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

[admin]

GOP Show They Are DONE With Democracy, Want A KING
by Sarah Longwell and JVL
The Bulwark
Feb 11, 2025 Bulwark Takes

Sarah Longwell and JVL react to Scott Jennings putting Donald Trump over the rule of law by saying that Trump should defy court orders that are limiting his ability to dismantle the federal government.



Transcript

[Sarah Longwell] Hey guys. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark. I'm here with my best friend JVL. What's up man? You look great. I'm glad you wore that hat.

[JVL] Everything's going so good. I just feel like we're finally coming out of this, America! It's gonna to be all right.

[Sarah Longwell] Yeah, yeah, you feel like things are turning around.

[JVL] It's going to be all right.

[Sarah Longwell] You know, it's funny. You are known for your trademark optimism, so great. All right, so listen. Here's why I dragged you on the camera. I got something I want to talk about, okay? So we talked about this already, this past Sunday, after a Court ruled that Trump could not go through with one of his executive orders, our vice president, JD Vance, tweeted that, "If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general on how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the Executive's legitimate power."

Now, people like us said, "Wait a minute. I'm sorry. I actually think Judges are there to maybe draw lines around Executive authority. That is what judges have done in the past. So here's the thing, the reason I want to talk to you is that JD Vance coming out and saying that, and because we all know what they're doing, they are preparing for when the courts tell them they can't do something, to try and ignore the courts, right? And they're in a process -- and this is important, because Republicans do this -- they are in a process of building legitimacy for that totally illegitimate position. And one of the ways they do that is to have their toady surrogates go out and say, "Hey guys, nothing to see here. Of course we can't just have judges telling the president how to do their job.

[JVL] Be cool. Be cool everybody.

[Sarah Longwell] And one of my favorite Trump toadies, last night on CNN, one Scott Jennings, he reacted --

[JVL] I'm so glad CNN brings him onto their airwaves. He really helps their viewers understand the world better.

[Sarah Longwell] He's quite illuminating, that gentleman.

[JVL] Yeah.

[Sarah Longwell] Well he reacted to Vance's tweet. So he was asked if he believed that Trump should defy court orders that are limiting his ability to dismantle the federal government. And he gave exactly the type of answer you would expect from Scott Jennings. And I would like us to watch it.

[Scott Jennings] Now I think we do have a constitutional crisis. And it's being caused by these judges. They're not here to tell us how to spend the money. They're not here to set broad federal policy. That is the president's job as elected by the people. These judges are supposed to be settling discreet specific matters, not policy setting. I think Vance is right. I think Trump has a point. And these judges want nothing more but to continue the lawfare.

[Reporter] Let me just understand where you stand. If a district court judge rules in a way that the president dislikes, should the president listen, or should the president defy?

[Scott Jennings] If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely defy it. No matter who the president is, the duly elected chief executive of this country, they should not be sharing the broad plenary powers of the presidency with 300 individual district court judges.

[Sarah Longwell] Who cares about what those pesky District judges might say. What is a district judge anyway? Do we care?

[JVL] Is that even a real judge? All they judge is a district.

[Sarah Longwell] Yeah. [Laughs] Did you see Sununu sitting there?

[JVL] Yeah.

[Sarah Longwell] I saw some choice stuff from him too. He's moved up to a CNN pundit now.

[JVL] Yeah. That's great. Good god. [Adopting heavy English accent] At this point, I raise a practical question, Sarah. Who is it who decides whether they're usurping legitimate authority or not? Is it the president himself who decides that? Sorry, this is my Nigel Tufnel from Spinal Tap. This is like, "Will we be playing Stonehenge tonight?" Just say you want a king! Just say it. You know you want to. Just say you want your big daddy to take his belt off. You can do that Scott. You don't need to be afraid of it. Nobody on CNN is going to King Shame you.

[Sarah Longwell] I knew you were the right person to call to do this video, that you were going to keep it light, keep it --

[JVL] Cool.

[Sarah Longwell] Hey, but here's the thing. So just as some background, in the past few weeks, as you know there's been this blitzkrieg trying to dismantle the government --

[JVL] Uh, to pick a word.

[Sarah Longwell] To pick a word. As of yesterday, five different judges across the country, issued temporary blocks on five different executive orders, including Trump's attempt to overturn birthright citizenship, because it's obviously unconstitutional, funding cuts at NIH, the deferred resignation program for federal employees -- since it's not at all clear that that's legal to offer -- the firing --

[JVL] But Sarah, they sent an email! They sent an email! If people replied to that email with the word "resign" in the subject, I believe that's binding law. It's like signing a Blood Oath with the Devil. Like, you know, you sign the contract, you get the golden fiddle, then you have to play better than the devil does, otherwise he gets your soul. No?

[Sarah Longwell] Oh, the plot of one of my favorite songs. So then the firing of a nonpartisan government ethics watchdog, right? And then the federal funding freeze.

So there's been either temporary restraining orders, or they are just putting, you know, temporary blocks on these things. So one of the things Scott said in that clip is that he would have the same position on this matter if a Democrat did it.

[JVL] Oh, sure.

[Sarah Longwell] Now what I want to know from you, because I saw Susan Collins do a thing too when she announced recently that she's gonna confirm Tulsi Gabbard. No, wait. Was it Tulsi Gabbard or RFK? Merkowski said she's gonna do Tulsi Gabbard. Oh, when Susan Collins was asked about this, about what Trump was doing, she said, "Well Joe Biden did it and he set a really terrible precedent. And I'm seeing a lot of people say this, like this idea that if it was a Democrat, you know, they'd say the same thing: Yes, the legitimate executive authority. Okay. Do you think that Scott Jennings would say the same thing if it was a Democrat?

[JVL] You know Sarah, I'd really like to know when we could finally get back to talking about the real issues that Americans care about, like Hunter's laptop.

[Sarah Longwell] [Laughs]

[JVL] No, of course not. And this is what I mean. Look, Scott Jennings is free to do what Scott Jennings does. But I do fault CNN's executives for putting him on air, because it's preposterous to put that guy on air. He's just Bagdad Bob. Like he's absolutely bankrupt, and he will say anything. And there's no actual news value, or analytical value, in listening to him. Unless you agree, right? Unless the view of CNN's executive leadership is that that is the correct interpretation. Otherwise it's nonsense, and frankly kind of traitorous nonsense.

But of course none of this is about Biden. And if it were about Biden, I mean, then we we would have seen it about Biden, right? And Biden adhered to all of the laws. Biden even just sat there on his hands over the DOJ squashing the part two of the report on Trump's confidential documents case.

[Sarah Longwell] Well, here's the thing. I've seen this argument come up a lot, because two things are going on here. And it's not about Scott Jennings per se, it's about normalizing the idea that Trump is within his right to defy a court order, right? Like the minions are out trying to say that this is fine. While simultaneously you're seeing arguments like, "Well, Biden did this. And he set this precedent." And I really want to push back on this idea. Okay, here's what Biden did. I was mad when he did it, too. What Biden did, it was on student loan forgiveness, and he said, "The Supreme Court blocked me, but it didn't stop me." And by the way, you know what Scott Jennings tweeted when Joe Biden did that? He said that --

[JVL] Did he say, "I'm sorry, but President Biden is within his legitimate authority." Is that what he said?

[Sarah Longwell] He said, "Rough day for the 'America is hurtling toward a dictatorship!" crowd."

[JVL] Oh wow! So he thinks that means dictatorship. Yikes!

[Sarah Longwell] So anyway, but the disingenuousness of Scott Jennings, notwithstanding.

Here's the thing about what Biden did. I thought it was crappy when he came out and he was like, "You know, it's not going to stop me." But here's what he didn't do. He didn't just defy the order. He didn't just forgive all the student loans in a direct attack like saying. "I'm not going to listen to what the court said." What he did was he went back to the drawing board, and tried to come up with a different legal theory that the courts might go for. He accepted the ruling, and went back with his lawyers, and was like, "Let's try this again. Let's come at this from a different angle."

That is not what Trump is doing! Everybody listen to me! This is not what Trump is doing. Trump is saying if the courts rule against him -- just a lowly District Court, which by the way, I don't know why, he can appeal it if he doesn't like it, and it will go up to the Supreme Court, eventually. That's what will happen. But if they just decide, "No, we're just going to defy it," that is a constitutional crisis, is it not? Am I getting this wrong?

[JVL] No, you're right of course. And you know, it's actually worse than even you've portrayed it. Because this afternoon, we had report from NBC news ,that what happened with the FEMA funding is a judge issued a temporary restraining order saying, "You cannot freeze disbursements from FEMA; you have to be giving those out." The Trump Administration just defied it. They just kept holding on to the FEMA disbursements. So they went back to court and the judge said, "No, you have to follow my order." This is the, "You can't not follow the order." And then NBC News got a hold of a memo sent out by a senior official in FEMA saying, "No. Hold those. Don't disburse any funds." And so as the people from NBC noted, what you have here is a scenario in which you have a bunch of civil service bureaucrats at FEMA who are being told, "If you don't break the law, we will fire you; but if you do break the law, I guess just hope that Daddy Trump will pardon you? You'll be like Eric Adams. It'll all be cool. Be cool, Daddyo." And this is Gangster government. AND I'M NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY IT WOULDN'T WORK THIS WAY, BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT FUCKING INVENTED CRIMINAL IMMUNITY FOR THE PRESIDENT! And if you do that, this is what you get. It isn't like, "Oh, this is an unintended consequence. How could we possibly have known?" Like this is literally, you had a guy stand in front of you and say say, "Uh well, I mean, I guess if the president sent Seal Team 6 to assassinate the guy he was running against, it would probably be cool." And then they said, "Yeah, okay, that sounds good. We'll sign off on that. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?" Sarah, this is where we live now. And it's because all of this that -- I've written a bunch about this -- I'm pretty convinced the Supreme Court will not rule against him, because at this point they understand that if they do it, and he defies them, what are they going to do about it? And that's the real end, right? I mean, that is the point where all the floodgates are opened, and we are in actual dictatorship autocracy, because the Constitution has just been been burned. And I think John Roberts isn't going to want to take that chance. My suspicion is that he will try to find some lawyerly way to let Trump do whatever he wants, while saying that he didn't have to, he didn't have to let Trump do whatever he wants, he chose to, and at some point in the unspecified future he could choose to stop Trump.

[Sarah Longwell] I disagree with you.

[JVL] Okay. That's new.

[Sarah Longwell] I think that Amy Coney Barrett [laughs], I do not think the Supreme Court -- I agree with you that John Roberts will do what he always does, which is try to find some halfstep way, but I do think they will do something to rain Trump in. And they'll probably do some kind of half a loaf thing. But I do think they want to steer us away from a constitutional crisis. And I also don't like the idea of taking the bleakest view on this, in part because I don't like the idea of all of us just saying, "Yeah, country's over. Let's have no expectations for the Supreme Court." Because here's the thing man. I don't know who needs to learn this, Scott Jennings, [holds up chart] this is how government works, okay? The checks and balance of the Judiciary, right? The Executive branch=. And you have Congress. I don't know about you, but I came up in Republican circles where they're always like, "We need to do more civic education. People don't understand the way things work." Here's how it works. This is called checks and balances, right? They're co-equal branches of government .

[JVL] Graphic design is your passion.

[Sarah Longwell] [Laughs] I just did this just now.

[JVL] Are you going to pull out your pocket Constitution next?

[Sarah Longwell] Don't make me. I will pull out the Constitution.

[JVL] Can I break you? Do I have permission to break you on YouTube? Normally we save JVL breaking Sarah for the secret show. Here's why the Supreme Court should NOT stand in the way of presidential authority and executive power. [Adopting heavy British accent] Because the Constitution provides a remedy in case the executive overreaches. The legislative branch can impeach, convict and remove an overzealous chief executive. Mwahahahaha! It's over.

[Sarah Longwell] You didn't break me! Hold on a second.

[JVL] All of the pieces of the Constitution are now dead letters. They are dead letters.

