financial, and political headaches that unregulated migration has caused for the US Government, its perceived principal adversary, even if not a principal intent.
• (b)(3) [DELETE]. Since 2014, an estimated 7.8 million Venezuelans have departed their country, with roughly 6.6 million now residing in Latin America and the Caribbean as of late 2024. Increased migration flows have coincided with periods of acute political and economic instability in Venezuela, and irritated regional receiving countries, including neighboring Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Most Venezuelan migrants, including those traveling to the United States and in the region, seek more stable economic and political environments, judging from surveys and interviews with regional and US-bound Venezuelan migrants.
• (b)(3) [DELETE]. The lack of transparency and accountability in Venezuela has created an environment for widespread corruption and for regime officials to benefit from a variety of illicit activities, an environment fueled by Maduro's illegitimate and autocratic grip on power. This persistent outflow of migrants probably offers opportunities for some regime officials in capacities to facilitate migration movement to look for and receive personal kickbacks for their services, and to conceal the benefits they receive.
(b)(3) [DELETE] Potential Indicators of a Change in the Maduro Regime-TDA Relationship
(b)(3) [DELETE] The IC is closely tracking key indicators of any shift in the relationship between the Maduro regime and TDA, including (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] weapons transfers, (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. If the regime's relationship with the group became more cooperative, the IC would expect to see most regime operations against TDA to cease and some indication that the regime was providing TDA state resources. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]
• (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. Local press provides some insight on potential ties between the regime and TDA, but the IC typically does not rely solely on such media given the highly polarized media environment.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] US law enforcement reporting has the most focus on TDA and its activities in the United States because of its unique legal collection authorities among IC components. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(3) [DELETE]. The next event that may shed light on regime ties to TDA involves the legal case in 2023 of a junior Venezuelan military officer who escaped imprisonment in Venezuela after he participated in coup plotting against the regime and was killed in Chile in 2024. Last week, Chilean officials took the case to the international Criminal Court (ICC), alleging the Maduro regime is involved in the killing, acting via TDA. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(3) [DELETE]
Approved for release by ODNI on 5/5/2025, Case No. DF-2025-00379
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL
SENSE OF THE COMMUNITY MEMORANDUM
7 April 2025 SOCM 2025-11374
(b)(3) [DELETE] Venezuela: Examining Regime Ties to Tren de Aragua
* (U) This assessment was prepared under the auspices of the National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Western Hemisphere. It was drafted by the National Intelligence Council (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. Classified By: (b)(3) [DELETE] Derived From: (b)(3) [DELETE] Declassify On: (b)(3) [DELETE] (b)(3) [DELETE]
(b)(3) [DELETE] Tren de Aragua (TDA) is a transnational gang based in Venezuela that has spread to at least seven South America and Caribbean countries, operating in loosely-organized cells of localized, individual criminal networks. TDA leaders have historically been located and broadly benefitted from various permissive conditions and incapacities in Venezuela. They probably communicate to varying degrees with some TDA cells in other countries, although other cells probably operate and coordinate amongst themselves independently, judging from DHS reporting (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. Some self-described TDA criminal entities or individuals lack direct ties to TDA leadership but still use the TDA moniker for reputational benefits, complicating the IC’s ability to identify and track authentic group members and networks.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] TDA formed around 2007 in the Tocoron Prison located in Aragua State, Venezuela, which served as its initial base of operations. The group’s senior founders and probable core leaders are Hector Guerrero Flores, a.k.a. Nino Guerrero or El Nino, Yohan Jose Romero a.k.a. Johan Petrica, and Larry Alvarez Nunez, a.k.a. Larry Changa. Alvarez Nunez is in Colombian custody.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] In recent years, TDA leadership has faced setbacks, including losing their centralized location in Tocoron Prison and having several senior TDA leaders arrested in Colombia by the Colombian National Police. In 2023, the Venezuelan regime cleared TDA from Tocoron Prison, although the group’s leaders were able to escape in the operation, possibly assisted by low-level Venezuelan military and political leaders, judging from DHS reporting. The regime may have expelled TDA from the prison to undercut regional press alleging TDA ties to disputed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, or to disrupt further destabilizing activities by gang members inside Venezuela.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] TDA and other Venezuelan organized criminal groups have spread to other countries, aided by the movement of the larger body of Venezuelan migrants into Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States, in particular. Nicaragua and Panama have also reported encountering TDA affiliates, (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. From 2021 to 2024 there was a spike in Venezuelan encounters at the US-Mexico border, in which some TDA members could have been present as they have generally moved with Venezuelan migrant communities and profit from human trafficking and migrant smuggling. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. The small size of TDA’s cells, its focus on low-skill criminal activities, and its decentralized structure make it highly unlikely that TDA coordinates large volumes of human trafficking or migrant smuggling.
(b)(3) [DELETE] Maduro Regime Probably Maintains Ad Hoc Links to Some Criminal Groups in Venezuela
(b)(3) [DELETE] Maduro regime leadership probably sometimes tolerates TDA's presence in Venezuela, and some government officials may cooperate with TDA for financial gain. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] instances of regime officials' cooperation with various armed and criminal groups, such as Colombia's National Liberation Army or Los Colectivos, have been ad-hoc and reportedly driven by the regime's desire for help controlling territory or deterring a perceived threat of invasion, or for individual financial gain.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] The Madura regime generally does not impede illegal armed and criminal groups from operating in Venezuela, but it does combat and seek to contain them when it fears they could destabilize the regime or when corrupt deals sour. Venezuela 's security services lack the capacity to fully control Venezuelan territory, giving the regime an interest in cooperating with armed groups for insight and control in areas outside the services' traditional areas of operation. Furthermore, combatting such groups often results in personnel losses, probably encouraging the regime to at times cooperate with some groups instead of contesting them.
• b)(3) [DELETE] Some mid- to low-level Venezuelan officials probably profit from TDA's illicit activities, according to (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] and press reporting. For example, local military officials have alerted other armed and criminal groups conducting aerial drug shipments to Venezuelan Air Force patrols and might have alerted TDA leadership of a planned raid in 2023 against the prison that was its base of operations.
(b)(3) [DELETE] Maduro Regime Probably Not Directing TDA Activities
(b)(3) [DELETE] While Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States. The IC bases this judgment on Venezuelan law enforcement actions demonstrating the regime treats TDA as a threat; an uneasy mix of cooperation and confrontation rather than top-down directives characterizing the regime's ties to other armed groups; and the decentralized makeup of TDA that would make such a relationship logistically challenging. Furthermore, most of the IC judges that intelligence indicating that regime leaders are directing or enabling TDA migration to the United States is not credible and would need (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] reporting (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] corroborated (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. While FBI analysts agree with the above assessment, they assess some Venezuelan government officials facilitate TDA members' migration from Venezuela to the United States and use members as proxies in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and the United States to advance what they see as the Maduro regime's goal of destabilizing governments and undermining public safety in these countries, based on DHS and FBI reporting as of February 2024.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] Venezuelan intelligence, military, and police services view TDA as a security threat (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] and operate against it in ways that make it highly unlikely the two sides would cooperate in a strategic or consistent way, according to (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] and press reporting (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. In late January, at least two Venezuelan National Guard units arrested TDA members in Venezuela in separate operations.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] Since at least 2016, Venezuelan security forces have periodically engaged in armed confrontations with TDA, resulting in the killing of some TDA members, according to (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(3) [DELETE] The IC has not observed the regime directing TDA, including to push migrants to the United States, which probably would require extensive (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] coordination and funding between regime entities and TDA leaders that we would collect. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. The IC also recognizes the regime appreciates migration as a safety valve, allowing discontented Venezuelans to leave. US border encounters of Venezuelan national have decreased since January because of migrant perceptions of new US enforcement policies. Since late January, border encounters have plummeted more than 80 percent, according to (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] reaching the lowest level in decades.