[Sarah Longwell] All I wanted was 15 minutes to make fun of Scott Jennings, draw a poor man's thing about the way the checks and balances work. That's all I wanted to do. The world is still moving. There will be elections in 2026. And before any of you jump in the comments to be like, "Naive Sarah, we're not having elections." Okay guys, well then what are you doing watching a political podcast if it's all ending? Just go fishing or something. Go do something else with your lives. What are we all doing here if we're not trying to stop the march of autocracy on our liberal democracy. We're trying to do that, right? So let's not say it's all over. Let's figure out what we're going to do about it. And (1) is to demand that Congress assert their power, (2) is to make sure Democrats are in charge in 2026 so that they can impeach him, and (3) to demand that the Judiciary do the things that it is supposed to do, which is to uphold its lower courts when the lower courts are correct. Like when they're right. And to say that the judicial branch still matters. It is there to put a check on the Executive branch. It's literally its role.

[JVL] Sarah, do you want to know why I'm here? You know why I'm here doing this instead of out fishing? One reason is so that when you and I are hauled off to the camps, and we're put in side-by-side cells in Guantanamo, I can sit in my cell and I could say, "Told you so; told you so, over and over until you want to murder me for an extra pack of cigarettes --

[Sarah Longwell] We don't have to be in cells for that to happen, okay? We're there.

[JVL] [Laughs]

[Sarah Longwell] All right. Fine! That's all I got, man. That's all I got.

[JVL] Good luck America!

[admin]

Trump's DOJ To DISMISS Prosecution of NYC Mayor Eric Adams, But NOT For Lack of Evidence???
by Glenn Kirschner
Feb 12, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America

Donald Trump's Department of Justice seems to be leaving the honest practice of the law behind. DOJ leadership directed federal prosecutors at the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office to dismiss all criminal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

In a remarkable admission, a DOJ memo says they are not dismissing the case based on "assessing the strength of the evidence", but due to the "restricted ability (of Adams) to help the Trump administration."

This video discusses the three main takeaways from this searingly unjust development.



Transcript

So friends, Donald Trump's department of
justice has signaled that it intends to
dismiss, or really more accurately, to
withdraw criminal charges against New
York city mayor Eric Adams, and it sure
looks like they are preparing to hold
those charges over the head of Mayor
Adams. To what
end? You know friends, this is no way to
run a Department of
Justice. Let's talk about that because
Justice matters.
[Music]

Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here. So
friends, a Federal grand jury handed down
a 57-page indictment detailing the
allegations against New York city mayor
Eric Adams and specifically charging
Adams with conspiracy and bribery and
wire fraud and other
crimes, and even though the evidence in
that 57-page indictment looks
strong, Donald Trump's Department of
Justice is seeking to dismiss the case
against
him. Let's start with the new reporting. This from CBS News:

"Justice Department
tells prosecutors to drop case against
New York city mayor Eric
Adams."

And that article begins:

The Department of Justice told Federal
prosecutors in New York to drop their
corruption case against New York mayor
Eric Adams citing his restricted
ability to help the Trump Administration
enforce its immigration policies.

You know friends, this is a special kind of
lawlessness, and a really nefarious kind
of leverage it appears Trump's DOJ is
exerting against Eric Adams. We'll talk
more about that leverage in a
minute. The article
continues:

Acting Deputy attorney general
Emil Bove, sent a memo instructing
prosecutors in the southern district of
New York U.S. attorney's office, to abandon
the charges. "You are directed as
authorized by the Attorney General, to
dismiss the pending charges," Bove wrote in
a memo Monday adding that the department
reached this conclusion without
assessing the strength of the evidence,
or the legal theories on which the case
is based, and in no way calls into
question the integrity and efforts of
the prosecutors who brought the case.
Instead, Bove wrote that the timing of the
charges, and the former US attorney who
brought the case, created appearances of
impropriety, and that the probe into
Adams' office has unduly restricted mayor
Adam's ability to devote full attention
and resources to the illegal immigration
and violent crime that occurred in his
city under President Joe Biden. Bove added
that the charges against Adams can be
reconsidered by the southern district of
New York federal prosecutors after
the November 2025 New York City mayoral
election."

And what that sounds like to me,
is Donald Trump's DOJ saying, "So look
Adams, we will be holding these charges
over your head, so
you best do as we
say. The article continues:

The stunning
decision comes after Department lawyers
met with Adams' attorneys and Manhattan
Federal prosecutors in late January
where senior officials discussed
dropping the charges against the
embattled mayor. In September Adams was
indicted on five counts including
bribery, conspiracy, and campaign Finance
violations. He pleaded not guilty to all
charges. The mayor's trial is scheduled
to begin in April. The decision to drop
the charges will still need to be
formally submitted by prosecutors and
approved by the judge overseeing the
case.

Friends, I think by any objective
assessment of what's going on here, this
is a stunning example of governmental
misconduct. FBI agents, and undoubtedly
lots of other law enforcement agents and
agencies, but FBI agents and federal
prosecutors, public servants, all
undoubtedly worked their tails off
investigating these suspected crimes, and
presenting what was almost certainly a
mountain of evidence to a grand jury and
obtained a public corruption indictment
detailing the alleged crimes of Eric
Adams. And Donald Trump's dirty DOJ just
brushes it all
aside, You know what an insult to the FBI
agents, to the federal prosecutors, to the
Grand jurors, and the many others who
work to put this important public
corruption case together, and what a
victimization of the people of New
York.

So friends, what are
three of the many takeaways from this
horrific development, this searing abuse
and Injustice. Well, first of all this
decision to dismiss these charges, or
withdraw them and potentially hold them
over Eric Adams head, has nothing to do
with the strength of the evidence
supporting these criminal charges. How do
we know that? Because Donald Trump's DOH
told us so. It said that the Department
reached this conclusion without
assessing the strength of the evidence.
Friends, once a case has been
indicted, the strength of the evidence is
pretty much the only thing that should
come into play when prosecutors are
considering dismissing an indictment
that they worked so hard to obtain, and
that a grand jury handed down. No, it
should be based only on the strength the
quality the quantity of the evidence the
ability of the prosecutors to use that
evidence to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. But Donald Trump's
Department of Justice said it has nothing
to do with the strength of the evidence,
but it has everything to do with
something else. According to Donald
Trump's Department of Justice, takeaway
number
two. it's all about Eric Adams' restricted
ability to help the Trump
Administration.

Friends, can you imagine,
that it has nothing to do with the strength
of the evidence; rather, it has everything
to do with Eric Adams' ability to help
Donald Trump and his
administration?

This is the legal upside
down. This is not the way the criminal
justice system is supposed to
work. And that brings us to the third
takeaway
with these cases being dismissed. They can be re-indicted
at the pleasure of the Department of
Justice, Donald Trump's Department of
Justice. And they are being dismissed, or
withdrawn, because they expect Eric Adams
to help the Trump Administration. You know,
in undefined ways: immigration;
fighting violent crime.

Yeah right. Sure.
What do you think Eric Adams will do
to keep these charges from being dropped
on his head anew, as Donald Trump's
Department of Justice said they are
prepared to do? Talk about
leverage. Do we suspect Eric Adams would
do damn near
anything the Trump Administration wanted
him to do to keep from being
re-indicted? Friends, this is not the way
the Department of Justice is supposed to
operate

Because Justice matters. Friends try to hang in there.
Please stay safe, please stay tuned and I
look forward to talking with you all
again tomorrow
[Music]

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

Justice Department orders charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams dismissed: The mayor was charged with bribery, fraud and other counts. Legal experts questioned the Trump administration’s justification for the move, and one law enforcement official called the order “transparent corruption.”
by Ken Dilanian, Ryan J. Reilly and Tom Winter
NBC News
Feb. 10, 2025, 5:16 PM MST / Updated Feb. 10, 2025, 7:57 PM MST
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/er ... rcna191600

Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove has ordered federal prosecutors in New York to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, a senior Justice Department official said Monday evening.

The order is for all charges against Adams to be dismissed, and the dismissal is without prejudice, the official said, meaning charges could be refiled in the future.

The charges have not yet been dismissed, and federal prosecutors in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday night.

A formal dismissal request would be filed in court by prosecutors overseen by Danielle R. Sassoon, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, where the charges were brought. A motion to dismiss would also be reviewed by a judge.

Adams’ attorney Alex Spiro called the planned dismissal a victory. “As I said from the outset, the mayor is innocent — and he would prevail. Today he has,” Spiro said in a statement.

In a memo, Bove argued that the indictment of Adams in September came too close to this year's mayoral primary in June and that it limited Adams' ability to aid President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigrants and to fight crime.

Bove said Adams' case would be reviewed by a new Trump-appointed U.S. attorney after the general election for mayor in November.

Bove, without citing specific evidence, also suggested that the charges were politically motivated. “It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior Administration’s immigration policies before the charges were filed," Bove wrote.

Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School, rejected Bove’s explanation.

“Although dressed up as a concern for appearances and despite his disclaimer," Gillers said, "Bove’s memo is really a baseless and offensive slur against the former U.S. attorney and the lawyers who worked on the Adams case at the premier federal prosecutorial office in the nation.”

The office also prosecuted Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison last month after he was convicted of bribery, obstruction of justice and other charges.

The indictments of Adams and Menendez, two prominent Democratic elected officials, during the 2024 presidential election cycle were generally seen as political blows to the Democratic Party. And the fact that charges could be filed against Adams again could make him beholden to the Trump administration.

A federal law enforcement official called the order to withdraw the charges “horrific” and “just transparent corruption.”

Adams, a former New York police captain elected mayor in 2021, was charged in an indictment unsealed in September with one count of conspiracy to receive campaign contributions from foreign nationals and commit wire fraud and bribery, two counts of soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals and one count of soliciting and accepting a bribe.

The indictment accused him of taking $100,000 worth of free plane tickets and luxury hotel stays from wealthy Turkish nationals and at least one government official in a nearly decadelong corruption scheme.

Adams has pleaded not guilty. He has said that he is innocent, that the charges are politically motivated and that he would fight the charges.

Trump suggested on Dec. 16 that he would consider pardoning Adams, saying that Adams "was treated pretty unfairly” and that he would need to see the case, “because I don’t know the facts.”

Adams met with Trump in Palm Beach, Florida, days before Trump was inaugurated as president. He said they discussed a number of topics but “did not discuss my legal case.” Adams later attended Trump’s inauguration.

An attorney for Adams contacted Justice Department leadership late last month about dropping the criminal case.

Adams was elected Brooklyn Borough president in 2013 before he was elected mayor of New York. Damian Williams, the Biden-appointed U.S. attorney who brought the charges, said Adams was alleged to have been taking bribes and soliciting illegal campaign contributions dating to his time as the borough president.

Adams ran for mayor on a platform of fighting crime, beating Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa, who founded the 1970s-era anti-crime patrol the Guardian Angeles.

Williams announced his resignation in December after Trump won the election.

In announcing criminal charges, Williams had said Adams allowed a Manhattan skyscraper to open without a fire inspection as part of the alleged bribery scheme.

“Adams put the interests of his benefactors, including a foreign official, above those of his constituents,” Williams said at the time.

Spiro, Adams' attorney, said Monday that "the mayor never used his official position for personal benefit. Nor did he have any role in violating campaign finance laws."

Ken Dilanian is the justice and intelligence correspondent for NBC News, based in Washington.

Ryan J. Reilly is a justice reporter for NBC News.

Tom Winter is a New York-based correspondent covering crime, courts, terrorism and financial fraud on the East Coast for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

Phil Helsel, Adam Reiss and David Rohde contributed.

[admin]

Here Are All The Major Lawsuits Against Trump And Musk: 8 Inspectors General Challenge Their Firing In Court -- TIMELINE
by Alison Durkee
Forbes Staff
Feb 12, 2025,10:29am EST
Updated Feb 12, 2025, 04:07pm EST

TIMELINE:

Feb. 12: Eight inspectors general—or federal agency watchdogs—who were fired by Trump filed a lawsuit, arguing their termination violated federal rules that require the executive branch to give Congress 30 days notice before any inspectors general are fired and give concrete reasoning to justify that decision.