• (b)(3) [DELETE]. The limited IC reporting suggesting a link between TDA and some Venezuelan officials aimed at facilitating TDA migration to the United States (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. In some cases, reporting warns that these sources could also be motivated to fabricate information. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
(b)(3) [DELETE]. Some regime officials are probably willing to capitalize on migration flows for personal financial or other benefits, even though the Maduro regime probably is not systematically directing Venezuelan outflows, such as to sow chaos in receiving countries. The intelligence record indicates Venezuelans have migrated voluntarily, often at great personal risk, to flee political instability and near-collapse of Venezuela's economy. The IC attributes increased migration flows, including the spike in US arrivals from 2021 to 2024 (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] of Venezuelan nationals -- which could include some TDA members -- to a variety of push and pull factors, including socioeconomic conditions, family ties to the United States, and migrants' perceptions of US and regional enforcement. At the same time, Maduro has not taken meaningful steps to curb migration, highlighting his partial accountability, probably because it has helped him retain power by having dissidents leave the country, increasing remittances to Venezuela that help ease economic strains for remaining populations, and allowing the regime to spend less on social services. The Maduro regime may have also welcomed the logistical, financial, and political headaches that unregulated migration has caused for the US Government, its perceived principal adversary, even if not a principal intent.
• (b)(3) [DELETE]. Since 2014, an estimated 7.8 million Venezuelans have departed their country, with roughly 6.6 million now residing in Latin America and the Caribbean as of late 2024. Increased migration flows have coincided with periods of acute political and economic instability in Venezuela, and irritated regional receiving countries, including neighboring Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Most Venezuelan migrants, including those traveling to the United States and in the region, seek more stable economic and political environments, judging from surveys and interviews with regional and US-bound Venezuelan migrants.
• (b)(3) [DELETE]. The lack of transparency and accountability in Venezuela has created an environment for widespread corruption and for regime officials to benefit from a variety of illicit activities, an environment fueled by Maduro's illegitimate and autocratic grip on power. This persistent outflow of migrants probably offers opportunities for some regime officials in capacities to facilitate migration movement to look for and receive personal kickbacks for their services, and to conceal the benefits they receive.
(b)(3) [DELETE]. Evaluating Reporting of Maduro Regime Ties to Tren de Aragua
(b)(3) [DELETE] We examined the body of intelligence reporting on this topic, evaluating the nature of (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] claimed access to understand whether they could credibly have access to the information reported, whether the report contained details that could be corroborated, (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] or details of the kinds of support the regime has provided TDA in exchange for following its directions. Outside of DHS, FBI, and an additional US law enforcement report, the IC (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]
• (b)(3) [DELETE] US law enforcement reports claim members of the regime, including Cabello and former Venezuelan Minister of Penitentiaries Iris Varela, have cooperated with TDA by providing financial or materiel support, but we cannot verify the sources' access. Even so, these reports do not claim that these figures direct the group.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] Some reports come from people detained for involvement in criminal activity in the United States or for entering the country illegally, which could motivate them to make false allegations about their ties to the Venezuelan regime in an effort to deflect responsibility for their crimes and to lessen any punishment by providing exculpatory or otherwise "valuable" information to US prosecutors.
(b)(3) [DELETE] Potential Indicators of a Change in the Maduro Regime-TDA Relationship
(b)(3) [DELETE] The IC is closely tracking key indicators of any shift in the relationship between the Maduro regime and TDA, including (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE] weapons transfers, (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. If the regime's relationship with the group became more cooperative, the IC would expect to see most regime operations against TDA to cease and some indication that the regime was providing TDA state resources. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]
• (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE]. Local press provides some insight on potential ties between the regime and TDA, but the IC typically does not rely solely on such media given the highly polarized media environment.
• (b)(3) [DELETE] US law enforcement reporting has the most focus on TDA and its activities in the United States because of its unique legal collection authorities among IC components. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(3) [DELETE]. The next event that may shed light on regime ties to TDA involves the legal case in 2023 of a junior Venezuelan military officer who escaped imprisonment in Venezuela after he participated in coup plotting against the regime and was killed in Chile in 2024. Last week, Chilean officials took the case to the international Criminal Court (ICC), alleging the Maduro regime is involved in the killing, acting via TDA. (b)(1), (b)(3) [DELETE].
• (b)(3) [DELETE]
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri May 16, 2025 5:23 pm
DOGE went looking for phone fraud at SSA — and found almost none
by Natalie Alms
Nextgov/FCW
May 15, 2025 02:20 PM ET
https://www.nextgov.com/digital-governm ... ne/405346/
After installing anti-fraud checks for benefit claims made over the phone early last month, the Social Security Administration is considering walking back the policy after finding only two cases that had a high probability of being fraudulent.
The anti-fraud tool set up last month after weeks of changes to the agency’s telephone policies has slowed retirement claim processing by 25% and led to a "degradation of public service,” according to an internal May document obtained by Nextgov/FCW that examined potentially cutting the anti-fraud tool for phone claims.
Under the new policy, the agency found that only two benefit claims out of over 110,000 had a high probability of being fraudulent — and they aren’t guaranteed to be so. Less than 1% of claims were flagged as even potentially fraudulent at all.
“No significant fraud has been detected from the flagged cases,” the internal document said.
The attention to fraud, however, did cause delays, as SSA changed its phone procedures to add the checks on the backend.
The lags stem from the three-day hold placed on telephone claims in order to run the antifraud claims, a move that “delays payments and benefits to customers, despite an extremely low risk of fraud,” as the document noted.
When SSA put the policy in place in early April, the agency said it would require people deemed suspicious to go in-person to an office to prove their identity.
Initially, the anti-fraud algorithm was being run against all phone claims, but SSA later narrowed it only to retirement, survivors and auxiliary claims — not disability claims — after internal pushback, two employees told Nextgov/FCW. SSA uses Transunion and PinDrop for anti-fraud detection on its phone calls, according to one employee.
SSA’s leadership is now considering changing the policy, especially the three-day hold, and potentially making changes around identity proofing writ large, one agency employee told Nextgov/FCW. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
The additional slowdown to retirement processing comes as the agency deals with an influx of retirement claims this year that surpasses previous numbers, according to an internal SSA email announcing a sprint to bring that number down. SSA has over 140,000 unprocessed retirement claims that are over 60 days old.
Announced in April, the anti-fraud check policy for benefit claims made over SSA’s phone lines was one of many changes and reversals the agency announced as DOGE and White House officials made false and misleading claims about fraudsters getting benefits over the phone.
Aram Moghaddassi, a DOGE engineer, notably said during a March 27 interview on Fox News that 40% of phone calls made to SSA to change direct deposit information come from fraudsters.
The agency itself has said that, in actuality, 40% of direct deposit fraud at the agency is associated with phone calls, not that 40% of all calls regarding changes to bank information are made by fraudsters.
Musk repeated a similar claim that 40% of the agency’s calls were “fraudulent” during a speech in late March.
Vice President J.D. Vance has also repeated this talking point — following it by saying “DOGE has got a lot of work to do” — as well as other, false assertions about impossibly elderly people claiming benefits, something the agency has said is actually a result of a quirk in the system, not old or dead people receiving benefits. President Donald Trump has also repeated this claim about extremely old people getting benefits.
In March, the agency announced that people couldn’t file claims at all over the phone anymore, or use the phone lines to change direct deposit information.
Only about a week later, SSA changed those claim restrictions to retirement, survivor, and family benefit claims alone, before later allowing all to file over the phone with the anti-fraud checks running on the backend to flag potential fraudsters.
“The Trump-Musk Social Security takeover has only meant more chaos and confusion for Americans,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass., said in response to the information obtained by Nextgov/FCW about the policy’s implementation.
Warren launched a “Social Security War Room,” with other lawmakers in April to push back against the Trump administration’s work at SSA.
“Every one of DOGE’s so-called ‘mistakes’ is a backdoor cut to people’s benefits,” she said. “There’s nothing efficient about making it harder for people to access the checks they’ve earned and are owed.”
Overall, fraud at SSA is a miniscule problem. Only 0.3% of SSA’s old-age, survivor and disability insurance payments are considered “improper payments” — a category that also covers mistakes, like payments that should’ve been made but were missing a signature. Only a sliver of that 0.3% is due to fraud, according to a recent oversight report.
The SSA numbers obtained by Nextgov/FCW also relate only to claims made over the phone, not for direct deposit changes made by phone. Limits on changing direct deposit information over the phone still exist.
SSA’s inspector general did recommend that the agency beef up security controls around direct deposit changes in 2012, although direct deposit fraud that happens over the phone is less than 0.0003% of total benefits.
After publication, Leland Dudek, the agency’s former acting commissioner who is now a senior advisor at SSA, told Nextgov/FCW that “in the last 30 days SSA stopped 20k fraudulent attempts” across “all transactions that involve direct deposit, which includes first time claims” across both the phone and internet. The document obtained by Nextgov/FCW referred exclusively to claims made over the phone. The agency didn’t respond to an additional request for comment after Dudek’s statement.
For now, people who want to change their direct deposit information are required to get a one-time code online via their SSA account before they can do so over the phone.
Otherwise, they have to go into an office — a fact that still worries Kathleen Romig, director of social security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, as it’s estimated that the policy will send millions to SSA offices, which are far away and difficult to get to for many.
Romig wasn’t surprised by how little suspected fraud SSA found in claims made over the phone.
“It seemed like a solution in search of a problem,” she said. “So many of these policy changes — the proposals, the reversals, the things that SSA has done over these past several months — seem to have been fueled by misinformation from people like Elon Musk.”
Editor's note: This article has been updated to include comments from SSA Senior Advisor Leland Dudek.
by Natalie Alms
Nextgov/FCW
May 15, 2025 02:20 PM ET
https://www.nextgov.com/digital-governm ... ne/405346/
Since SSA installed new anti-fraud checks on claims made over the phone, only two claims out of over 110,000 were found to likely be fraudulent, according to internal documents obtained by Nextgov/FCW.
After installing anti-fraud checks for benefit claims made over the phone early last month, the Social Security Administration is considering walking back the policy after finding only two cases that had a high probability of being fraudulent.
The anti-fraud tool set up last month after weeks of changes to the agency’s telephone policies has slowed retirement claim processing by 25% and led to a "degradation of public service,” according to an internal May document obtained by Nextgov/FCW that examined potentially cutting the anti-fraud tool for phone claims.
Under the new policy, the agency found that only two benefit claims out of over 110,000 had a high probability of being fraudulent — and they aren’t guaranteed to be so. Less than 1% of claims were flagged as even potentially fraudulent at all.
“No significant fraud has been detected from the flagged cases,” the internal document said.
The attention to fraud, however, did cause delays, as SSA changed its phone procedures to add the checks on the backend.
The lags stem from the three-day hold placed on telephone claims in order to run the antifraud claims, a move that “delays payments and benefits to customers, despite an extremely low risk of fraud,” as the document noted.
When SSA put the policy in place in early April, the agency said it would require people deemed suspicious to go in-person to an office to prove their identity.
Initially, the anti-fraud algorithm was being run against all phone claims, but SSA later narrowed it only to retirement, survivors and auxiliary claims — not disability claims — after internal pushback, two employees told Nextgov/FCW. SSA uses Transunion and PinDrop for anti-fraud detection on its phone calls, according to one employee.
SSA’s leadership is now considering changing the policy, especially the three-day hold, and potentially making changes around identity proofing writ large, one agency employee told Nextgov/FCW. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
The additional slowdown to retirement processing comes as the agency deals with an influx of retirement claims this year that surpasses previous numbers, according to an internal SSA email announcing a sprint to bring that number down. SSA has over 140,000 unprocessed retirement claims that are over 60 days old.
Announced in April, the anti-fraud check policy for benefit claims made over SSA’s phone lines was one of many changes and reversals the agency announced as DOGE and White House officials made false and misleading claims about fraudsters getting benefits over the phone.
Aram Moghaddassi, a DOGE engineer, notably said during a March 27 interview on Fox News that 40% of phone calls made to SSA to change direct deposit information come from fraudsters.
The agency itself has said that, in actuality, 40% of direct deposit fraud at the agency is associated with phone calls, not that 40% of all calls regarding changes to bank information are made by fraudsters.
Musk repeated a similar claim that 40% of the agency’s calls were “fraudulent” during a speech in late March.
Vice President J.D. Vance has also repeated this talking point — following it by saying “DOGE has got a lot of work to do” — as well as other, false assertions about impossibly elderly people claiming benefits, something the agency has said is actually a result of a quirk in the system, not old or dead people receiving benefits. President Donald Trump has also repeated this claim about extremely old people getting benefits.
In March, the agency announced that people couldn’t file claims at all over the phone anymore, or use the phone lines to change direct deposit information.
Only about a week later, SSA changed those claim restrictions to retirement, survivor, and family benefit claims alone, before later allowing all to file over the phone with the anti-fraud checks running on the backend to flag potential fraudsters.
“The Trump-Musk Social Security takeover has only meant more chaos and confusion for Americans,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass., said in response to the information obtained by Nextgov/FCW about the policy’s implementation.
Warren launched a “Social Security War Room,” with other lawmakers in April to push back against the Trump administration’s work at SSA.
“Every one of DOGE’s so-called ‘mistakes’ is a backdoor cut to people’s benefits,” she said. “There’s nothing efficient about making it harder for people to access the checks they’ve earned and are owed.”
Overall, fraud at SSA is a miniscule problem. Only 0.3% of SSA’s old-age, survivor and disability insurance payments are considered “improper payments” — a category that also covers mistakes, like payments that should’ve been made but were missing a signature. Only a sliver of that 0.3% is due to fraud, according to a recent oversight report.
The SSA numbers obtained by Nextgov/FCW also relate only to claims made over the phone, not for direct deposit changes made by phone. Limits on changing direct deposit information over the phone still exist.
SSA’s inspector general did recommend that the agency beef up security controls around direct deposit changes in 2012, although direct deposit fraud that happens over the phone is less than 0.0003% of total benefits.
After publication, Leland Dudek, the agency’s former acting commissioner who is now a senior advisor at SSA, told Nextgov/FCW that “in the last 30 days SSA stopped 20k fraudulent attempts” across “all transactions that involve direct deposit, which includes first time claims” across both the phone and internet. The document obtained by Nextgov/FCW referred exclusively to claims made over the phone. The agency didn’t respond to an additional request for comment after Dudek’s statement.
For now, people who want to change their direct deposit information are required to get a one-time code online via their SSA account before they can do so over the phone.
Otherwise, they have to go into an office — a fact that still worries Kathleen Romig, director of social security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, as it’s estimated that the policy will send millions to SSA offices, which are far away and difficult to get to for many.
Romig wasn’t surprised by how little suspected fraud SSA found in claims made over the phone.
“It seemed like a solution in search of a problem,” she said. “So many of these policy changes — the proposals, the reversals, the things that SSA has done over these past several months — seem to have been fueled by misinformation from people like Elon Musk.”
Editor's note: This article has been updated to include comments from SSA Senior Advisor Leland Dudek.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri May 16, 2025 6:18 pm
Supreme Court Hears Birthright Citizenship Case That Could Also Sharply Reduce Judicial Power
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow
May 16, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/16/ ... transcript
"The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two"
The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a case challenging Trump’s now-halted order to end birthright citizenship. Multiple lower courts have already ruled that the order is unconstitutional. Trump’s lawyers are seeking to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the United States for over a century. Legal expert Andrea Flores, an immigration lawyer at FWD.us, says the government’s weak arguments about implementing the unprecedented anti-immigrant order indicate that “The administration is not prepared to do this. They just want the authority to reinterpret amendments.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org.
Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments on Thursday in a case stemming from Trump’s now-halted order to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. The Trump administration is challenging whether federal judges can issue universal, or nationwide, injunctions against his orders. The case is raising alarms the far-right-dominated Supreme Court could hand even more power to the executive branch as Trump seeks to overcome court injunctions against his many executive orders.
This is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a “catch me if you can” kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Andrea Flores, the lawyer and vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us. Her opinion essay for The New York Times is headlined “The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two.”
You also have this piece, the other headline, “What’s Really at Stake in the U.S. Supreme Court [Case] on Birthright Citizenship.” What is really at stake, Andrea Flores?
ANDREA FLORES: So, what’s at stake is the definition of U.S. citizenship and also what it means to be an American. So, American citizens, how do you prove that you are a U.S. citizen? You use your birth certificate. If the Supreme Court grants the government this relief, if they narrow this injunction, then in half the country the question of who is a citizen will once again be determined by the states. And, you know, the last time that happened, that was the precursor to the Civil War.