Feb. 11: A court order halting the Trump administration’s directive to freeze most federal spending will remain in place after the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift it, the latest twist in a court battle over the funding pause, after multiple judges previously blocked it—and Judge John McConnell Jr. then separately had to order the Trump administration to “immediately restore frozen funding,” after a group of states that sued Trump alleged they “continue to be denied access to federal funds.”

Feb. 11: District Judge John D. Bates ordered Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to restore their websites and datasets to what they were on Jan. 30—prior to data being removed—before the end of the day in response to a lawsuit from Doctors for America that alleged the Trump administration removed “a broad range of health-related data.”

Feb. 11: A lawsuit was filed by a group of nongovernmental organizations and small businesses that receive American foreign aid against the Trump administration for its efforts to phase out the U.S. Agency for International Development, and it alleges Trump’s administration “violated the separation of powers” and, in doing so, put their aid work and employees’ livelihoods at risk.

Feb. 10: Trump’s deadline for over 2 million federal employees to accept buyout offers was once again extended by Boston-based Judge George O’Toole, as he weighs whether to halt the buyouts long-term, as requested by federal workers’ unions that sued over the plan (the buyout deadline was initially set for Feb. 6, but O’Toole has now delayed it twice).

Feb. 10: After 22 states sued the National Institutes of Health over its decision to place a 15% cap on indirect funding for research projects—calling the rate change “arbitrary and capricious”—District Judge Mary Page Kelley halted the cap while the litigation moves forward.

Feb. 10: District Judge Joseph LaPlante halted Trump’s order that only allows the children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to become citizens at birth, in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union—marking the third time a federal judge has blocked Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship since it was issued Jan. 20.

Feb. 9: The Treasury Department asked District Judge Paul Engelmayer to “immediately” dissolve his order barring political appointees from accessing the Treasury Department’s system, after Trump, Musk and their allies blasted the judge’s ruling and claimed it shouldn’t be possible for the judge to restrict DOGE’s access.

Engelmayer ruled political appointees and “special government employees”—like members of Musk’s team—must be cut off from access from the Treasury’s systems while the litigation is pending, after 19 Democratic state attorneys general sued Trump over DOGE’s Treasury access.

Feb. 7: Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, blocked a plan to put 2,200 USAID staff on paid leave, part of Trump’s gambit to wind down the foreign aid agency—a temporary reprieve following a lawsuit by a federal employees’ union calling Trump’s efforts to dismantle USAID without Congress’ permission “unconstitutional and illegal.”

Feb. 7: The University of California Student Association sued the Department of Education, accusing Musk’s DOGE of illegally accessing “sensitive personal and financial information” of about 42 million federal student loan borrowers.

Feb. 7: The Justice Department agreed to not name the FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6 investigation before a judge rules on two lawsuits from FBI agents that argued the dissemination of the agents’ names could threaten their employment, reputation and wellbeing.

Feb. 6: Judge John Coughenour in Seattle extended a pause on Trump’s day-one executive order rescinding birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented or temporary immigrants, in response to a lawsuit brought by Democratic-led states, writing, “The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order.”

Feb. 5: A second judge —Deborah L. Boardman of Maryland—blocked Trump’s policy rescinding birthright citizenship, in response to a lawsuit brought by nonprofits representing undocumented pregnant women.

Jan. 23: Coughenour paused Trump’s order rescinding birthright citizenship, the first major ruling against the second Trump administration.

Jan. 20: The first lawsuit against Trump’s administration was filed minutes after he was sworn into office, as public interest law group National Security Counselors argued DOGE should be classified as a federal advisory board that has “fairly balanced” membership and follows public transparency rules.

[admin]

Multiple ICE impersonation arrests made during nationwide immigration crackdown
by Artemis Moshtaghian, Gloria Pazmino and Nick Valencia
CNN
Updated 1:35 PM EST, Wed February 5, 2025
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/us/ice-i ... index.html


From left: Sean-Michael Johnson, Aidan Steigelmann and Carl Thomas Bennett. Al Cannon Detention Center/Philadelphia Police Department/Wake County Government/Courtesy WRAL CNN

Editor’s note: This story contains profane and hateful language.

Authorities in at least three states have arrested individuals allegedly impersonating Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at a time when real ICE agents have ramped up immigration enforcement efforts under the Trump administration, adding to existing fears of law enforcement among migrant communities.

In South Carolina, Sean-Michael Johnson, 33, was charged with kidnapping and impersonating a police officer after allegedly detaining a group of Latino men along a Charleston County road. Johnson is accused of “willfully and unlawfully presenting himself as an ICE Agent and detaining a vehicle of individuals from moving,” according to court records.

The incident, which was recorded by one of the victims, took place on Sullivan’s Island near Charleston on January 29.

“You all got caught!” Johnson is heard saying on the video. “Where are you from, Mexico? You from Mexico? You’re going back to Mexico!”

In the video, Johnson is seen taking the driver’s keys, mocking the driver’s accent, while jiggling the car keys in his face. At one point he is seen trying to take the driver’s phone.

The driver calls a friend and, speaking Spanish, says, “I don’t know man, he’s saying immigration.”

“Now don’t be speaking that pig-Latin in my f**king country!” Johnson says, knocking the phone out of his hand.

“He’s crazy. He’s a racist, man,” one of the passengers in the vehicle, another victim, can be heard saying in Spanish.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ULc3Kror-2k

Johnson was charged with three counts of kidnapping and one count each of impersonating a law enforcement officer, petty larceny, assault and battery, according to jail records.

CNN has been unable to locate an attorney for Johnson. In court Saturday, the public defender said Johnson was extremely sorry for his actions.

Johnson bonded out of jail over the weekend, and in a court appearance Saturday his family pleaded with the judge, saying their son has mental health issues and “has tried to get help” in the past, “but he needs to continue with that therapy,” according to CNN affiliate WCIV.

An ICE spokesperson in a statement Wednesday noted “imposters” who commit such “dangerous” actions can face criminal charges at the federal, state and local levels.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and agents are highly trained and dedicated professionals who are sworn to uphold the law, protect the American people and support U.S. national security interests,” the statement said. “ICE strongly condemns the impersonation of its officers or agents.”

‘Vulnerable in this moment’

The founder and president of the Charleston Hispanic Association told CNN that harassment of his constituents based on their ethnicity is commonplace.

“We hear of Hispanics being targeted quite a bit. It’s an everyday thing,” Enrique Grace told CNN. “I don’t think this is an isolated case, it was just caught on video. It’s pretty sad to see that.”

The ICE impersonation cases come as President Donald Trump has quickly mobilized wide swaths of the federal government to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants in the United States, part of a broader strategy to amass a large enforcement machine.

The administration has sent troops to the US-Mexico border, utilized military aircraft to repatriate recent border crossers, and deployed people from multiple federal agencies, including those under the Justice Department, to augment immigration enforcement operations.

“Immigrants are a target for scams anyway, and I think that this just kind of amplifies this, this situation where people who are particularly vulnerable are in this moment where they are kind of looking for ICE agents everywhere,” Siembra NC co-director Nikki Marin Baena told CNN.

The grassroots organization based out of North Carolina focuses on supporting Latino communities through civic engagement and social justice.

Siembra NC is actively combating ICE impersonation and reducing community fear by creating and distributing multimedia educational resources, including graphics and videos, and hosting statewide “know your rights” presentations that teach Latino residents how to distinguish between legitimate federal law enforcement officers and potential impersonators.

College student accused of impersonation

In another impersonation case, in Philadelphia, police charged a Temple University student in connection with the alleged impersonation of ICE officers on campus. The incident, which occurred Saturday night, involved three individuals, two wearing shirts with “Police” and “ICE” in white lettering, attempting to enter a residence hall on campus, Temple University said in a statement.

After being denied entrance to the residence hall, they were later found disrupting a local business, the university said.

Philadelphia police arrested 22-year-old Aidan Steigelmann, charging him with impersonating a public servant, with the university saying that he’s been placed on “interim suspension.” Two other suspects involved in the incident fled the scene in a light-colored SUV, according to the Philadelphia Police Department.

CNN has reached out to Steigelmann’s attorney for comment.

Temple’s statement followed an announcement earlier in the week reacting to Trump’s executive orders, including the plans for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

“The uncertainty of the present moment has also led to an increase in rumors, which can quickly be amplified through social media,” Temple University President John Fry said in a Wednesday statement. “Please know that neither Temple’s Department of Public Safety nor the Philadelphia Police Department have any reports of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents being on campus.”

Meanwhile, in Raleigh, North Carolina, Carl Thomas Bennett was arrested for allegedly impersonating an ICE officer and sexual assaulting a woman at a Motel 6 threatening to deport her if she didn’t comply, according to CNN affiliate WRAL.

Police reports indicated that Bennett, 37, “threatened to deport the victim if she did not have sex with him,” and “displayed a business card with a badge on it,” according to WRAL.

Bennett was denied bond and appointed a public defender, court records show, CNN affiliate WBTV reported.

CNN has reached out to Raleigh Police Department for comment.

The incidents show the importance of “safe space” policies, according to Maribel Hernández Rivera, director of policy and government affairs, border and immigration at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s important for immigrant communities to feel safe, to be able to approach law enforcement and report anything that’s happening and when people do not feel safe, not only does it make people who are immigrants less safe, but it makes all of us less safe,” Hernández Rivera said.

In her view, Trump administration immigration policies are designed to instill fear, which she says endangers public safety for entire communities.

“The point of their policies is to create fear, to create panic, to create chaos. That’s the point,” Hernández Rivera told CNN. “The point is a cruelty and that is what’s being exploited here.”

Under the Trump administration, federal immigration authorities are now permitted to arrest people and carry out enforcement actions in and near places such as churches and schools, marking a departure from long-standing policy to avoid so-called sensitive areas. Hernandez said the shift in policy not only threatens public safety but discourages people who need help from law enforcement or health care providers to seek it out.

After watching the video Hernández Rivera said it also showed the effect that White House policies are having across the country – not just for migrant communities but also everyone else.

“What we’re seeing here is we have leadership at the top that dehumanizes people who are immigrants and now this is the outcome of that dehumanizing,” Hernández Rivera said. “You end up having a violation of people’s rights, people see and hear this and they feel emboldened to go against immigrants.”

CNN’s Devon Sayers, Shawn Nottingham, Nayeli Jaramillo-Plata, and Lex Harvey contributed to this report.

[admin]

Crockett Slams MAGA Republicans for Relinquishing Constitutional Duties to Elon Musk
DOGE Hearing
Rep. Jasmine Crockett
Feb 12, 2025

In the first DOGE Subcommittee Hearing of the 119th Congress, Rep. Crockett delivers powerful remarks, criticizing MAGA Republicans for allegedly surrendering their constitutional responsibilities to Elon Musk. Watch as Crockett exposes the troubling influence of tech moguls on political decision-making and the future of democracy.



Transcript

Thank you madam chair um and Mr talve. I'm just
going to go ahead and pick up where you
left off really quickly um just to be
clear the upgrades that you're talking
about as it relates to our data
processes these aren't things that would
be free are they they would cost some
kind of money not looking for a number
but they will cost correct some are free
and some would cost money okay all right
so I just want to leave it there because
um we've had a number of these hearings
so I do want to be clear before the
Trump Administration came in um this
committee did exist in the form of the
oversight committee and our task is to
root out waste Fraud and Abuse in that
vein we had a number of hearings at
least last term I can't speak for any
other term as I'm only in my sophomore
term and we dealt with improper payments
And interestingly enough, our chairwoman
who is so passionate about this today,
she missed every single one of those
improper payment hearings. But just to be
clear, I was there, so I don't want anyone
to believe that Democrats just come to
work and don't plan to do work. In fact,
I'm trying to figure out exactly what it
is that the Republicans believe our job
is. Because right now, they have
relinquished their constitutional duties
over to an unelected bureaucrat, someone
who no one went out to vote for, and
absolutely he is occupying the Oval
Office as we saw yesterday. And that is a
first for me to see someone occupying
the Oval Office who's never actually
been elected to the Oval Office, and
actually answering more questions than
the person that allegedly got elected.
But for whatever reason, this is the
first time we're having a DOGE
subcommittee hearing, and that guy is not
here. Instead, we have y'all. So I do want
to thank you for coming. But I will say
this it's also interesting to me, that in
the first few days of Doge existing, we
know that they are trying to get rid of
the Department of Education, USAid, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
they're laying off FAA workers, they are
going after the FDA, the CDC, the HHS, the
FBI agents, and they're talking about
getting rid of FEMA. And they brought
y'all in, and I am going to say that I
actually was shocked that there was only
one person that seemed like he was an
overt Trumper, as you laid out your
opening remarks, because I anticipated
that at least one of y'all would say yes,
what Elon is doing is exactly what we
would prescribe. But
instead, I will applaud you, because you
actually were focused. You talked about
what the American people are looking for
us to do. We've actually consistently, on
this side of the aisle, promoted this
idea of making investments into
technology so that we can do things such
as say look at the Department of Defense,
the Department of Defense that takes up
approximately 50% of our
discretionary income, or our
discretionary spending. Approximately 50%
goes to Department of Defense Department
of Defense, who has not been able to pass an
audit in the last six audits. And we're
not talking about pennies.