There is absolutely no plan by the federal government in how you would implement that or how you would prevent mistakes, discrimination. So, really, what’s at stake is how we all define ourselves to be a citizen and how we prove we’re citizens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain what’s going on here, because two things are going on. You have the issue of birthright citizenship being debated in these oral arguments, but then you have the procedural stuff around whether judges can issue nationwide injunctions.
ANDREA FLORES: It’s a really interesting case, because there is this constitutional question around nationwide injunctions, which I’ve served in Democratic administrations and had policies that I’ve worked on be blocked nationwide, right? And that’s been a burden for, you know, both parties. But on the other side, you have an executive order that attempts to reinterpret the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has been settled law since 1898.
So, what does the government do? What does the Trump administration do? They actually — they don’t want to lead with their worst argument, which, as a lawyer, makes sense to me. Instead, they did a series of emergency filings on that first legal question, which is: Are nationwide injunctions an overstep of a district court’s authority? But by doing that, what they’re essentially trying to do is find a backdoor mechanism to implement an order that multiple courts have found to be unconstitutional. They didn’t argue. They didn’t even defend their order as constitutional, because most would agree that it is absolutely not.
And so, you know, the Supreme Court here cannot ignore that point. This is not a usual case. And I think you heard that from the justices. You know, you even heard Justice Kavanaugh say, ask, press the government on how would this even take place in 20 to 30 days, and they could not provide answers. So they are trying to use a procedural move. But in doing so, I want to point out, they really picked a case that made the best support for nationwide injunctions, right? Because if you split the country in two, and you have a child born in South Carolina not be a citizen, but a child born in North Carolina be a citizen, that’s going to be a catastrophe.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go to, I mean, the order now blocked by a nationwide injunction. But conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed the Trump administration’s lawyer, the Solicitor General John Sauer, for details on how it would be carried out.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: On the day after it goes into effect — this is just a very practical question, how this is going to work — what do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?
JOHN SAUER: I don’t think they do anything different. What the executive order says in Section 2 is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: How are they going to know that?
JOHN SAUER: The states can continue to — the federal officials will have to figure that out, essentially.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: How?
JOHN SAUER: So, you can imagine a number of ways that the federal officials could —
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: Such as?
JOHN SAUER: Such as they can require a showing of, you know, documentation showing legal presence in the country. For a temporary visitor, for example, they could see whether they’re on a B-1 visa, which would exclude, kind of, the birthright citizenship in that context.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: For all the newborns? Is that how it’s going to work?
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioning the solicitor general, the Trump administration’s lawyer, John Sauer. Can you translate that into lay terms? Brett Kavanaugh saying, “What’s going to happen to these babies born in hospitals around the country?”
ANDREA FLORES: Well, as a former government official, it’s stunning that they issued an executive order and then, months later, could not answer those questions, because, sort of, as I write in my op-ed, the onus now will be on hospitals. It will be on states. Can you imagine a delivering mother having to also prove her immigration status or citizenship status in the delivery room? I think people are also underestimating, like, the maternal health outcomes.
And the fact that the solicitor general wasn’t prepared for how this would impact the community, when they had filed — and they treated this as an emergency. They treated it as though our Constitution, as it has functioned now since 1898, has been an emergency. So, just to translate it, this government is not prepared. The administration is not prepared to do this. They just want the authority to reinterpret amendments. And you see them do the same thing for multiple amendments in the Constitution. The First Amendment, they are curtailing free speech by arresting international students. The Fifth Amendment, they are denying due process. They’ve disappeared over 200 people to a foreign prison. And now the 14th Amendment. And if the Supreme Court grants this relief, they will be emboldened, and I imagine we see executive orders on each of those fundamental rights, which is why every American cannot dismiss this as an immigration case. This is a constitutional, really, test for the Supreme Court, and I hope that they do the right thing here.
AMY GOODMAN: Andrea Flores, I want to thank you so much for being with us, vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us. We’ll link to your piece, “What’s Really at Stake in the U.S. Supreme Court Case on Birthright Citizenship.” Special thanks to my brother, journalist David Goodman. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.
**********************
The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two
by Andrea Flores
May 15, 2025
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/opin ... cotus.html
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
For generations, the birth certificate has been the cornerstone of how Americans verify their citizenship. But that standard may soon be upended.
On Day 1 of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to rewrite the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and end birthright citizenship as we know it. The order said that children of immigrants would no longer receive U.S. citizenship unless one of their parents had already been naturalized or had a green card. This meant that the children of Dreamers and many other immigrants who have lived their whole lives in the United States would no longer be born citizens.
Within 24 hours, multiple lawsuits were filed to challenge the order. On Feb. 5, Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction stopping the federal government from putting this unconstitutional policy into effect. Since then, every court to consider this issue has ruled that Mr. Trump’s order should not go into effect.
There have been several news stories about the birthright citizenship case, and the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Thursday. The majority of these stories have focused on technical legal questions: whether and under what circumstances lower courts should be able to issue nationwide temporary injunctions and stop a federal policy from going into effect nationwide while the case winds its way through the courts. But the focus on this legal question has obscured what is really at stake: the definition of U.S. citizenship and what it means to be an American.
If the Trump administration prevails in its crusade to overturn birthright citizenship, it will result in a population of newborns without legal status.
Since Reconstruction, any child born in the United States has been able to access citizenship, regardless of their parents nationality or race.
As more immigrants came to the United States, some argued that their children shouldn’t qualify for citizenship. In 1898 the Supreme Court rejected that view, ruling that children born to immigrants are protected under the 14th Amendment. And the matter was considered settled until now.
In this case, the government sidestepped the core issue of birthright citizenship, instead focusing its argument on the narrower question of whether judges should be able to issue nationwide injunctions. As a result, the case will not provide a final resolution on the main constitutional question. The issue of birthright citizenship could again make its way to the Court as early as next year, challenging the executive order on constitutional and statutory grounds. At that point, the court could declare the basis of it unconstitutional.
Still, if the government prevails in this case, Mr. Trump’s unilateral reinterpretation of the Constitution will, for now, be implemented in 28 states, and that suspension of birthright citizenship, even if it only lasts a few months, will have profound consequences.
Although the plaintiffs in this case will remain protected by the injunction, all families will still be required to prove that their children have a legal right to live in the United States — a process that could prove both costly and stressful. Even U.S. citizens would have to provide identification to confirm their children’s citizenship, or even prove their own legal status, as a birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient.
Babies denied U.S. citizenship could be denied other forms of identification, making it difficult or impossible to receive essential vaccines or obtain a social security number. Health insurers could refuse coverage for these stateless babies, meaning a premature infant in need of urgent care could be denied treatment. Hospitals could also be forced to assess the citizenship status of parents in delivery rooms, raising the risk of discrimination against those wrongly assumed to be immigrants.
Children who have no legal status could be vulnerable to deportation. This is an alarming proposition given that this administration is paying El Salvador millions of dollars to imprison men indefinitely with no due process.
It’s worth noting that this order will affect all types of immigrants, even those the government has no legal authority to deport. That includes people who have been granted temporary status, Dreamers and others who have been approved for immigration benefits but are stuck in immigration processing limbo. Immigrant parents with legal status may face the threat that their children could be deported. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where this administration pays another country to take in the growing number of stateless children — with or without their parents.
If the Supreme Court eventually hears a case on the merits of the executive order itself and finds it unconstitutional, then the federal government will have to create a process to ensure these potentially stateless children can access U.S. citizenship. If the Trump administration refuses, it could create an underclass of children who have limited rights. We don’t yet know what that will mean in the long term.
In the meantime, if the court allows this order to go into effect, even temporarily, the executive branch could be emboldened to go further in its attempts to undermine the constitutional rights that hold our imperfect democracy together.
Andrea R. Flores is a lawyer and the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us, a bipartisan political group that supports reforming immigration and criminal justice policies.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two appeared first on New York Times.
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow
May 16, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/16/ ... transcript
"The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two"
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
THE SUPREME COURT IS BEING PLAYED BY THE RADICAL LEFT LOSERS [BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION], WHO HAVE NO SUPPORT, THE PUBLIC HATES THEM, AND THEIR ONLY HOPE IS THE INTIMIDATION OF THE COURT, ITSELF. WE CAN'T LET THAT HAPPEN TO OUR COUNTRY!