I understand that we want everything to be perfect
and if we could get all ways of Fraud and
Abuse out, that would be fantastic. But
let me talk about the big numbers.

The big numbers are on that side when we
look at say our entire work Force, our
federal Workforce, as we're trying to
somehow fire all of them, they don't even
make up a total of 5%. It's even less
than that when we look at our budget. But
let's talk about defense. That just
happens to be the same side of the
Ledger that Mr musk gets the vast
majority of his money from. In fact, at
the same time that they were unlawfully,
and we will stay in court, because on
this side we believe in Law and Order,
I mean a number of us are
actually lawyers. But nevertheless, we
understand the Constitution. We believe
in that as well. And so there's things
such as you know, impoundment, right?
Because as Mr witson said, he said we
need to return the power of the purse to
Congress. It never left! According to the
Constitution, that's where it's at now.

I know that people are confused right now,
because for whatever reason, we had a guy
that went in, and you talk about people
invading our data. Listen, people said
that they were upset about Tik Tok. But
I'm upset about the guy that run
Twitter, who for sure is doing nefarious
things. Because I don't understand if you
are trying to conduct Audits, and figure
out where the waste, Fraud, and Abuse is, I
don't know why you would go to some tech
guy. In fact, it was only techies that
were sitting there at the inauguration. We
didn't have Auditors. I would welcome
Auditors to come in and do forensic
audits. In fact, he sat there in the Oval
Office yesterday, and he admitted that he
was lying and he was using his
propaganda machine to do it when he said
that we sent millions of dollars to Gaza
for Condoms. That was a lie. So let me
tell you
something ...

[Marjorie Taylor Greene] Time expired. Time expired.

[admin]

Trump Admin Admits It Made Significant Errors in Dismantling USAID
by Martha McHardy is a U.S. News reporter.
Newsweek
Published Feb 11, 2025 at 10:16 AM EST
Updated Feb 11, 2025 at 7:18 PM EST
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-u ... rs-2029312

The Trump administration has admitted it made two significant errors in its attempt to dismantle U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), according to new legal filings.

The Context

The Trump administration is attempting to put more than 2,000 USAID workers on paid leave and recall nearly all of those posted abroad. Under the plan, most USAID programs worldwide would also be suspended following a funding freeze initiated by the White House.

The move by the Trump administration has led to a lawsuit being filed by the Public Citizen Litigation Group and Democracy Forward, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA)—the union representing USAID workers—to halt the efforts.

On Friday, a federal judge blocked the attempt to put 2,700 USAID workers on paid leave.

It comes amid the Trump administration's drive to drastically reduce the size of the federal government and cut what it claims is wasteful public spending. Leading this effort is the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk. Republicans have cited USAID's spending on global diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as an example of wasteful public spending. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle federal diversity and inclusion programs.

What To Know

The Department of Justice has acknowledged making two errors in an initial court hearing for the lawsuit, according to new legal filings from February 10.

According to the filings, in a hearing on February 7—which was held 3 hours after the initial temporary restraining order (TRO) motion was filed—the department said that only 500 USAID employees had been placed on leave, when the number was in fact 2,140.

The DoJ has now corrected the error in subsequent legal filings.

Meanwhile, in the initial court hearing, the DoJ also initially said that future contracts with USAID would be frozen, per a directive by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, subsequent filings revealed existing contracts were also paused.

The errors were set out in a notice of correction attached to the legal filing from February 10. The filing said the errors were made "in good faith" on the basis of information provided to the DoJ immediately prior to the hearing.

The American Foreign Service Association had asked the court to declare unlawful what they called "a series of unconstitutional and illegal actions taken by President Donald Trump and his administration that have systematically dismantled" USAID without authorization from Congress.

"Pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency," the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs in the case also said that the moves by Trump and Musk had "generated a global humanitarian crisis by abruptly halting the crucial work of USAID employees, grantees, and contractors."

"They have cost thousands of American jobs. And they have imperiled U.S. national security interests," they wrote.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols—who was nominated by Trump during his first term—has now entered a temporary restraining order in the case, putting the Trump administration's plans on hold. Nichols wrote that the firing of USAID employees would result in "physical harm."

"No future lawsuit could undo the physical harm that might result if USAID employees are not informed of imminent security threats occurring in the countries to which they have relocated in the course of their service to the United States."

"Administrative leave in Syria is not the same as administrative leave in Bethesda: simply being paid cannot change that fact," he wrote.

All 2,140 employees have now been taken off of paid leave. However, some USAID workers were reportedly turned away from their offices even after the TRO was issued.

Nichols said he would not impose a pause on the funding freeze, putting many USAID programs at risk.

Only a small portion of USAID funding goes towards DEI initiatives. Much of USAID funding goes toward agencies like the World Food Program, UNICEF and nongovernmental agencies like Save the Children. USAID is the world's biggest aid donor.

What People Are Saying

AFSA President Tom Yazdgerdi said in a press release: "This reckless decision has thrown USAID's Foreign Service professionals—and their families—into chaos. These non-partisan men and women have dedicated their careers to advancing America's interests abroad, only to have their futures suddenly placed in jeopardy."

He added: "USAID Foreign Service officers are non-partisan patriots who serve under every president, regardless of party, to implement U.S. foreign policy and advance national security. AFSA is committed to using every tool at our disposal to protect these professionals, safeguard their careers, and ensure that USAID retains the expertise necessary to fulfill its mission."

Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: "USAID IS DRIVING THE RADICAL LEFT CRAZY, AND THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE WAY IN WHICH THE MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT, SO MUCH OF IT FRAUDULENTLY, IS TOTALLY UNEXPLAINABLE. THE CORRUPTION IS AT LEVELS RARELY SEEN BEFORE. CLOSE IT DOWN!"

What Happens Next

For now, the plan to fire over 2,000 USAID employees is on hold until February 14 at 11:59 p.m. It remains unclear whether Trump has the authority to dismantle USAID. Democrats say such a move would be illegal.

Elon Musk said during an X Spaces stream last Monday that Trump "agreed" with him that the agency should be shut down.

"I actually checked with him a few times. Said 'Are you sure?' Yes, so we're shutting it down," Musk said.

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

OMG! Trump DOJ Makes SHOCK ADMISSION in Filings
by Ben Meiselas and Harry Litman
MeidasTouch
Feb 12, 2025

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas and Talking Feds host Harry Litman report on Donald Trump’s DOJ lawyers being forced to admit they lied to federal judges in prior proceedings.



Transcript

[Ben Meiselas] the Department of Justice lawyers in the
Trump Administration have had to make
some very embarrassing filings that
would be putting it lightly and there
could be major repercussions as to
factual
misrepresentations AKA lies that they
made to federal judges we've been
covering here Harry Litman and us here
at the Meidastouch Network Harry
Litman on the talking feds podcast the
tsunami of cases that have been filed
against the Trump Administration for all
of these patently egregiously unlawful
executive orders that Donald Trump has
been signing shutting down agencies
cutting off funding where Congress has
clearly appropriated the funds gutting
staff firing people without uh
appropriate diligence and without
appropriate cause I mean there's been a
lot of horrific actions but some
powerful lawsuits some orders by judges
and when these filings happen just to
situate everybody there are often
emergency hearings that are held and
these hearings take place in court or
via conference call depending on the
hearing but often in a courtroom and the
judge whether they're Democratic
appointed Republican appointed Trump
appointed judges they ask the lawyers
questions now Harry Litman worked in the
Department of Justice he was a top
leader at the doj Harry Litman was also
a top federal prosecutor the top federal
prosecutor in the Western District of
Pennsylvania so it's not uncommon, though,
that at the DOJ, you would get called in
for emergency hearings. And you've got to
know the facts. So you go to the source
of the facts, the agency heads, certain
people, and you got to damn well make
sure that when you're making
representations to judges, as the lawyer
you have your facts straight, because
every time you step into the court,
whether you're a private lawyer or a
government lawyer, you have something
called a bar license ,and you have to be
candid, you have a duty of candor, duties
of diligence with the court. Yes I know
that Donald Trump is a felon. Yes I know
that Elon Musk is an online agitator, and
engages in horrific conduct. Lawyers have
licenses. And I want to talk about these
Notices of Corrections that we're seeing
filed now where these lawyers have
admitted that they are lying.

So you have
a Notice of Correction filed in the case
involving
SAID on the critical issue where the DOJ
had acknowledged that it made two
significant errors during the court
hearing last week on efforts to
dismantle USAid. One, it said only 500
employees had been placed on leave when
the actual number was
2,140. It's a significant difference
right there. And here was the key issue,
is that judge Carl Nichols, by the way a
Trump appointed judge, was drilling into
because the DOJ said only future
contracts were stopped. Existing
contracts though were also stopped. Why?
That's the key issue is because I guess
technically, the administration can say,
"Hey, the new administration's changing
protocols going forward." They have no
right to stop past programs where
appropriations were already made. That
was the key issue. The plaintiff's
lawyers representing the US employees said
that's not true, they're cancelling the
old stuff. The Trump lawyers said, "No no
no, it's just the future stuff." Were being
told that was a lie. Fortunately the
federal Judge Carl Nichols saw through
that lie. But that was a material
misrepresentation.

Then there was the
other notice of correction that they
filed on another key issue in another
case about the access that one of these
Elon Musk 22year-old guys -- I think this one
was calling himself Big Balls -- that that
they were basically saying that he
didn't have certain levels of access when it
turns out he had levels of access.

Let me just read it to you at the hearing on
February 5th 2025, held the same day as
plaintiff's motion for temporary
restraining order that was filed in the
above caption case Council for
defendants made a factual representation
in good faith based on the information
provided by defendants that requires
correction with the benefit of more time
time to investigate the facts over the
weekend defendants came to understand
that Marco alz who at the time of the
hearing was employed by the Department
of Treasury had not in fact been
designated by the treasury Department as
a special government employee SJ sge as
Council stated at the February 5 hearing
Mr LZ was however a treasury Department
employee that has significant impacts
because then LZ is subject to certain
ethics requirements that were at the
heart of it so Harry these are not
notices of arada right you and I know
notices of Arata you get the date wrong
occasionally maybe there's a typo this
these material misstatements Harry you
led the do you led you were a leader
there what do you make of all of
this man oh man so Ben you're right I
did have these higher level positions
but the real uh analogous experience is
the guy on the ground who has to go into
court and man you got to pity those
figures now I'm not sure that they're
huge misstatements that go to the heart
of the case but it it may be that the
poor putts who was kicked in the rear
and said go in there and defend uh
didn't know one way or another they
obviously should have been much much
more careful but it's also it's so
discordant in a couple ways with what's
really going on first on the facts the
guy doesn't even know the person who
does what is supposed to be the heart
and soul meat and potatoes the work of
the Department of Justice representing
to the court and to the public what's
going on and then second there's only
one thing you can do when you're in that
very unenviable position that is fall on
your sword and fall on it hard and
that's what these uh lawyers are doing
but it's completely opposite from what
the Trump guys are doing because they
are arrogant as can be about it and
Asser
their Authority and indifference to the
legal violations that the people when
they go to court in front of the judges
have to fess up to so it it it is a
general problem now in the Department of
Justice where the you know as I've said
before The Barbarians aren't just at the
gates they are ransacking the actual
Palace and you they you have to send in
the lawyers to say crap but they don't
even know what it is they're supposed to
say they don't know what the policies
are because nobody consults them nobody
cares about what the Department of
Justice has to say to courts of all
things rather it's just the policies
coming on from on high from Trump and
then his acting uh Deputy attorney
general Emil Bo so it is just um what
what's happening now in the department B
is just an utter divorce from the
lifeblood of what prosecutors do which
is base decisions on facts and law it's
something other than that they were
candid in saying it for example and
dropping the charges although we'll see
what whether the um the career person
now acting us attorney in New York goes
along but it's just a really complete
reversal of what they're supposed to be
doing it's both heartbreaking and
infuriating and and totally terrifying
for the people who are still there who
don't know what to do the these are the
few lucky ones who are being kicked into
court and say you know try to defend
this say some crap and then then you
find out of course two days later what
you told them was
exactly uh wrong so you know in general
it the this is part and parcel of a
broader effort by the the new Trump
Invaders not not simply to enact all
these um really unlawful Provisions but
also prevent all the kinds of guard
rails and oversight and accountability
and just the to care about what ought to
be the DNA of the department going in
explaining to the judges making
arguments under the law that's an
afterthought at best we can only hope it
stays that way for for these new uh
Invaders in the in the department this
is Far and Away Far and Away the worst
um juncture and um period for the doj
and its history know we talk about the
executive branch and the take care
Clause take care that the laws be
Faithfully executed that's the opposite
of what they're doing the Trump White
House halted all enforcement of the law
the Foreign Corrupt Practices at
which is to stop foreign bribery from
embedding itself in American Business
the law to be Faithfully executed
requires that the Foreign Corrupt
Practices a law be enforced and Trump's
literally saying don't enforce it when
the law is trying to be enforced against
someone like mayor Adams in a bribery
related case without even doing legal
analysis as you mentioned Trump's doj
prepar a memo to the United States
Attorney or acting United States
Attorney in uh the southern district of
New York or in New York basically saying
hey do not Faithfully follow the law and
we're not even going to give you a
reason we're not giving you a memo that
says main Justice reviewed this case and
it turns out that it's a bad case
because here are the reasons or there's
bad law or something no it's just we
want want you to dismiss it even if
crimes were obviously committed so now
it puts that United States Attorney
acting us attorney but that whole you
know New York prosecut the whole the
whole all those prosecutors they're
being told you know there's crimes but
you got to look away from the crimes and
that's what those lawyers as we started
this segment the lawyers who are issuing
notices of Correction you have lawyers
who went to ostensibly good law schools
or law schools throughout the country
who took their own Oaths who have
obligations under their legal standards
and they're being asked now lawyers
violate the law there are lawyers who
are going to do it there are lawyers who
are not going to do it I think
unfortunately the ones who are attracted
to Trump don't give a crap about that
but you're putting a lot of career
people also at risk Harry last word yeah
look like the good teacher you are Ben
you make it all sound basic and
Elementary but you know why it is basic
and Elementary Congress passes the laws
saying if you want to remove them you
need four cause saying Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act we know that you can try
to cheat like other folks do but that's
not what we want American companies to
do and the like and Trump asserts again
and again some uh ability or power out
of no where because he won the election
to just ignore it remember the
Republicans control everything here if
they really wanted to repal the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act if they really
wanted to shut down usaid they could do
it but what's happening is they' ma
they're making a real deal with the
devil where the republicans in Congress
don't have to take the immediate heat
for doing something that is outrageous
and bad for the country and makes
victims here of the honest companies and
just goes against who we are as a people
and Trump uh takes on that for them and
they in return Stay cow and quiet and do
nothing so we've talked before in a
different uh YouTube about the court
stepping up thank God they are and you
have to pray that it continue because
the other people the people who are
really again and again their Ox is being
gored Congress which has said do this do
that and don't do this Trump is just
saying giving them the middle finger and
they're saying thank you sir may I have
another it is fraking crazy there you
have it everybody you know where I get
my legal news from it's from Harry
Litman the talking feds YouTube channel
the talking feds substack and the
talking feds podcast it'll probably take
you all of 30 seconds to subscribe to
all three and it will inform you the way
it informs me at these pivotal moments
talking feds YouTube talking feds
substack talking feds podcast Harry
Litman as always thank you thank you Ben
Can't Get Enough Midas check out the
midus Plus substack for adree articles
reports podcasts daily Recaps from Ron
filipowski and more sign up for free now
at Midas plus.com
[Music]

[admin]

Inspectors General SUE Trump Administration Over Unlawful Firings!
by Glenn Kirschner
Feb 12, 2025

Inspectors general are the peoples' watchdogs inside government, guarding against fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption by administration employees and officials. In a very real sense, IGs are our cops on the inside.

Just days after being sworn in, Donald Trump fired a whole slew of IGs in violation of federal law, as discussed below.

Now, some of the wrongfully terminated IGs are fighting back. As The Hill just reported, "Eight Fired Government Watchdogs Sue Trump Administration."

The federal law require a president to give Congress 30 days advance notice before firing an inspector general. Trump gave Congress NO NOTICE, violating federal law.

The federal law also requires a president to provide "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons" for the termination. Trump failed to do so, in violation of federal law.



Transcript

[Glenn Kirschner, Justice Matters] Well friends, another day, another lawsuit
filed against the Trump
Administration. According to the
reporting, this makes about 50 legal
challenges brought against Trump and
Company. This lawsuit was filed by eight
inspectors General that Donald Trump
unlawfully
fired. Let's talk about that because
Justice matters
[Music]

Hey all, Glenn Kirschner here. So friends,
inspector's General IGS are the People's
watchdogs inside government making sure
that Administration officials do not
engage in fraud, waste, abuse, & corruption.
IGS are like our cops on the
inside. So of course, within days of being
sworn in, Donald Trump fired a whole slew
of inspectors General, and now eight of
those IGS have brought suit for firings
that are plainly and
obviously in violation of federal
law.

Let's start with the new reporting.
This from the
Hill headline: Eight fired government
Watchdogs Sue Trump
Administration. And that article begins:
Eight Federal Watchdogs ousted by
President Trump last month are suing to
get their jobs back on the basis that
their dismissals were
unlawful the lawsuit filed Wednesday
asserts Congress was not given proper
notice of the removals nor were adequate
explanations for the firings given quote
president Trump's attempt to eliminate a
crucial and longstanding source of
impartial nonpartisan oversight of his
administration is contrary to the rule
of law wrote Seth Waxman a Clinton error
solicitor general representing the
inspectors General the lawsuit was filed
by eight of the 17 fired inspectors
General who monitored various agencies
in the federal government a 2022 Federal
Law requires presidents to notify
Congress at least 30 days in advance of
firing An Inspector General in addition
to providing substantive case specific
rationale the inspectors General who
sued were removed from the Departments
of Defense State labor education
agriculture Veterans Affairs and health
and human Human Services in addition to
the small business
administration alt together they oversaw
more than 5 trillion of appropriated
funds each year and more than 3.5
million federal employees the lawsuit
says inspectors General are responsible
for providing an independent check on
agencies and an Avenue for
whistleblowers to report wrongdoing
but you know what friends we don't just
have to take somebody else's word when
they tell us that these firings of these
inspectors General were illegal violated
federal law let's go to the federal law
itself again for anybody scoring at home
it is five United States code section
403b and it
reads removal or transfer An Inspector
General may be removed from office by
the president if An Inspector General is
removed from office or is transferred to
another position or location within an
establishment the president shall
communicate in writing the reasons for
any such removal or transfer to both
houses of Congress not later than 30
days before the removal or
transfer now friends admittedly I may
not be great with numbers but Donald
Trump fired these inspectors General
about 3 weeks ago as we sit here today
so the 30day period required by federal
law 30 days of advanced notice to both
houses of Congress and reasons for the
firings fact-based case based reasons
for the firings none of that has been
done so the federal law has been
violated and in fact one of the fired
IGS told Donald Trump and His White
House councel exactly
that this letter is from Hannibal Mike
wear and he is the chairperson of the
Council of the inspectors General on
integrity and efficiency and he writes
to the director of presidential
Personnel at the White House Mr Gore the
following Dear Mr Gore
I am writing in response to your email
sent to me and other inspectors General
earlier this evening now mind you
friends this letter was written on
January
24th
2025 the day Donald Trump unlawfully
fired the IGS I'm writing in response to
your email sent to me and other
inspectors General earlier this evening
wherein you informed each of us that
quote due to changing priori ities your
position as Inspector General is
terminated effective
immediately as chairperson of the
Council of the inspectors General on
integrity and
efficiency I recommend that you reach
out to White House Council to discuss
your intended course of action at this
point we do not believe the actions
taken are legally sufficient to dismiss
presidentially appointed Senate
confirmed in inspector's General
specifically based upon the 2022
amendments to the Inspector General Act
of 1978 the president must notify
Congress 30 days prior to removal of an
IG and provide substantive rational
including detailed and case specific
reasons for such removal should you have
any questions please feel free to reach
out to me signed Hannibal Mike wear CI
chairperson so friends you really don't
need to be a lawyer to conclude that
Donald Trump violated federal law the
law requires 30 days of advanced notice
to both houses of Congress and these
firings occurred three weeks ago and
Trump has given no notice to either
house of Congress that would be the
first violation of federal law and I
think it's also reason reasonable to
conclude that when the Federal Law
requires the president while he's giving
that 30 days advanced notice to Congress
to provide substantive rationale
including detailed and case specific
reasons for such removal well when
Donald Trump writes these inspector's
General that he is firing on January
24th the following
um due to changing priorities your
position as Inspector General is
terminated effective
immediately well due to changing
priorities doesn't exactly constitute
specific rationale you know case based
rationale
deficiencies for these firings that
would be violation of federal law number
two so of course these inspect ctor
General brought suit it sure looks like
a lay down winner of a lawsuit because
Trump and his administration
inarguably violated the federal law a
couple of times over so like the
plaintiffs in the other 49 or so legal
challenges lawsuits that have been filed
against Trump and Company these
inspectors General our cops on the
inside the people's Watchdogs guarding
against fraud waste abuse and Corruption
by the Trump Administration they're not
laying down they're not going quietly
they're not obeying in advance they're
standing up for their rights and they're
going to ask federal courts to hold
Trump and Company accountable for these
wrongful terminations these unlawful
firings because to the these inspector's
General and all of the others who
brought suits against Donald Trump
trying to beat back the tide of Lawless
conduct
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]

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

8 fired government watchdogs sue Trump administration
by Ella Lee
The Hill
Wed, February 12, 2025 at 8:58 AM MST2 min read

Eight federal watchdogs ousted by President Trump last month are suing to get their jobs back on the basis that their dismissals were unlawful.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, asserts Congress was not given proper notice of the removals, nor were adequate explanations for the firings given.

“President Trump’s attempt to eliminate a crucial and longstanding source of impartial, non-partisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law,” wrote Seth Waxman, a Clinton-era solicitor general representing the inspectors general.

The lawsuit was filed by eight of the 17 fired inspectors general, who monitored various agencies in the federal government.

A 2022 federal law requires presidents to notify Congress at least 30 days in advance of firing an inspector general, in addition to providing “substantiative, case-specific rationale.”

The inspectors general who sued were removed from the departments of Defense, State, Labor, Education, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services, in addition to the Small Business Administration. Altogether, they oversaw more than $5 trillion of appropriated funds each year and more than 3.5 million federal employees, the lawsuit says.

The ousters were executed last month through brief emails from the Office of Presidential Personnel. Soon after, the watchdogs lost access to government emails and computers, and were physically barred from entering their government offices.

Despite the “obvious illegality” of the firings, the heads of each agency “effectuated and continue to effectuate” the watchdogs’ removals, Waxman said.

Inspectors general are responsible for providing an independent check on agencies and an avenue for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing.

During his first term in office, Trump fired several inspectors general, which spurred an update to the Inspector General Act to require the 30 days’ notice and rationale.

Trump defended the firings last month as a “very common thing to do.”

“Some people thought that some were unfair, some were not doing their job,” the president told reporters aboard Air Force One.

The lawsuit follows more than 50 legal challenges to sweeping Trump administration actions meant to reshape the federal government.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[admin]

NY US Attorney Stands Up to Trump's DOJ, Resigns Rather Than Dismissing Case for Political Reasons
by Glenn Kirschner
Feb 13, 2025

The resistance and opposition from within Donald Trump's Department of Justice is building. Rather than comply with an unethical directive from DOJ leadership, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, resigned.

Days ago, Emil Bove, a member of Trump's team at DOJ, directed the acting US Attorney in Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, to dismiss the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, not based on the evidence but because they wanted Adams to help the Trump administration with some of it's goals and priorities.

Rather than agree to dismiss the case for political reasons, US Attorney Sassoon resigned.

Trump's DOJ Officials then tried to move supervision of the Adams case down to Washington, and the two top supervisors in the DOJ's Public Integrity Section resigned as well.

In a staggering display of retaliation, Bove, one of Trump's former criminal defense attorneys now a top DOJ official, told Ms. Sassoon that both she and the prosecutors who worked on the Adams case would be investigated by the DOJ.

Just days earlier, when he was first directing Sassoon to dismiss the case, "Mr. Bove in his order to drop the case said that the directive 'in no way calls into question the integrity and efforts' of the prosecutors working on the case, nor Ms. Sassoon’s efforts in leading them."



Transcript

So friends it really does feel like
Donald Trump's Department of Justice is
trying to purge all of the Integrity
from DOJ's public Integrity
section let's talk about that because
Justice matters
[Music]
hey all Glenn Kirschner here so friends
the latest display of unethical
retaliation against career Federal
prosecutors argues in favor of you just
renaming the Department of Justice
because the justice is
Vanishing it's being replaced by
lawlessness retaliation and revenge
here's some brand new reporting about an
egregious display of Injustice and
retaliation against career
prosecutors this from The New York Times
headline order to drop New York city
mayor Eric Adams case prompts
resignations in New York and
Washington the intram US attorney for
the southern district of New York and
two officials with the federal public
Integrity unit all quit after the
justice department ordered the charges
against mayor Eric Adams to be
dropped and that article begins
Manhattan's us attorney on Thursday
resigned just days after she was ordered
to drop the corruption case against New
York City's
mayor then when Justice Department
officials sought to transfer the case to
the public Integrity section in
Washington which oversees corruption
cases the two men who led that unit also
resigned according to five people with
knowledge of the matter the resignations
represent the most high-profile public
resistance so far to president Trump's
tightening control over the justice
department the departures of the us.
attorney Danielle Sassoon and the
officials Who oversee the Justice
Department's public Integrity section
Kevin Driscoll and John Keller came in
Rapid succession on Thursday days
earlier the acting number two official
at the justice department had ordered
Manhattan prosecutors to drop the
corruption case against mayor Eric Adams
the agency's justification for dropping
the case was explicitly political the
number two official Amil B argued that
the investigation would prevent Mr Adams
from fully cooperating with Mr Trump's
immigration
Crackdown Mr Bo made a point of saying
that Washington officials had not
evaluated the strength of the evidence
or the legal theory behind the case now
friends let's tee up and bring into full
Focus the evidence of Revenge and
retaliation against career Federal
prosecutors Mr
in his order to drop the case this was a
couple of days ago said that the
directive quote in no way calls into
question the integrity and efforts of
the prosecutors working on the case nor
Miss sassoon's efforts in leading them
and friends just a day or two later when
us attorney Sasson
resigned rather than following Emil Bo's
unethical command to dismiss a case not
based on the evidence but based on
politics she resigned rather than doing
Donald Trump's dirty political deal what
did Bo say
then Mr Bo in accepting Miss sassoon's
resignation informed her that the
prosecutors who worked on the case were
being placed on administrative leave and
would be investigated by the attorney
general and the Justice departments in
internal investigative arm he told Miss
Sassoon both bodies would also evaluate
her
conduct and friends there it is in the
harsh light of day retaliation
retribution Revenge because just a
couple of days ago Bo in his order to
drop the case said that the directive in
no way calls into question the integrity
and efforts of the prosecutors working
on the case nor Miss sassoon's efforts
in leading them but when she
resigned instead of you know doing this
dirty political
deal now you and the prosecutors who
worked on the case will be
investigated this is no way to run a
Department of Justice this is purging
the Integrity from the public Integrity
section and who is former US attorney
Sassoon Miss Sassoon 38 joined the
southern district of New York us
attorney's office in
2016 a graduate of Harvard College and
Yale law school she clerked for justice
anonin
Scalia about as conservative as a
Supreme Court Justice gets she clerked
for justice Scalia on the Supreme Court
and is a member of the Federalist
Society
the conservative Legal Group so friends
former US attorney Sassoon clearly has
some conservative credentials clerking
for justice Scalia being a member of the
Federalist Society now I am not
suggesting that Miss Sassoon brings
whatever ideological beliefs or
political leanings she may have into her
work I am not suggesting that indeed I
have great admiration for her for taking
this principled
stand but I do wonder what the
Federalist Society for example might
make of this blatant and transparent
retaliation against miss suon one of its
members you know the Federalist Society
is a conservative organization but this
kind of unethical Behavior dismissing
somebody because
they take their oath of office seriously
they take their responsibility to
prosecute without fear or favor
seriously retaliating against them for
that and saying now we're going to
investigate you and your whole team of
prosecutors who were involved in the
mayor Adams case that's not conservative
that's not
liberal you know if it's anything it's
just plain old corruption even if it is
corruption masquerading as conservatism
it's just plain old
corruption but friends if there's any
good news emanating from this latest
debasement of the Department of Justice
it's
this we've discovered three new Points
of Light amidst the Trump induced
Darkness those three points of light are
Danielle
casson Kevin dris
and John Keller all of whom stood up to
Trump's
corruption because to
them
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]

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

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza, 37thFloor
New York, New York 10278

February 12, 2025

BY EMAIL
The Honorable Pamela Jo Bondi
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW  
Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)

Dear Attorney General Bondi:

On February 10, 2025, I received a memorandum from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, directing me to dismiss the indictment against Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, which would require leave of court. I do not repeat here the evidence against Adams that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed federal crimes; Mr. Bove rightly has never called into question that the case team conducted this investigation with integrity and that the charges against Adams are serious and supported by fact and law. Mr. Bove's memo, however, which directs me to dismiss an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury for reasons having nothing to do with the strength of the case, raises serious concerns that render the contemplated dismissal inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts.

When I took my oath of office three weeks ago, I vowed to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I was about to enter. In carrying out that responsibility, I am guided by, among other things, the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice Manual and your recent memoranda instructing attorneys for the Department of Justice to make only good faith arguments and not to use the criminal enforcement authority of the United States to achieve political objectives or other improper aims. I am also guided by the values that have defined my over ten years of public service. You and I have yet to meet, let alone discuss this case. But as you may know, I clerked for the Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson III on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Both men instilled in me a sense of duty to contribute to the public good and uphold the rule of law, and a commitment to reasoned and thorough analysis. I have always considered it my obligation to pursue justice impartially, without favor to the wealthy or those who occupy important public office, or harsher treatment for the less powerful.

I therefore deem it necessary to the faithful discharge of my duties to raise the concerns expressed in this letter with you and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss them further. I cannot fulfill my obligations, effectively lead my office in carrying out the Department's priorities, or credibly represent the Government before the courts, if I seek to dismiss the Adams case on this record.

A. The Government Does Not Have a Valid Basis To Seek Dismissal

Mr. Bove's memorandum identifies two grounds for the contemplated dismissal. I cannot advance either argument in good faith. As you know, the Government “may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). “The principal object of the 'leave of court' requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g. , charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30 n.15 ( 1977). “But the Rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest.” Id.; see also JM § 9-2.050 (reflecting Department's position that a "court may decline leave to dismiss if the manifest public interest requires it”). The reasons advanced by Mr. Bove for dismissing the indictment are not ones I can in good faith defend as in the public interest and as consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness that guide my decision-making.

First, Mr. Bove proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing the federal immigration laws, analogizing to the prisoner exchange in which the United States freed notorious Russian arms dealer Victor Bout in return for an American prisoner in Russia. Such an exchange with Adams violates commonsense beliefs in the equal administration of justice, the Justice Manual, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The "commitment to the rule of law is nowhere more profoundly manifest” than in criminal justice. Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 384 (2004) (alterations and citation omitted). Impartial enforcement of the law is the bedrock of federal prosecutions. See Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 18 (1940). As the Justice Manual has long recognized, “the rule of law depends upon the evenhanded administration of justice. The legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence.” JM § 1-8.100. But Adams has argued in substance -- and Mr. Bove appears prepared to concede -- that Adams should receive leniency for federal crimes solely because he occupies an important public position and can use that position to assist in the Administration's policy priorities.

Federal prosecutors may not consider a potential defendant's “political associations, activities, or beliefs.” Id. § 9-27.260 ; see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985) (politically motivated prosecutions violate the Constitution). If a criminal prosecution cannot be used to punish political activity, it likewise cannot be used to induce or coerce such activity. Threatening criminal prosecution even to gain an advantage in civil litigation is considered misconduct for an attorney. See, e.g., D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 339; ABA Criminal Justice Standard 3-1.6 (“A prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion."). In your words, "the Department of Justice will not tolerate abuses of the criminal justice process, coercive behavior, or other forms of misconduct." Dismissal of the indictment for no other reason than to influence Adams's mayoral decision-making would be all three.

The memo suggests that the issue is merely removing an obstacle to Adams's ability to assist with federal immigration enforcement, but that does not bear scrutiny. It does not grapple with the differential treatment Adams would receive compared to other elected officials, much less other criminal defendants. And it is unclear why Adams would be better able to aid in immigration enforcement when the threat of future conviction is due to the possibility of reinstatement of the indictment followed by conviction at trial, rather than merely the possibility of conviction at trial. On this point, the possibility of trial before or after the election cannot be relevant, because Adams has selected the timing of his trial.

Rather than be rewarded, Adams's advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case. Although Mr. Bove disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams's assistance in enforcing federal law, that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bove's memo. That is especially so given Mr. Bove's comparison to the Bout prisoner exchange, which was quite expressly a quid pro quo, but one carried out by the White House, and not the prosecutors in charge of Bout's case.

The comparison to the Bout exchange is particularly alarming. That prisoner swap was an exchange of official acts between separate sovereigns (the United States and Russia), neither of which had any claim that the other should obey its laws. By contrast, Adams is an American citizen, and a local elected official, who is seeking a personal benefit—immunity from federal laws to which he is undoubtedly subject—in exchange for an act -- enforcement of federal law -- he has no right to refuse. Moreover, the Bout exchange was a widely criticized sacrifice of a valid American interest (the punishment of an infamous arms dealer) which Russia was able to extract only through a patently selective prosecution of a famous American athlete.² It is difficult to imagine that the Department wishes to emulate that episode by granting Adams leverage over it akin to Russia's influence in international affairs. It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams's opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment. Nor will a court likely find that such an improper exchange is consistent with the public interest. See United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie ("Nederlandsche Combinatie "), 428 F. Supp. 114 , 116-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (denying Government's motion to dismiss where Government had agreed to dismiss charges against certain defendants in exchange for guilty pleas by others); cf. In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003) (describing a prosecutor's acceptance of a bribe as a clear example of a dismissal that should not be granted as contrary to the public interest).

Second, Mr. Bove states that dismissal is warranted because of the conduct of this office's former U.S. Attorney, Damian Williams, which, according to Mr. Bove's memo, constituted weaponization of government as defined by the relevant orders of the President and the Department. The generalized concerns expressed by Mr. Bove are not a basis to dismiss an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury, at least where, as here, the Government has no doubt in its evidence or the integrity of its investigation.

As Mr. Bove's memo acknowledges, and as he stated in our meeting of January 31, 2025, the Department has no concerns about the conduct or integrity of the line prosecutors who investigated and charged this case, and it does not question the merits of the case itself. Still, it bears emphasis that I have only known the line prosecutors on this case to act with integrity and in the pursuit of justice, and nothing I have learned since becoming U.S. Attorney has demonstrated otherwise. If anything, I have learned that Mr. Williams's role in the investigation and oversight of this case was even more minimal than I had assumed. The investigation began before Mr. Williams took office, he did not manage the day-to-day investigation, and the charges in this case were recommended or approved by four experienced career prosecutors, the Chiefs of the SDNY Public Corruption Unit, and career prosecutors at the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department. Mr. Williams's decision to ratify their recommendations does not taint the charging decision. And notably, Adams has not brought a vindictive or selective prosecution motion, nor would one be successful. See United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93, 121-23 (2d Cir. 2009); cf. United States v. Biden, 728 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (rejecting argument that political public statements disturb the “presumption of regularity" that attaches to prosecutorial decisions").

Regarding the timing of the indictment, the decision to charge in September 2024—nine months before the June 2025 Democratic Mayoral Primary and more than a year before the November 2025 Mayoral Election -- complied in every respect with longstanding Department policy regarding election year sensitivities and the applicable Justice Manual provisions. The Justice Manual requires that when investigative steps and charges involving a public official could be seen as affecting an election the prosecuting office must consult with the Public Integrity Section, and, if directed to do so, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General. See JM §§ 9-85.210, 9-85.500. As you are aware, this office followed this requirement. Further, the Justice Department's concurrence was unquestionably consistent with the established policies of the Public Integrity Section. See, e.g., Public Integrity Section, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 85 (2017) (pre-election action may be appropriate where “it is possible to both complete an investigation and file criminal charges against an offender prior to the period immediately before an election"). The Department of Justice correctly concluded that bringing charges nine months before a primary election was entirely appropriate.

The timing of the charges in this case is also consistent with charging timelines of other cases involving elected officials, both in this District and elsewhere. See, e.g., United States v. Robert Menendez, 23 Cr. 490 (SHS) ( S.D.N.Y.) (indictment in September 2023); United States v. Duncan Hunter, 18 Cr. 3677 (S.D. Cal.) (indictment in August 2018). I am not aware of any instance in which the Department has concluded that an indictment brought this far in advance of an election is improper because it may be pending during an electoral cycle, let alone that a validly returned and factually supported indictment should be dismissed on this basis.

When first setting the trial date, the District Court and the parties agreed on the importance of completing the trial before the upcoming mayoral election—including before the Democratic primary in which Adams is a candidate -- so that the voters would know how the case resolved before casting their votes. (See Dkt. 31 at 38-44). Adams has decided that he would prefer the trial to take place before rather than after the June 2025 primary, notwithstanding the burden trial preparation would place on his ability to govern the City or campaign for re-election. But that is his choice, and the District Court has made clear that Adams is free to seek a continuance. (See Dkt. 113 at 18 n.6). The parties therefore cannot argue with candor that dismissing serious charges before an election, but holding open the possibility that those charges could be reinstated if Adams were re-elected, would now be other than “clearly contrary to the manifest public interest." United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230, 238-39 (2d Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mr. Bove's memo also refers to recent public actions by Mr. Williams. It is not my role to defend Mr. Williams's motives or conduct. Given the appropriate chronology of this investigation and the strength of the case, Mr. Williams's conduct since leaving government service cannot justify dismissal here. With respect to pretrial publicity, the District Court has already determined that Mr. Williams's statements have not prejudiced the jury pool. The District Court has also repeatedly explained that there is no evidence that any leaks to the media came from the prosecution team—although there is evidence media leaks came from the defense team—and no basis for any relief. (See Dkt. 103 at 3-6; Dkt. 49 at 4-21). Mr. Williams's recent op-ed, the Court concluded, generally talks about bribery in New York State, and so is not a comment on the case. (Dkt. 103 at 6 n.5). Mr. Williams's website does not even reference Adams except in the news articles linked there. (See Dkt. 99 at 3). And it is well settled that the U.S. Attorneys in this and other districts regularly conduct post-arrest press conferences. See United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552, 567-69 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (describing the practice); see also, e.g. , "New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office press conference on violent crime," YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAEDHQCE91A (announcing criminal charges against 42 defendants). In short, because there is in fact nothing about this prosecution that meaningfully differs from other cases that generate substantial pretrial publicity, a court is likely to view the weaponization rationale as pretextual.

Moreover, dismissing the case will amplify, rather than abate, concerns about weaponization of the Department. Despite Mr. Bove's observation that the directive to dismiss the case has been reached without assessing the strength of the evidence against Adams, Adams has already seized on the memo to publicly assert that he is innocent and that the accusations against him were unsupported by the evidence and based only on “fanfare and sensational claims.” Confidence in the Department would best be restored by means well short of a dismissal. As you know, our office is prepared to seek a superseding indictment from a new grand jury under my leadership. We have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.

That is more than enough to address any perception of impropriety created by Mr. Williams's personal conduct. The Bove memo acknowledges as much, leaving open the possibility of refiling charges after the November 2025 New York City Mayoral Election. Nor is conditioning the dismissal on the incoming U.S. Attorney's ability to re-assess the charges consistent with either the weaponization rationale or the law concerning motions under Rule 48(a). To the contrary, keeping Adams under the threat of prosecution while the Government determines its next steps is a recognized reason for the denial of a Rule 48(a) motion. See United States v. Poindexter, 719 F. Supp . 6, 11-12 (D.D.C. 1989) (allowing Government to “to keep open the option of trying [certain] counts" would effectively keep the defendant “under public obloquy for an indefinite period of time until the government decided that, somehow, for some reason, the time had become more propitious for proceeding with a trial”).

B. Adams's Consent Will Not Aid the Department's Arguments

Mr. Bove specifies that Adams must consent in writing to dismissal without prejudice. To be sure, in the typical case, the defendant's consent makes it significantly more likely for courts to grant motions to dismiss under Rule 48(a). See United States v. Welborn, 849 F.2d980, 983 (5th Cir. 1988) ("If the motion is uncontested, the court should ordinarily presume that the prosecutor is acting in good faith and dismiss the indictment without prejudice."). But Adams's consent -- which was negotiated without my office's awareness or participation— would not guarantee a successful motion, given the basic flaws in the stated rationales for dismissal. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428 F. Supp. at 116-17 (declining to “rubber stamp" dismissal because although defendant did not appear to object, “the court is vested with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the public on whose behalf the criminal action is brought”). Seeking leave of court to dismiss a properly returned indictment based on Mr. Bove's stated rationales is also likely to backfire by inviting skepticism and scrutiny from the court that will ultimately hinder the Department of Justice's interests. In particular, the court is unlikely to acquiesce in using the criminal process to control the behavior of a political figure.

A brief review of the relevant law demonstrates this point. Although the judiciary "[r]arely will . . . overrule the Executive Branch's exercise of these prosecutorial decisions,” Blaszczak, 56 F.4that 238, courts, including the Second Circuit, will nonetheless inquire as to whether dismissal would be clearly contrary to the public interest. See, e.g. , id. at 238-42 (extended discussion of contrary to public interest standard and cases applying it); see also JM § 9-2.050 (requiring "a written motion for leave to dismiss . . . explaining fully the reason for the request" to dismiss for cases of public interest as well as for cases involving bribery). At least one court in our district has rejected a dismissal under Rule 48(a) as contrary to the public interest, regardless of the defendant's consent. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428 F. Supp. at 116-17 ("After reviewing the entire record, the court has determined that a dismissal of the indictment against Mr. Massaut is not in the public interest. Therefore, the government's motion to dismiss as to Mr. Massaut must be and is denied."). The assigned District Judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a searching inquiry in this case. Notably, Judge Ho stressed transparency during this case, specifically explaining his strict requirements for non-public filings at the initial conference. (See Dkt. 31 at 48-49). And a rigorous inquiry here would be consistent with precedent and practice in this and other districts.

Nor is there any realistic possibility that Adams's consent will prevent a lengthy judicial inquiry that is detrimental to the Department's reputation, regardless of outcome. In that regard, although the Flynn case may come to mind as a comparator, it is distinct in one important way. In that case, the Government moved to dismiss an indictment with the defendant's consent and faced resistance from a skeptical district judge. But in Flynn, the Government sought dismissal with prejudice because it had become convinced that there was insufficient evidence that General Flynn had committed any crime. That ultimately made the Government's rationale defensible, because “[i]nsufficient evidence is a quintessential justification for dismissing charges." In re Flynn, 961 F.3d 1215, 1221 (D.C. Cir.), reh'g en banc granted, order vacated, No. 20-5143, 2020 WL 4355389 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2020), and on reh'g en banc, 973 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Here no one in the Department has expressed any doubts as to Adams's guilt, and even in Flynn, the President ultimately chose to cut off the extended and embarrassing litigation over dismissal by granting a pardon.

C. I Cannot in Good Faith Request the Contemplated Dismissal

Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations. As Justice Robert Jackson explained, “the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst." The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 18 ("This authority has been granted by people who really wanted the right thing done -- wanted crime eliminated—but also wanted the best in our American traditions preserved."). I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment regardless whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous, to the defendant or to those who appointed me. A federal prosecutor “is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

For the reasons explained above, I do not believe there are reasonable arguments in support of a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss a case that is well supported by the evidence and the law. I understand that Mr. Bove disagrees, and I am mindful of your recent order reiterating prosecutors' duty to make good-faith arguments in support of the Executive Branch's positions. See Feb. 5, 2025 Mem. “General Policy Regarding Zealous Advocacy on Behalf of the United States." But because I do not see any good-faith basis for the proposed position, I cannot make such arguments consistent with my duty of candor. N.Y.R.P.C.3.3; id. cmt. 2 ("A lawyer acting as an advocate in an adjudicative proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal.” ).

In particular, the rationale given by Mr. Bove—an exchange between a criminal defendant and the Department of Justice akin to the Bout exchange with Russia— is, as explained above, a bargain that a prosecutor should not make. Moreover, dismissing without prejudice and with the express option of again indicting Adams in the future creates obvious ethical problems, by implicitly threatening future prosecution if Adams's cooperation with enforcing the immigration laws proves unsatisfactory to the Department. See In re Christoff, 690 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. 1997) (disciplining prosecutor for threatening to renew a dormant criminal investigation against a potential candidate for public office in order to dissuade the candidate from running); Bruce A. Green & Rebecca Roiphe, Who Should Police Politicization of the DOJ?, 35 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 671, 681 (2021) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court disbarred the elected chief prosecutor of Maricopa County, Arizona, and his deputy, in part, for misusing their power to advance the chief prosecutor's partisan political interests). Finally, given the highly generalized accusations of weaponization, weighed against the strength of the evidence against Adams, a court will likely question whether that basis is pretextual. See, e.g., United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors, 228 F. Supp. 483, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (courts “should be satisfied that the reasons advanced for the proposed dismissal are substantial and the real grounds upon which the application is based").

I remain baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this decision was reached, in seeming collaboration with Adams's counsel and without my direct input on the ultimate stated rationales for dismissal. Mr. Bove admonished me to be mindful of my obligation to zealously defend the interests of the United States and to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration. I hope you share my view that soliciting and considering the concerns of the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case serves rather than hinders that goal, and that we can find time to meet.

In the event you are unwilling to meet or to reconsider the directive in light of he problems raised by Mr. Bove's memo, I am prepared to offer my resignation. It has been, and continues to be, my honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.

Very truly yours,

DANIELLE R. SASSOON
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York

_______________

Notes:

1 I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams's counsel, and members of my office. Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion.

2 See, e.g., https://thehill.com/homenews/3767785-tr ... r-country/.

[admin]

Trump AG Announces FAKE CHARGES Against Trump Opponents?!
by Court Authorities
Feb 13, 2025

AG Pam Bondi announces charges against New York officials—but is it all just political theater? Attorney Rich Schoenstein breaks down the reality behind the DOJ’s complaint against Governor Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James, and others over New York’s Green Light Law. Is this a serious legal battle or just grandstanding?



Transcript

[Pam Bondi] I was in The West Wing swearing in
Tulsi gabard and so I just came straight
back here so thanks for um being patient
with us with the delay um we're here
today because we have filed charges
against the state of New York we have
filed charges against Cathy hokel we
have filed charges against Leticia James
and Mark Schroeder who is with
DMV um this is a new doj and we are
taking steps to protect Americans
American citizens and Angel moms like
the mom standing right behind me who
you're going to hear from in a moment/

[Rich Schoenstein] That's newly appointed United States
Attorney General Pam Bondi saying that
she's bringing charges against Governor
Kathy Hochul and Letitia James and the
State of New York and others. Is she
really bringing charges against them? Not
quite. Let's break it all down.

May it please the viewers, I'm Rich Schoenstein.
Welcome back to court authorities, good
to be back. I've been in an arbitration
all week, but I'm catching up with some
legal developments, and this one and I'm
getting a hold of what my role is here
on this Venture um as a civil litigator
I like to dive into these cases and see
what they're really about and then I can
share with you what the actual case is
about because I feel sometimes the news
coverage doesn't do justice so to speak
to what's actually happening and this is
a case like that I saw a bunch of
headlines about Governor hokel being
brought up on charges I saw people
posting stuff you know an image of her
in an orange jumpsuit that's not at all
what's happening it's not the way Pam
bondy described it it's not the way it's
been reported there is a new civil
lawsuit that has been reportedly filed
I'll get to that in a minute uh I have
the complaint here it's caption for the
United States District Court Northern
District of New York that's up in Albany
it's entitled United States of America
the state of New York Kathleen hokel
Leticia James and Mark JF Schroeder he's
the commissioner of the New York
Department of Motor Vehicles so I
couldn't find this on the court website
yet so I'm not sure it's actually been
electronically filed and commenced but
we did get a copy of it on the internet
and we know what the claims are these
are civil claims against the state of
New York and those individuals I just
mentioned acting in their official
capacity so they're only in this lawsuit
by name only for the purpose of the
claims being brought and essentially the
claim is that New York has a law called
the green light law that was enacted in
2019 and the claim is that that law the
way it's being implemented in New York
is violating the federal government
rights to control its immigration laws
and I go right to the introduction which
says um the United States is currently
facing a crisis of illegal immigration
and the federal government is set to put
a stop to it while states are welcome
Partners in that effort it is their
prerogative as separate sovereigns to
refrain but a state's freedom to stand
aside is not a freedom to stand in the
way and where inaction crosses into
obstruction a state breaks the law the
state of New York is doing just that it
must be stopped so this complaint
alleges that the green light law
requires New York's DMV commissioner to
tip off illegal aliens if a federal
immigration agency requests information
and that the uh state law is playing out
to obstruct giving information on
immigrants to Federal authorities
including ice um it says Federal
immigration law express preempts state
and local laws that restrict sharing
information with the federal government
regarding immigration status it says
that under conflict presumption
principles the state cannot fashion an
obstacle to accomplishment and execution
of the full purposes and objectives of
the federal immigration law so that's
sort of the complaint in a nutshell
again it's filed in federal court in the
uh Northern District of New York that's
a little bit of form shopping on the
part of the federal government the
Northern District of New York is going
to be much friendlier to the
administration than for example the
southern district of New York where I
sit or the eastern district of New York
presumably it could have been brought in
any of those districts but the United
States is going to go to the most
favorable jurisdiction possible uh it's
a short complaint you know the complaint
is only 16 pages long it gives an
allegations about what the green law is
it says the green light law prohibits
the commissioner of New York DMV as well
as his agents and employees for sharing
DMV records or information with any
agency that primarily enforces
immigration law uh it says it includes a
tip off provision it says it imposes
strict limitations on those who have
access or receive records from New
York so that's what it says the green
light law does it brings three claims
for Relief and all of them are
constitutional law arguments that the
green light law violates the supremacy
clause of the US Constitution uh the
supremacy clause is article 6 Clause 2
if you like looking up that kind of
thing there's lots of case law and I'm
not an expert on this area of
constitutional law there's lots of case
law about what states can do as uh
sovereigns and what they can't do in
light of federal government statutes I'm
not going to get into all of that but
there are three claims the first one is
preemption the United States alleges
that the green light law is preempted by
federal laws requirement that states not
prohibit in any way or in any way
restrict any government entity or
official from sending to or receiving
from federal immigration officials
information regarding citizenship or
immigration status the second claim is
that it constitutes unlawful regulation
of the federal government the third
claim is that it discriminates against
the federal government by targeting
federal government enforcement
specifically in the way it holds out the
law and by the way the complaint says
that it you know that it's unsafe that
it threatens the safety of federal
immigration officials that it impedes
the federal government's ability to
arrest and remove illegal aliens thereby
threatening the safety of Americans that
allegation assumes of course that
immigrants are particularly dangerous
that notion has been disproved ad
nauseum that's not consistent with the
statistics it's no more dangerous than
anybody else who's in the US but so be
it the relief sought uh is a judgment
that the Greenlight law violates the
supremacy law a declaration an
injunction B Bing enforcement of the
green light law and fees and costs
that's it they want a declaration that
it's unconstitutional they want an
injunction against it
now this is a civil lawsuit the clip we
played of Pam Bondi is her staying up
bragging that they've filed charges
we've filed charges against Governor
Kathy hok we've filed charges against
Leticia James no she didn't there's no
charges charges are criminal actions a
civil lawsuit is just a claim for Relief
frankly there's no point in having Kathy
hokel or Leticia James or Mark Schroeder
named in this complaint you could have
made the complaint without them that is
just a cheap political stunt and it's
not charges and I think Pam Bondi is
very intelligent so she's not making a
mistake she is at the beginning of her
tenure as us Attorney General
purposefully misleading the American
public about what her office is doing
and she's playing politics I have no
problem with the claim if there is a
claim that the New York law is
unconstitutional then the federal
government has every right to make that
claim to go to court to Advocate to
argue that's what the courts are there
for but the grand standing is kind of
nonsense the grand standing that she's
brought charges and we did it in
Illinois and now we going to do it in
New York and if you're in another state
you're next everybody should relax
everybody should relax it's a conlaw
argument it's going to get settled in
court Governor Kathy hok put out a
statement said essentially the same
thing her statement says earlier today
attorney general Pam Bondi marched in
front of the television cameras for a
dramatic media briefing to announce she
was filing charges against New York
State related to our immigration laws
hours later when legal papers were
shared with reporters we learned this
with smoke and mirrors the Department of
Justice was filing a routine civil
action about a law passed in 2019 that
has been upheld by the courts time and
again I don't know about whether or not
it's been upheld by the courts time and
again I actually haven't researched that
but I agree with the smoke and mirrors
com comment that is true um here are the
facts our current laws allow Federal
immigration officials to access any DMV
database with a Judicial warrant that's
a common sense approach that most New
Yorkers support but there's no way I'm
letting federal agents or Elon musk's
shadowy Dodge operation get unfettered
access to the personal data of any New
Yorker in the DMV system like
16-year-old kids learning to drive and
other vulnerable people we expect Pam
bondi's worthless publicity driven
lawsuit to be a total failure just like
all the others let let me be clear New
York is not backing
down so tough guy talk begets tough guy
talk and you get Grand standing on the
other side uh substantively Kathy hoko
may be correct and I certainly
understand the concept she's saying you
can get this information with a search
warrant if there's a valid reason to get
the information but there shouldn't be
unfettered access to the federal
government for State DMV records that
shouldn't be permitted and that's what
governor hok was saying and we'll see
how it plays out in court uh it will
play out it's a civil claim uh we'll see
what the court has to say about it we'll
keep an eye on it we'll keep an eye on
what else is going to go on in this new
Administration and the things they are
doing I'll be back here to talk about it
thanks so much for watching again this
is Court authorities don't forget to
subscribe to the channel if you haven't
don't forget to like this video you can
follow me on the social media at lawful
riches we'll see you next time for now
we are adjourned thank you for watching
Court authorities part of the mest touch
Network we're at the intersection of law
politics and True Crime I'm Dave
aronburg aka the Florida law man if you
want more of this content hit that
subscribe button and we'll see you next
time

[admin]

State Department removes mention of 'armored Teslas' from its 2025 procurement list, replaces it with 'armored electric vehicles'
by Kwan Wei Kevin Tan
Business Insider
Feb 13, 2025, 8:44 AM MT
https://www.businessinsider.com/state-d ... las-2025-2

• The State Department said it was planning to buy $400 million worth of armored Teslas this year.
• It now says it will be buying "Armored Electric Vehicles" instead of specifically Teslas.
• Musk's companies have received billions of dollars from government contracts and subsidies.


Sjoerd van der Wal via Getty Images

The State Department has scrubbed mention of armored Teslas from its 2025 procurement forecast.

The procurement document previously contained a line item that read: "Armored Tesla (Production Units)" — a reference to products from Elon Musk's electric vehicle company, Tesla. It was listed as a five-year contract and valued at $400 million, making it the biggest item on the list.

The document was titled "Department of State Procurement Forecast Year 2025 (Revised 12/23/2024)." The Tesla line item had last been revised on December 13.

As of Wednesday night at 9:12 p.m. EST, the line item has been revised. It now reads "Armored Electric Vehicles." It's still listed as a five-year contract worth $400 million.

The document is now called "Department of State Procurement Forecast Year 2025."

The latest version of the document doesn't mention Tesla.

"I'm pretty sure Tesla isn't getting $400M. No one mentioned it to me, at least," Musk wrote on X on Thursday about the department's revised forecast.

News of the $400 million State Department contract with Tesla was reported by Drop Site News on Wednesday.

It's unclear when the procurement list was first released. The State Department updates its forecast in the first quarter of every fiscal year.

When contacted for comment, a State Department spokesperson told Business Insider that no government contract for armored electric vehicles has been awarded to Tesla or any other vehicle manufacturer.

The Biden administration had instructed the State Department to assess if private companies would be interested in producing armored vehicles, the spokesperson added. Only one company responded to the department's request for information, the spokesperson said.

There are no current plans to hold an official bid, the spokesperson said.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the change.

Procurement list details

The earlier version of the forecast was made under the Biden administration, weeks before President Donald Trump took office on January 20.

It didn't specify which Tesla vehicle model it was commissioning.

Tesla produces several EVs, including its Model 3 and Model S sedans and Model Y and Model X SUVs. The company also produces the Cybertruck, a stainless steel pickup truck that Musk has said is bulletproof.

Both the original and newly revised documents list an anticipated award date of September 30 for the contract. Both versions of the forecast also include orders from other automakers, including a $40 million contract for armored BMW SUVs, the X5 and X7.

Tesla didn't respond to a request for comment.

Musk's companies have received billions from government contracts


Musk's companies have done several deals with the government. His companies have received billions of dollars from government contracts and subsidies.

Gwynne Shotwell, the president and chief operating officer of Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, said in November that the company had $22 billion in government contracts.

Musk is now the public face of Trump's cost-cutting efforts within the government, serving as the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.

The White House has said Musk is a "special government employee" and isn't compensated for his services. The classification allows Musk to maintain his sprawling business interests, which include companies such as Tesla and SpaceX.

On Tuesday, Musk joined Trump at a press conference in the Oval Office, where he was asked about the conflicts of interest he could face from running DOGE and his companies simultaneously.

"No, because you have to look at the individual contract. First of all, I'm not the one filing the contract. It's people at SpaceX or something will be putting for the contract," Musk said.

"And I'd like to say if you see any contract where it was awarded to SpaceX and it wasn't by far the best value for money for the taxpayer, let me know, because every one of them was," he added.

Trump said at a press conference on February 3 that Musk wouldn't be allowed to deal with government matters where there could be a conflict of interest.

"If there's a conflict, then we won't let him get near it," Trump said.

February 13, 2025: This story has been updated to reflect a change the State Department made in its 2025 procurement forecast after the story was published. The procurement forecast now lists $400 million of "Armored Electric Vehicles," not $400 million of "Armored Tesla (Production Units)."