May 16, 2025, 7:35 AM
The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a case challenging Trump’s now-halted order to end birthright citizenship. Multiple lower courts have already ruled that the order is unconstitutional. Trump’s lawyers are seeking to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the United States for over a century. Legal expert Andrea Flores, an immigration lawyer at FWD.us, says the government’s weak arguments about implementing the unprecedented anti-immigrant order indicate that “The administration is not prepared to do this. They just want the authority to reinterpret amendments.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org.
Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments on Thursday in a case stemming from Trump’s now-halted order to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. The Trump administration is challenging whether federal judges can issue universal, or nationwide, injunctions against his orders. The case is raising alarms the far-right-dominated Supreme Court could hand even more power to the executive branch as Trump seeks to overcome court injunctions against his many executive orders.
This is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a “catch me if you can” kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Andrea Flores, the lawyer and vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us. Her opinion essay for The New York Times is headlined “The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two.”
You also have this piece, the other headline, “What’s Really at Stake in the U.S. Supreme Court [Case] on Birthright Citizenship.” What is really at stake, Andrea Flores?
ANDREA FLORES: So, what’s at stake is the definition of U.S. citizenship and also what it means to be an American. So, American citizens, how do you prove that you are a U.S. citizen? You use your birth certificate. If the Supreme Court grants the government this relief, if they narrow this injunction, then in half the country the question of who is a citizen will once again be determined by the states. And, you know, the last time that happened, that was the precursor to the Civil War.
There is absolutely no plan by the federal government in how you would implement that or how you would prevent mistakes, discrimination. So, really, what’s at stake is how we all define ourselves to be a citizen and how we prove we’re citizens.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain what’s going on here, because two things are going on. You have the issue of birthright citizenship being debated in these oral arguments, but then you have the procedural stuff around whether judges can issue nationwide injunctions.
ANDREA FLORES: It’s a really interesting case, because there is this constitutional question around nationwide injunctions, which I’ve served in Democratic administrations and had policies that I’ve worked on be blocked nationwide, right? And that’s been a burden for, you know, both parties. But on the other side, you have an executive order that attempts to reinterpret the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has been settled law since 1898.
So, what does the government do? What does the Trump administration do? They actually — they don’t want to lead with their worst argument, which, as a lawyer, makes sense to me. Instead, they did a series of emergency filings on that first legal question, which is: Are nationwide injunctions an overstep of a district court’s authority? But by doing that, what they’re essentially trying to do is find a backdoor mechanism to implement an order that multiple courts have found to be unconstitutional. They didn’t argue. They didn’t even defend their order as constitutional, because most would agree that it is absolutely not.
And so, you know, the Supreme Court here cannot ignore that point. This is not a usual case. And I think you heard that from the justices. You know, you even heard Justice Kavanaugh say, ask, press the government on how would this even take place in 20 to 30 days, and they could not provide answers. So they are trying to use a procedural move. But in doing so, I want to point out, they really picked a case that made the best support for nationwide injunctions, right? Because if you split the country in two, and you have a child born in South Carolina not be a citizen, but a child born in North Carolina be a citizen, that’s going to be a catastrophe.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go to, I mean, the order now blocked by a nationwide injunction. But conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed the Trump administration’s lawyer, the Solicitor General John Sauer, for details on how it would be carried out.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: On the day after it goes into effect — this is just a very practical question, how this is going to work — what do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?
JOHN SAUER: I don’t think they do anything different. What the executive order says in Section 2 is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: How are they going to know that?
JOHN SAUER: The states can continue to — the federal officials will have to figure that out, essentially.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: How?
JOHN SAUER: So, you can imagine a number of ways that the federal officials could —
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: Such as?
JOHN SAUER: Such as they can require a showing of, you know, documentation showing legal presence in the country. For a temporary visitor, for example, they could see whether they’re on a B-1 visa, which would exclude, kind of, the birthright citizenship in that context.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: For all the newborns? Is that how it’s going to work?
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioning the solicitor general, the Trump administration’s lawyer, John Sauer. Can you translate that into lay terms? Brett Kavanaugh saying, “What’s going to happen to these babies born in hospitals around the country?”
ANDREA FLORES: Well, as a former government official, it’s stunning that they issued an executive order and then, months later, could not answer those questions, because, sort of, as I write in my op-ed, the onus now will be on hospitals. It will be on states. Can you imagine a delivering mother having to also prove her immigration status or citizenship status in the delivery room? I think people are also underestimating, like, the maternal health outcomes.
And the fact that the solicitor general wasn’t prepared for how this would impact the community, when they had filed — and they treated this as an emergency. They treated it as though our Constitution, as it has functioned now since 1898, has been an emergency. So, just to translate it, this government is not prepared. The administration is not prepared to do this. They just want the authority to reinterpret amendments. And you see them do the same thing for multiple amendments in the Constitution. The First Amendment, they are curtailing free speech by arresting international students. The Fifth Amendment, they are denying due process. They’ve disappeared over 200 people to a foreign prison. And now the 14th Amendment. And if the Supreme Court grants this relief, they will be emboldened, and I imagine we see executive orders on each of those fundamental rights, which is why every American cannot dismiss this as an immigration case. This is a constitutional, really, test for the Supreme Court, and I hope that they do the right thing here.
AMY GOODMAN: Andrea Flores, I want to thank you so much for being with us, vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us. We’ll link to your piece, “What’s Really at Stake in the U.S. Supreme Court Case on Birthright Citizenship.” Special thanks to my brother, journalist David Goodman. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.
**********************
The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two
by Andrea Flores
May 15, 2025
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/opin ... cotus.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.
For generations, the birth certificate has been the cornerstone of how Americans verify their citizenship. But that standard may soon be upended.
On Day 1 of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to rewrite the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and end birthright citizenship as we know it. The order said that children of immigrants would no longer receive U.S. citizenship unless one of their parents had already been naturalized or had a green card. This meant that the children of Dreamers and many other immigrants who have lived their whole lives in the United States would no longer be born citizens.
Within 24 hours, multiple lawsuits were filed to challenge the order. On Feb. 5, Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction stopping the federal government from putting this unconstitutional policy into effect. Since then, every court to consider this issue has ruled that Mr. Trump’s order should not go into effect.
There have been several news stories about the birthright citizenship case, and the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Thursday. The majority of these stories have focused on technical legal questions: whether and under what circumstances lower courts should be able to issue nationwide temporary injunctions and stop a federal policy from going into effect nationwide while the case winds its way through the courts. But the focus on this legal question has obscured what is really at stake: the definition of U.S. citizenship and what it means to be an American.
If the Trump administration prevails in its crusade to overturn birthright citizenship, it will result in a population of newborns without legal status.
Since Reconstruction, any child born in the United States has been able to access citizenship, regardless of their parents nationality or race.
As more immigrants came to the United States, some argued that their children shouldn’t qualify for citizenship. In 1898 the Supreme Court rejected that view, ruling that children born to immigrants are protected under the 14th Amendment. And the matter was considered settled until now.
In this case, the government sidestepped the core issue of birthright citizenship, instead focusing its argument on the narrower question of whether judges should be able to issue nationwide injunctions. As a result, the case will not provide a final resolution on the main constitutional question. The issue of birthright citizenship could again make its way to the Court as early as next year, challenging the executive order on constitutional and statutory grounds. At that point, the court could declare the basis of it unconstitutional.
Still, if the government prevails in this case, Mr. Trump’s unilateral reinterpretation of the Constitution will, for now, be implemented in 28 states, and that suspension of birthright citizenship, even if it only lasts a few months, will have profound consequences.
Although the plaintiffs in this case will remain protected by the injunction, all families will still be required to prove that their children have a legal right to live in the United States — a process that could prove both costly and stressful. Even U.S. citizens would have to provide identification to confirm their children’s citizenship, or even prove their own legal status, as a birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient.
Babies denied U.S. citizenship could be denied other forms of identification, making it difficult or impossible to receive essential vaccines or obtain a social security number. Health insurers could refuse coverage for these stateless babies, meaning a premature infant in need of urgent care could be denied treatment. Hospitals could also be forced to assess the citizenship status of parents in delivery rooms, raising the risk of discrimination against those wrongly assumed to be immigrants.
Children who have no legal status could be vulnerable to deportation. This is an alarming proposition given that this administration is paying El Salvador millions of dollars to imprison men indefinitely with no due process.
It’s worth noting that this order will affect all types of immigrants, even those the government has no legal authority to deport. That includes people who have been granted temporary status, Dreamers and others who have been approved for immigration benefits but are stuck in immigration processing limbo. Immigrant parents with legal status may face the threat that their children could be deported. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where this administration pays another country to take in the growing number of stateless children — with or without their parents.
If the Supreme Court eventually hears a case on the merits of the executive order itself and finds it unconstitutional, then the federal government will have to create a process to ensure these potentially stateless children can access U.S. citizenship. If the Trump administration refuses, it could create an underclass of children who have limited rights. We don’t yet know what that will mean in the long term.
In the meantime, if the court allows this order to go into effect, even temporarily, the executive branch could be emboldened to go further in its attempts to undermine the constitutional rights that hold our imperfect democracy together.
Andrea R. Flores is a lawyer and the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us, a bipartisan political group that supports reforming immigration and criminal justice policies.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two appeared first on New York Times.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat May 17, 2025 12:18 am
Ex-FBI boss James Comey investigated for seashell photo seen as threat to Trump
by Ali Abbas Ahmadi
BBC
5/16/25
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70nqk9rlxpo
Former FBI director James Comey is being investigated by the Secret Service after he shared then deleted a social media post, which Republicans alleged was an incitement to violence against US President Donald Trump.
Comey posted on Instagram a photo of seashells that spelled the numbers "8647", which he captioned: "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."
The number 86 is a slang term whose definitions include "to reject" or "to get rid of", according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which also notes that it has more recently been used as a term meaning "to kill". And Trump is the 47th US president
Comey insisted he did not know what the numbers meant., but Trump has disputed that.
James Comey had a tumultuous tenure as FBI director, and has clashed with Donald Trump.
Comey deleted the Instagram post, saying in a follow-up that he "assumed [the sea shells] were a political message".
"I didn't realise some folks associate those numbers with violence," he added. "It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down."
But Trump argued that "a child knows what that meant".
"That meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear," Trump told Fox News in an interview, clips of which were released before broadcast on Friday. "Now, he wasn't very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant."
In a post in X, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said: "We vigorously investigate anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees.
"We are aware of the social media posts by the former FBI Director & we take rhetoric like this very seriously. Beyond that, we do not comment on protective intelligence matters."
"Cool shell formation," Comey commented before deleting the post
Trump survived two assassination attempts last year. [??]
Current FBI Director Kash Patel responded on social media, saying that the bureau was "aware of the recent social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, directed at President Trump".
"We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran. Primary jurisdiction is with SS [Secret Service] on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support."
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said on X: "Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of Trump."
She said her department and the Secret Service would investigate the matter.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino posted on X, accusing Comey of "a plea to bad actors/terrorists to assassinate the POTUS' while traveling internationally", referring to Trump's current tour of the Middle East.
The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, also responded on X, commenting: "James Comey causally [sic] calling for my dad to be murdered."
Comey served as the FBI's director between 2013-17.
He had a tumultuous tenure that included overseeing the high-profile inquiry into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's email just weeks before the 2016 election that she ended up losing to Trump.
He was fired by Trump amid an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
****************
Trump blasts former FBI Director James Comey over controversial Instagram post. Comey has said he did not intend any violence or threat.
by Kelsey Walsh, Luke Barr, and Ivan Pereira
abc news
May 16, 2025, 9:37 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-b ... =121871648
President Donald Trump lashed out Friday against ex-FBI Director James Comey over an Instagram post that contained an image that top Trump officials claimed was a threat.
In a now-deleted Instagram post, Comey showed a photo of "8647" written in seashells in sand, with the caption "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."
Some far-right allies of Trump, including Laura Loomer, have alleged that Comey is calling for violence against the president.
To "86" something, however, has fairly broad interpretations as a slang term — and can simply mean to nix or "get rid" of' something, according to Merriam-Webster.
Comey says he figured the message in the shells' placement was political, but said he didn't realize it called for violence against Trump.
"It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind," Comey said in another post on Instagram.
Trump, however, in an interview except aired Friday, told Fox News' "Special Report with Bret Baier" that he doesn't buy Comey's explanation.
"He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination," the president said.
Trump fired Comey in his first administration and the president claimed Comey still has an axe to grind.
"Well, he apologized because he was hit -- he's a very bad guy," Trump said.
David Kelley, an attorney representing Comey, declined to comment on the matter.
The president did not take a position on whether Comey, whom he labeled a "dirty cop," should be investigated, saying he would defer to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Thursday in an X post that the U.S. Secret Service is looking into Comey's post.
"Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of @POTUS Trump," she said.
A spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service said the agency is aware of the posts and it takes "rhetoric like this very seriously."
"The Secret Service vigorously investigates anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees," Anthony Guglielm said in a statement.
The Secret Service is expected to interview Comey on Friday, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Derek Mayer, the former Secret Service deputy special agent in charge of the Chicago Field Office, told ABC News that an investigation would likely include an interview of the subject who made the threat.
"The Secret Service would also interview close associates of the subject to determine if the person has had any rapid change or decline in their mental health, access to weapons, travel status and overall well being," he said.
The Secret Service has declined to comment.
FBI Director Kash Patel also said he was aware of the post and was providing support to Noem's efforts.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called for Comey to be imprisoned.
"Any other person with a position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be, I'm very concerned for the president's life,” she told Fox News host Jesse Waters.
She said Comey should be put "behind bars."
ABC News' Jack Date and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
***********************
Trump Administration Officials Become Hysterical At Social Media Post of Former FBI Director Comey
by Glenn Kirschner
May 16, 2025
Former FBI Director James Comey posted a picture on Instagram of seashells on a beach arranged into the numbers "8647."
Several Trump officials broke into hysterics, claiming that Comey intended the post as a threat. One prominent official, showing her disregard for the rule of law, the rules of criminal procedure, law and the Constitution, announced that Comey should be put "behind bars" apparently without an investigation, indictment, jury trial and verdict.
And Trump expressed his outrage, saying that "a child" would know that Comey's post was a threat.
The problem is, the dictionary definition of "86" does not support Trump and company's claims. Moreover, the criminal law requires a threat to be clear, direct, unambiguous, and unequivocal to potentially support criminal charges, as this video discusses.
Transcript
So friends have you seen the histrionics
of some of the Trump administration
officials over an Instagram post by
former FBI director James
Comey let's talk about that because
justice matters
[Music]
Hey all Glenn Kirschner here So friends
former FBI director James Comey posted a
picture on Instagram of seashells on a
beach that somebody had arranged to
display four numbers
8647 And the Trump administration went
apoplectic claiming that James Comey
courtesy of that photo that he posted on
Instagram has threatened Donald Trump
Now friends I work threats cases as a
prosecutor and we'll talk in a minute
about the kind of evidence necessary to
bring a criminal charge against someone
for communicating a
threat But let's start with the new
reporting This from ABC News Headline
Trump blasts former FBI director James
Comey over controversial Instagram post
And that article begins "President
Donald Trump lashed out Friday against
ex FBI Director James Comey over an
Instagram post that contained an image
that top Trump officials claimed was a
threat." In a now deleted Instagram post
Comey showed a photo of
8647 written in seashells in sand with
the caption "Cool shell formation on my
beachwalk." Some far-right allies of
Trump including Laura Loomer have
alleged that Comey is calling for
violence against the president to 86
something however has fairly broad
interpretations as a slang meaning and
can simply mean to nyx or get rid of
something According to Marryiam Webster
Comey says he figured the message in the
shell's placement was political but said
he didn't realize it called for violence
against Trump "It never occurred to me
but I oppose violence of any kind,"
Comey said in another post on Instagram
Trump however told Fox News Channel's
special report with Brett Bearer Friday
that he wasn't buying Comey's
explanation This quote from Trump quote
he knew exactly what that meant A child
knows what that meant If you're the FBI
director and you don't know what that
meant that meant assassination the
president said noting that Comey
apologized Trump said "Well he
apologized because he was hit He's a
very bad guy," Trump
said Homeland Security Secretary Christy
Gnome said Thursday in an ex post that
the US Secret Service is looking into
Comey's post Quote "Disgraced former FBI
Director James Comey just called for the
assassination of POTUS Trump." She said
FBI Director Kash Patel also said he was
aware of the post and he was providing
support to Gnome's
efforts because of course Kash Patel
was director of national intelligence
Tulsi Gabbard called for Comey to be
imprisoned. So friends just think for a
minute about the
lawlessness of what Tulsi Gabbard
proposes Her position is apparently
there is no need for a criminal
investigation There's no need for an
indictment There's no need for a jury
trial There's no need for a verdict Just
march James Comey directly into a jail
cell To hell with the rule of law to
hell with the constitutional protections
like of due process of
law Of course it's no surprise that that
is the approach of a Trump
administration
official. To hell with the Constitution,
or the protections it affords everyone,
including James Comey
But let's talk for
a minute about what it takes to charge
somebody with the crime of communicating
a threat. Generally speaking, the threat
the words or in this case the number 86.
We're going to talk about that in a
minute. The threat needs to be clear
direct
unambiguous unequivocal.
Some threats statutes even require
evidence of a present intent or ability
to follow through with the threat. So
when you're dealing with a number 86. the
logical place to start is the accepted
dictionary definition.
What does 86 mean
well the Merriam Webster dictionary
definition of 86
verb to refuse to serve a customer as a
bartender telling a customer "Hey you're
86. You're cut off. No more drinks for
you." To eject, dismiss, or remove someone,
as in he was 86 from Twitter following
outrage from other
users. Here's another common definition.
To remove an item from a menu, to no
longer offer an item to customers as in
many small restaurants or bars may run
into issues with their inventory. When
there are not enough ingredients left to
make a popular dish, or drink, they'll
have to 86 it. This prevents the
customers from ordering it, and then
getting
upset.
Here's another accepted dictionary
definition. Democratic leaders 86'd an
amendment introduced in the House
version of the bill.
And let's just do
one more friends. After attempting a Zoom
interview, that had them sounding as
garbled as the off-camera adults in a
peanut special, we 86'd the audio on our
computers, and talked on the phone.
Well friends, isn't it interesting that none
of those accepted dictionary definitions
of the number 86 involve violence of any
kind? And yet Donald Trump says even a
child knows what that meant. Well, only if
that child never bothered to look at a
dictionary to see what 86 actually means.
But you know, there actually is a post
that comes to mind that was a pretty
vivid and direct depiction of
violence and it was
this Remember when Donald Trump posted a
picture of himself holding a baseball
bat mid swing appearing to swing it in
the direction of the man who was
prosecuting him Manhattan District
Attorney Alvin Bragg with Bragg having
his hands up seeming to be in a
defensive posture?
And do you remember
the reporting about that post headline?
Trump posts disturbing baseball bat
photo with Alvin Bragg threatens death
and
destruction Donald Trump on Friday
threatened death and destruction if he's
criminally charged in New York writing
the shocking social media warning after
posting an image of himself holding a
baseball bat next to Manhattan District
Attorney Alvin Bragg's
head This quote from Trump quote "They
are human scum." The 76-year-old former
president raged in one post asking why
Bragg refuses to do the right thing and
call it a day
CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen tweeted
that threatening a prosecutor is a crime
in New York In fact multiple
crimes And friends even Jonathan Turley
who seems to forever defend Donald Trump
in knee-jerk fashion regardless of what
Trump says or does
George Washington University Law
Professor Jonathan Turley who testified
for Trump's defense during his first
impeachment for pressuring Ukraine to
investigate the Biden family has
repeatedly sought to warn the former
president off threatening postings
saying quote "Many of us have criticized
the reported indictment as deeply flawed
and politically motivated." Turley
tweeted Friday However that will be
addressed by the courts The rule of law
will be protected by the bench not the
bat in our constitutional system On
Thursday Turley blasted Trump for
writing in all caps "Our country is
being destroyed as they tell us to be
peaceful."
quote "Given the violence on January 6th
and riots in various cities our leaders
have to avoid reckless rhetoric." Turley
wrote "Being peaceful is not just a
legal obligation but a civic duty of
citizens." Wow when Jonathan Turley is
criticizing
Trump You know friends I think it pretty
unlikely that we will see James Comey
charged with communicating a threat But
if Pam Bondi's DOJ tries to pull that
crap then there's a good chance that the
DOJ lawyers who have their fingerprints
on a Comey indictment will run the risk
of being referred to their state bar for
an ethics
investigation because not bringing
baseless vindictive
prosecutions like
justice
matters Friends as always please stay
safe Please stay tuned And I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]
by Ali Abbas Ahmadi
BBC
5/16/25
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70nqk9rlxpo
Former FBI director James Comey is being investigated by the Secret Service after he shared then deleted a social media post, which Republicans alleged was an incitement to violence against US President Donald Trump.
Comey posted on Instagram a photo of seashells that spelled the numbers "8647", which he captioned: "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."
The number 86 is a slang term whose definitions include "to reject" or "to get rid of", according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which also notes that it has more recently been used as a term meaning "to kill". And Trump is the 47th US president
Comey insisted he did not know what the numbers meant., but Trump has disputed that.
James Comey had a tumultuous tenure as FBI director, and has clashed with Donald Trump.
Comey deleted the Instagram post, saying in a follow-up that he "assumed [the sea shells] were a political message".
"I didn't realise some folks associate those numbers with violence," he added. "It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down."
But Trump argued that "a child knows what that meant".
"That meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear," Trump told Fox News in an interview, clips of which were released before broadcast on Friday. "Now, he wasn't very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant."
In a post in X, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said: "We vigorously investigate anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees.
"We are aware of the social media posts by the former FBI Director & we take rhetoric like this very seriously. Beyond that, we do not comment on protective intelligence matters."
"Cool shell formation," Comey commented before deleting the post
Trump survived two assassination attempts last year. [??]
Current FBI Director Kash Patel responded on social media, saying that the bureau was "aware of the recent social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, directed at President Trump".
"We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran. Primary jurisdiction is with SS [Secret Service] on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support."
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said on X: "Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of Trump."
She said her department and the Secret Service would investigate the matter.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino posted on X, accusing Comey of "a plea to bad actors/terrorists to assassinate the POTUS' while traveling internationally", referring to Trump's current tour of the Middle East.
The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, also responded on X, commenting: "James Comey causally [sic] calling for my dad to be murdered."
Comey served as the FBI's director between 2013-17.
He had a tumultuous tenure that included overseeing the high-profile inquiry into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's email just weeks before the 2016 election that she ended up losing to Trump.
He was fired by Trump amid an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
****************
Trump blasts former FBI Director James Comey over controversial Instagram post. Comey has said he did not intend any violence or threat.
by Kelsey Walsh, Luke Barr, and Ivan Pereira
abc news
May 16, 2025, 9:37 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-b ... =121871648
President Donald Trump lashed out Friday against ex-FBI Director James Comey over an Instagram post that contained an image that top Trump officials claimed was a threat.
In a now-deleted Instagram post, Comey showed a photo of "8647" written in seashells in sand, with the caption "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."
Some far-right allies of Trump, including Laura Loomer, have alleged that Comey is calling for violence against the president.
To "86" something, however, has fairly broad interpretations as a slang term — and can simply mean to nix or "get rid" of' something, according to Merriam-Webster.
Comey says he figured the message in the shells' placement was political, but said he didn't realize it called for violence against Trump.
"It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind," Comey said in another post on Instagram.
Trump, however, in an interview except aired Friday, told Fox News' "Special Report with Bret Baier" that he doesn't buy Comey's explanation.
"He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination," the president said.
Trump fired Comey in his first administration and the president claimed Comey still has an axe to grind.
"Well, he apologized because he was hit -- he's a very bad guy," Trump said.
David Kelley, an attorney representing Comey, declined to comment on the matter.
The president did not take a position on whether Comey, whom he labeled a "dirty cop," should be investigated, saying he would defer to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Thursday in an X post that the U.S. Secret Service is looking into Comey's post.
"Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of @POTUS Trump," she said.
A spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service said the agency is aware of the posts and it takes "rhetoric like this very seriously."
"The Secret Service vigorously investigates anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees," Anthony Guglielm said in a statement.
The Secret Service is expected to interview Comey on Friday, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Derek Mayer, the former Secret Service deputy special agent in charge of the Chicago Field Office, told ABC News that an investigation would likely include an interview of the subject who made the threat.
"The Secret Service would also interview close associates of the subject to determine if the person has had any rapid change or decline in their mental health, access to weapons, travel status and overall well being," he said.
The Secret Service has declined to comment.
FBI Director Kash Patel also said he was aware of the post and was providing support to Noem's efforts.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called for Comey to be imprisoned.
"Any other person with a position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be, I'm very concerned for the president's life,” she told Fox News host Jesse Waters.
She said Comey should be put "behind bars."
ABC News' Jack Date and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
***********************
Trump Administration Officials Become Hysterical At Social Media Post of Former FBI Director Comey
by Glenn Kirschner
May 16, 2025
Former FBI Director James Comey posted a picture on Instagram of seashells on a beach arranged into the numbers "8647."
Several Trump officials broke into hysterics, claiming that Comey intended the post as a threat. One prominent official, showing her disregard for the rule of law, the rules of criminal procedure, law and the Constitution, announced that Comey should be put "behind bars" apparently without an investigation, indictment, jury trial and verdict.
And Trump expressed his outrage, saying that "a child" would know that Comey's post was a threat.
The problem is, the dictionary definition of "86" does not support Trump and company's claims. Moreover, the criminal law requires a threat to be clear, direct, unambiguous, and unequivocal to potentially support criminal charges, as this video discusses.
Transcript
So friends have you seen the histrionics
of some of the Trump administration
officials over an Instagram post by
former FBI director James
Comey let's talk about that because
justice matters
[Music]
Hey all Glenn Kirschner here So friends
former FBI director James Comey posted a
picture on Instagram of seashells on a
beach that somebody had arranged to
display four numbers
8647 And the Trump administration went
apoplectic claiming that James Comey
courtesy of that photo that he posted on
Instagram has threatened Donald Trump
Now friends I work threats cases as a
prosecutor and we'll talk in a minute
about the kind of evidence necessary to
bring a criminal charge against someone
for communicating a
threat But let's start with the new
reporting This from ABC News Headline
Trump blasts former FBI director James
Comey over controversial Instagram post
And that article begins "President
Donald Trump lashed out Friday against
ex FBI Director James Comey over an
Instagram post that contained an image
that top Trump officials claimed was a
threat." In a now deleted Instagram post
Comey showed a photo of
8647 written in seashells in sand with
the caption "Cool shell formation on my
beachwalk." Some far-right allies of
Trump including Laura Loomer have
alleged that Comey is calling for
violence against the president to 86
something however has fairly broad
interpretations as a slang meaning and
can simply mean to nyx or get rid of
something According to Marryiam Webster
Comey says he figured the message in the
shell's placement was political but said
he didn't realize it called for violence
against Trump "It never occurred to me
but I oppose violence of any kind,"
Comey said in another post on Instagram
Trump however told Fox News Channel's
special report with Brett Bearer Friday
that he wasn't buying Comey's
explanation This quote from Trump quote
he knew exactly what that meant A child
knows what that meant If you're the FBI
director and you don't know what that
meant that meant assassination the
president said noting that Comey
apologized Trump said "Well he
apologized because he was hit He's a
very bad guy," Trump
said Homeland Security Secretary Christy
Gnome said Thursday in an ex post that
the US Secret Service is looking into
Comey's post Quote "Disgraced former FBI
Director James Comey just called for the
assassination of POTUS Trump." She said
FBI Director Kash Patel also said he was
aware of the post and he was providing
support to Gnome's
efforts because of course Kash Patel
was director of national intelligence
Tulsi Gabbard called for Comey to be
imprisoned. So friends just think for a
minute about the
lawlessness of what Tulsi Gabbard
proposes Her position is apparently
there is no need for a criminal
investigation There's no need for an
indictment There's no need for a jury
trial There's no need for a verdict Just
march James Comey directly into a jail
cell To hell with the rule of law to
hell with the constitutional protections
like of due process of
law Of course it's no surprise that that
is the approach of a Trump
administration
official. To hell with the Constitution,
or the protections it affords everyone,
including James Comey
But let's talk for
a minute about what it takes to charge
somebody with the crime of communicating
a threat. Generally speaking, the threat
the words or in this case the number 86.
We're going to talk about that in a
minute. The threat needs to be clear
direct
unambiguous unequivocal.
Some threats statutes even require
evidence of a present intent or ability
to follow through with the threat. So
when you're dealing with a number 86. the
logical place to start is the accepted
dictionary definition.
What does 86 mean
well the Merriam Webster dictionary
definition of 86
verb to refuse to serve a customer as a
bartender telling a customer "Hey you're
86. You're cut off. No more drinks for
you." To eject, dismiss, or remove someone,
as in he was 86 from Twitter following
outrage from other
users. Here's another common definition.
To remove an item from a menu, to no
longer offer an item to customers as in
many small restaurants or bars may run
into issues with their inventory. When
there are not enough ingredients left to
make a popular dish, or drink, they'll
have to 86 it. This prevents the
customers from ordering it, and then
getting
upset.
Here's another accepted dictionary
definition. Democratic leaders 86'd an
amendment introduced in the House
version of the bill.
And let's just do
one more friends. After attempting a Zoom
interview, that had them sounding as
garbled as the off-camera adults in a
peanut special, we 86'd the audio on our
computers, and talked on the phone.
Well friends, isn't it interesting that none
of those accepted dictionary definitions
of the number 86 involve violence of any
kind? And yet Donald Trump says even a
child knows what that meant. Well, only if
that child never bothered to look at a
dictionary to see what 86 actually means.
But you know, there actually is a post
that comes to mind that was a pretty
vivid and direct depiction of
violence and it was
this Remember when Donald Trump posted a
picture of himself holding a baseball
bat mid swing appearing to swing it in
the direction of the man who was
prosecuting him Manhattan District
Attorney Alvin Bragg with Bragg having
his hands up seeming to be in a
defensive posture?
And do you remember
the reporting about that post headline?
Trump posts disturbing baseball bat
photo with Alvin Bragg threatens death
and
destruction Donald Trump on Friday
threatened death and destruction if he's
criminally charged in New York writing
the shocking social media warning after
posting an image of himself holding a
baseball bat next to Manhattan District
Attorney Alvin Bragg's
head This quote from Trump quote "They
are human scum." The 76-year-old former
president raged in one post asking why
Bragg refuses to do the right thing and
call it a day
CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen tweeted
that threatening a prosecutor is a crime
in New York In fact multiple
crimes And friends even Jonathan Turley
who seems to forever defend Donald Trump
in knee-jerk fashion regardless of what
Trump says or does
George Washington University Law
Professor Jonathan Turley who testified
for Trump's defense during his first
impeachment for pressuring Ukraine to
investigate the Biden family has
repeatedly sought to warn the former
president off threatening postings
saying quote "Many of us have criticized
the reported indictment as deeply flawed
and politically motivated." Turley
tweeted Friday However that will be
addressed by the courts The rule of law
will be protected by the bench not the
bat in our constitutional system On
Thursday Turley blasted Trump for
writing in all caps "Our country is
being destroyed as they tell us to be
peaceful."
quote "Given the violence on January 6th
and riots in various cities our leaders
have to avoid reckless rhetoric." Turley
wrote "Being peaceful is not just a
legal obligation but a civic duty of
citizens." Wow when Jonathan Turley is
criticizing
Trump You know friends I think it pretty
unlikely that we will see James Comey
charged with communicating a threat But
if Pam Bondi's DOJ tries to pull that
crap then there's a good chance that the
DOJ lawyers who have their fingerprints
on a Comey indictment will run the risk
of being referred to their state bar for
an ethics
investigation because not bringing
baseless vindictive
prosecutions like
justice
matters Friends as always please stay
safe Please stay tuned And I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest