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

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

We're Living Through a Coup in the United States of America
by Heather Cox Richardson
Politics Chat
February 4, 2025
15 hours ago





[Heather Cox Richardson] Hey, folks. Yeah. Good. I'm glad. Louisiana's mad at Senator Cassidy.
Washington state, Saint Louis, Middletown, Connecticut. Am I missing you, Danny? Do you go flying by?
How long of a walk is it? About a mile and a half over here. And, And it was fine.
A little icy, actually. And I like to walk, so it's. I don't feel bad about doing it,
but I didn't necessarily leave enough time for myself. I did in the end, but I didn't. I wasn't sure Nebraska.
One of my favorite states. I mean, do I have a state I don't like? Actually not really.
I like the states that have really cool history. So in Nebraska, one of them actually. Does any state not have a cool history?
No, actually they pretty much all do. You know, someday when all this is over, I'm just going to write some state histories because they're really,
they're really cool. All right. I'm going to get right down to it here because I know you're waiting for, I know, I know coaches elsewhere today.
Because I know you're waiting for me to make comments about what's happening. And I'm going to start with, something that I guess
needs to be said and that's that we don't know. You are used to me being able to say, this happened,
this happened, this happened, this happened. And here are my sources for how I know these things happened. And here's why I trust these sources,
and here's why I don't trust these other sources. But one of the points of where we are right now in this second
administration of President Donald Trump is that there is a lot going on that we don't know about, but transparency is gone.
One of the things that the Biden-Harris administration moved back into the public was transparency, and that's gone.
So we're doing a lot of sort of guessing, even though, you know, that there are people who are deliberately lying to you sometimes
just to cover their, you know, what's because they've made some mistakes. So I'm going to start right there with that, that I sort of feel like usually I can say to you,
unless I slip up and say something, I know exactly what's going on. I don't I don't any longer.
It's taking me forever to write the nightly letters, because so much simply has to be checked and cross-checked
and to see what you've got and what people sources look like and so on. That's got a good side as well as a bad side
that I'll get to on a little bit. But having said that, I also want to say something else, and that is,
we are in a time that is designed to exhaust us, to overwhelm us, and to make us tune out the news and also to make us make bad decisions.
And a lot of people are asking me what you should do with your finances. And I was just joking with, with my husband.
And I said, you know, if you're coming to me for financial advice, you might as well just put it in a pile and burn it, because I have zero qualifications for that.
And a lot of people are going to make suggestions to you about what you should do and what you shouldn't do.
Either with your finances, your health, or anything like that, don't make snap decisions based on the fact you like somebody
or that somebody seems to know something you don't, because then you're acting out of panic and not out of actual, valuable information.
So get that information, but not from people like me. And if people are not forthcoming about the fact they don't
know what they're talking about, don't trust them.

All right. That being said, what I do know is politics and history and that I can give you a lot of which is I mean, we're in an amazing moment. We're living through a coup in America, the United States of America. And we are 248 year old democracy that is right now on the ropes. I want to emphasize again, it's not over yet at all, but I just I truly never thought it would come to this, even though my very first book, which came out in 1997, warned that the Republican Party was going in a really bad direction.
And of course, I've been saying that ever since.

And now we're here, and where we are is that Trump, who is now president, was elected with the help of at least $290 million from the man who at least claims on paper to be the richest man in the world. And he is not elected. He is not a natural born U.S. citizen. He was born in South Africa, so he couldn't be president himself, although he joked before the election that he might be sort of like the president. But what he has done, and I'll talk more about what Trump has done, but what this man Elon Musk has done is he has essentially taken over the mechanics of the United States government. And what I mean by that beginning on Friday after 5:00, at least, that's when the news started to break. And that's not insignificant because that's called a Friday night news dump. Basically, if you were watching the news this weekend, you know, the independent news sources were covering what was happening in in Washington. But, you know, some of the major papers didn't mention it at all. And that's because there were skeleton crews over the weekend. So if you're going to dump scary news, you do it on Friday night. It's called the Friday Night News dump. And this is what happened on last Friday night.

And what happened then was that a team of engineers from Elon Musk's companies -- it appears you got to put together a lot of pieces to make this happen -- tried to strong-arm the person who was in charge of the United States payment systems, into letting them access the computers. And he said, no, he was a courier. A courier civil servant, who had been in the position of essentially keeping the nation's checkbook, I think, for about ten years. That's not sitting in front of me right now. And he knew very well that very few people have access to these systems because essentially you're keeping the checkbook, what comes in and what flows out for the U.S government. Not the Department of Defense, usually, and not the U.S. Postal Service, which has its own payment system, but everything else.

So it's it's not all the way up to 6 trillion, but it's pretty close to $6 trillion. And he was just the bookkeeper, you know, "here's this payment due now, and here's that payment due tomorrow." And and he made it all work. Not literally with a checkbook, but he oversaw the entire system. It's a highly skilled position. And when he refused to let the members of Trump, Musk's engineering team in, somebody, and I have not been able to chase down who, put him on administrative leave, with the idea that they were going to fire him. And then he abruptly resigned.
And a lot of people are angry at these career service people who are resigning. But it is my understanding that if you resign rather than being fired, you get to keep your pension and your benefits, and that may be what was going on there. Again, I'm not an H.R. specialist, but that's my understanding of why people are suddenly resigning, because if they're going to be unemployed, they'd rather be unemployed with a paycheck rather than not. Or with a pension rather than not.

Anyway, he resigned, and as of last night, I'm sorry.
As of Friday night, the 31st of January. Yeah. So 31st of January, at least one
and probably two and maybe three. I'm telling you, things are vague.
Engineers from Musk's former company is the one who did this. Who was the the lead of this team, worked at SpaceX and then at X,
and went into that main system, plugged computers into the system of the United States government
that makes payments from the Treasury of up to $6 trillion a year.
Now, when this happened, lots of Friday night, right? A lot of people weren't paying attention, but others were.
I was one of the lucky ones who saw it early. There was a huge outcry going, what's going on here?
And then people tried to figure out how they got in there. And Scott Bezzant, the new secretary of the Treasury under Donald
Trump, said that he had given them access or somebody said that, but that they were only allowed to read the material that they covered.
Now, what's in those files is going to be the personal information,
social security number, date of birth, address, financial information for every American who has had
any interaction with the United States government financially,
tax returns, unless you filed them, by you know, if you did them electronically, all that sort of thing, if you've had a grant,
Social Security, veterans benefits and so on.
It's also any, any business that has had, contracting business with the United States government.
And that's, of course, Musk's major competitors. Now, we learned, as I think it was 1 or 2 last night,
and it's been picked up today in the technology magazines that,
just just by the way, I am not an investigative reporter. I read a lot, and I can digest for you what's in the investigative reports.
And actually, people have started to send me information myself. But when I tell you this stuff,
I am repeating what intrepid investigative reporters are finding on their own through their sources.
And, and we're going to owe them a lot going forward. I'll speak more to that.
But of I think it was 102 last night. Wired, which has been following this story, reported not only who
the main person engineer was who broke into that system at the Treasury,
but also that he's 25 years old and that the, the on
the somebody else is working on that story and then built on it this morning. And that's Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.
His sources told him that, in fact, those engineers had begun to rewrite the code in that system.
And they are doing so apparently to, to be able
to shut off the flow of payments to certain people, certain groups. I shouldn't say people we don't know because we can't
stand over their shoulders and to hide how they have done that. Now, the people who are actually at those IT positions
in the Treasury have been helping reluctantly, only because they're terrified that these people are going to crash
the entire system, take down the entire payment system of the United States government. And Marshall's article pointed out that,
the entire system is supposed to be migrated this weekend, and they're making these changes live as opposed to testing them first.
So it's unclear how that's how that's going to play out and whether or not we're going to have problems with that. But people have noted, for example,
that their login credentials have gone down or so on and so forth. And I don't know if that's related or not,
but I suspect we're going to see a lot of that. All right. So that's what's happening at the Treasury level.
And it's worth now perhaps thinking about what's going on.
You know, what is Musk doing. Musk is,
destroying things. He is he is breaking everything the way he did at Twitter. And his philosophy is get in there fast, break everything.
And if you break something that we turns out we need, we can always bring it back. We can always rebuild it.
That's, I think, the philosophy there. Although he has his own goals for, the United States government that I may or may not have time to talk about today.
Okay. So once they went through Treasury, they've also been systematically going through the other parts of the United States government.
And once they were into the Treasury files, Musk over the weekend
sat there tweeting on his social media platform what he was throwing away.
You know, what he thought was wasted money? He said he was cleaning out diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
And we don't know if he was doing it or not. He said he was doing it. And there's always a difference between those two things.
I'm always hammering on that. But he said he was doing things like throwing away, payments
or getting rid of payments that supported, Lutheran Family Services, for example, which runs a lot of nursing homes
in the, the, in the Midwest, in places like South Dakota.
So he was sitting there saying, now we don't need this, we don't need this, we don't need this. Okay? So why is that a problem?
A lot of mangas that I'm talking to are saying we love him. We think this is great. We wanted to get rid of all the fat in the government.
All right. First of all, as a part of GDP, the gross domestic product, American's expenditures on,
you know, on, on domestic, on domestic stuff in our country, have not gone up at all since the 1950s.
What's changed is who pays them, but they've basically stayed absolutely flat. There was a big spike during Covid, but now it's it's still basically flat.

And the reason that there is a problem, the reason that our budget is in the red, is because of George W Bush, his tax cuts. Remember that Reagan cut a bunch of taxes, and George W. Bush brought a lot of those taxes back because we were so far in the red. And then we had the tech boom under Bill Clinton. And then in the 1990s, the US budget was in the black. We were running a surplus. George W Bush came in and had a massive tax cut with the idea that we would destroy the federal government. There was a reason for that. They wanted to destroy the federal government because they wanted to get rid of regulations, business regulations, and because they wanted to get rid of the taxes that support social programs. This is how we got the $50 trillion moving from the bottom 90% to the top 1% between 1981 and 2021. So we had that and we had the George W Bush tax cuts.

And then we had the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both started under George W Bush that were not funded. Normally when the US goes to war, it imposes a war tax. He did not do that.

And then of course, we get the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which were hideously expensive. And that has put us even more into the red now, Trump has vowed and investment. The new secretary of the Treasury has said this is the most important thing for the Republicans going forward is to extend those tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. Otherwise, they say we're going to have a fiscal crisis.

However, there's a problem with that because the US budget is so far in the red. Part of what Musk appears to be trying to do is to cut everything he possibly can
so that they can say, "See, there's plenty of money for another tax cut."

All right? So once they had gone through the treasuries, they say they have gone systematically through different departments going in, going plugging into the computers and then
and then downloading the information and saying, we're going to get rid of this, we're going to get rid of this and so on.
We're going to get rid of employees and so on. Now stop for just a minute.
Did you vote for Elon Musk? This is what is why this is a coup. And why this is stunning is because
nobody elected Elon Musk. And it is
very unclear. Even though Trump tried to give a fig leaf to the Department of Government Efficiency, or dodgy, as I call it,
to say that what he was doing was covered by the executive branch. It is not at all clear that that is a legal organization at all.
Furthermore, they have, not only broached Americans privacy and security
and privacy through the breaches, which is against the law, but also when they
broke into the computers at USA aid, which is the the United States Agency for International Development,
which is less than 1% of our budget. And it has an extraordinary return on investment by helping
American soft power around the world. They broke into computers that were secured
because they had, you have security clearances to look at them because that's it.
Classified information on them. And there was at that point, they got into a fight with,
security people who were trying to protect the information on those computers. And, and that's because the U.S.
agency for International Development, or U.S. aid, takes advice from the State Department.
And so now they've they've have, breached those computers as well. And then, as I say, they've gone on to General Services
Administration, which is what those are our, federal real estate, about 7500 buildings, or or properties.
They've gone on, to the Department of Education and they seem to be going
straight through these, but nobody voted for Elon Musk.
He is a private citizen. He is a private citizen. And these are his six engineers who are going systematically through yours.
And my information, this is shocking.
But there's another element to it as well that is really, really important. And that's that
must can't do this. That is it is not legal for in any way for him to do this,
not only because he doesn't have authorization, but because of the way our Constitution is set up.
It is Congress that spends our money. Remember, that was the whole point of having a fight with the King, King George of the Third of England.
Because it is our Congress that gets to decide how our money is spent.
And once Congress decides that it's the job of the president and the executive branch to carry that out, they can't decide.
I'm not going to spend money on this. That was Richard Nixon tried that. And in 1974, Congress said, don't try it, because that's illegal.
And the courts have upheld that ever since. And so Trump can't do that,
but certainly must can't do that.

So so now, I'm sure you're sitting there going, "Then why is this happening?" It's happening for a couple of reasons. And I want to start with the obvious one. The Republicans in Congress could stop this any time they wanted to. They could stop this any time they wanted to. But I gotta say, not for much longer. Because once Musk and or Trump decide that they can do whatever they want, whether Congress voted for it or not, why do they need Congress? They don't is the bottom line. And the fact that the Democrats are screaming from the rooftops, it will take a number of Republicans to say, "Hang on just a minute here" before it can stop.

And, and the other piece of this is that it appears, as of this afternoon, again, fuzzy, and we're not sure there, when he got into office, Trump's people tried to stop the disbursement of monies -- it's called impoundment, and as I say, in 1974, Congress expressly made it illegal -- to fund things like USAid, which is really an important agency in the government. And the people who were affected by that instantly sued, not just over USAid, but sued over the fact that if we stopped disbursing all the monies that Congress has said we need, -- I mean, that's local law enforcement, that's education, that's everything -- if we do that, again, that flies directly in the face of this Congressional law.

So they went to the federal courts, and the federal courts were like, WTF? Of course you can't do this. They called it blatantly unconstitutional.

Now, as of this afternoon, it appears that the administration is simply ignoring the courts. Okay. If they're ignoring the Congress and they are ignoring the courts, that leaves us with the executive branch being in charge of everything. That leaves us with an authoritarian. At this moment, it's not clear whether that is Elon Musk who is taking all this power, even though he doesn't have it -- he does not have the power to do this; he could be fired or simply arrested at any moment if there were the will to do that. The other person who's supposed to be in charge is Donald Trump, and it's not at all clear to me, although he said yesterday that Musk was acting on his orders, he seems like he does not understand what's going on at all. And they seem to be sort of -- Timothy Snyder put it this weekend that he could be signing ever larger pieces of paper for the cameras. He does not seem to be on top of what's happening. So it's not clear that even though he wants to be a dictator for sure, that he has any concept of what's happening here. And he's just trying to stay out ahead of it. But that's where we are, right now.

And people have asked why? Why aren't there lawsuits being filed? There are. There is a blizzard of lawsuits being filed.
It's not going to help us if they ignore the courts, and and why aren't people trying to stop these guys?
One of the reasons that it's hard to stop them is because normally, when people are breaking the law, or are
trying to make changes or whatever, they try to stay within the law, and there's a mechanism to say, "Oh, you're outside the law."
But if you get somebody who just says, "I don't care, then it's a little hard to know who grabs that person.
What do you do? And you can see this, I think, with the sort of bewilderment over the weekend with people like, "Where are we?
What's happening? What are we going to do?" Because if somebody has breached U.S.
government servers, and is rewriting the code, that was unimaginable a week ago.
And I just think people don't know how to respond.


Now, that being said,
how do what how do we proceed? And then I want to talk a little bit about the history of how we got here.
How do we proceed? Well, there's a really important
connection here between, the fact that the Republican Party as it currently exists
and I've said a million times, this isn't the traditional Republican Party, which once upon a time was a grand party.
It was called the Grand Old Party for a reason. That's where GOP comes from.
If you've ever heard that term, people don't use it much anymore. But this version, the MAGA version
since the 1980s, has not been able to attract a majority of the popular vote.
People don't like the laws that are slashing our social safety net, that are that are destroying education, that are,
cutting regulations, that are moving money upward. They have not liked it since 1986. It was clear by the midterm elections of 1986
that the Republicans had a problem. So increasingly since then, and I've talked about this a gazillion
times, the Republicans stayed in power by suppressing the vote of their opponents
by mechanical things like gerrymandering. And after 2010, by pouring,
by by pouring money, having corporate money pouring into their coffers so they could flood the zone with,
with blanketing ads that made people think that,
Joe Biden was a doddering old man, for example. And again, you could see the media falling for that again and again and again.
The fact that nobody is talking about the fact that Donald Trump can't put together a coherent sentence
and it's not headline news, and then you compare it to how much we heard about Biden, Biden's limp,
after he broke his foot, right after he got elected playing with his dog, just says to you that that flooding of the zone really works.
But by increasingly design that only a few people have the right to make decisions for the American people,
we got to the place we are now, where, as I emphasized last night in the letter I wrote last night, the Republicans
control the House, the Senate, the white House and the Supreme Court. If they wanted to get rid of the Department of Education,
for example, or, U.S. aid, or do any of the things that Elon Musk is doing,
they have control of Congress and the president and the the,
the Supreme Court, but they don't want to do it in Congress because they know they don't even have the votes among their own people.
This is a really small group of extremists who have seized our government,
and they're the ones who are saying, yeah, well, one of them literally said this morning, well, yes, what he is doing is unconstitutional,
but you shouldn't worry too much about that. You shouldn't worry too much about that.
I'm worried about that. Because if you lose the law and the Constitution,
you have nothing left except authoritarianism. And that's where we are headed right now.

So let me go in a little bit more to how we got here, and then how we push back against it. So coming out of World War II with FDR's New Deal, then what Republican Dwight Eisenhower added to it, he called it the Middle Way. Together, those two things made up an ideology that almost every American shared: Republicans, independents, Democrats. They all shared the idea that a government should do basic things. It should provide a basic social safety net. It should regulate business, it should promote infrastructure, and it should protect civil rights. And the reason it should do all those things is because if it did that, it would create a wealthy country. It would create a country where people had good lives, good secure lives. They had education which made them upwardly mobile. They had roads to drive on. They had hospitals to take care of their health. They had vaccines so that they didn't get polio. They had ways to work together to make sure that people were having the things that gave them true wealth in their lives. It made the country really wealthy, a growing GDP because people had the education to create and so on.

Now, the problem with that was that for those few Americans who hated what became known as the liberal consensus, that is a consensus
that there should be a liberal democracy and liberal in this context means protecting the rights of the individual through these government programs that make sure, for example, that we all have equal access to education, or we all have equal access to hospitals or whatever.
There are people who didn't like that, and they didn't like that because creating wealth for everybody meant they got less cash, they got less money. And so they wanted to get rid of especially government regulations on business. That was their big thing more than anything else. They didn't like infrastructure. They wanted to do that themselves, because they could make money off it. They didn't like protecting civil rights, and they didn't really like a basic social safety net, but mostly they didn't want regulation. But every time they tried to say to people, hey, let's get rid of this liberal consensus and go back to the 1920s when businessmen ran everything, everybody looked at them like they were on drugs and said, come on, there's no way we want to do that.

And in 1948, Harry Truman, president Harry Truman begins to desegregate the military and to say, you know what? If we're all going to create this wealth together, everybody's got to be in on it. And that creates the beginnings of the Dixiecrats, the beginnings of a political movement to say, "No, no, no, no, no. This is a white country, and we don't want to do that." And those people are going to make common cause with the businessmen who don't like business regulations. So they're the Dixiecrats.

Chapter Three: Bill Clinton and the Neoliberal Presidency

I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.

—Clinton adviser James Carville

The Political Context of the Clinton Presidency

Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 brought an end to a period in which the Republican Party had controlled the White House for 12 consecutive years, and for 20 of the previous 24 years. Clinton won 32 states and the District of Columbia for 370 electoral votes, compared to 18 states and 168 electoral votes for President George H. W. Bush. Clinton was able to capture four of the 11 states of the southern Confederacy (Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia), though he garnered only a plurality of the nationwide popular vote (43 percent). In an unusually strong showing for an independent candidate, Texas businessman H. Ross Perot received nearly 19 percent of the popular vote. With his reelection in 1996, Clinton became the first Democratic President since Franklin D. Roosevelt to serve two full terms as president.

As Bill Clinton campaigned for president in 1992, how had the terrain of politics been shaped by the structural factors we foreground in our analysis, especially by changes in the character and direction of the American political economy? The dominant characteristic was a “Right-turn” in American politics that accompanied and responded to the economic downturn, stagflation, and crisis of profitability in the 1970s. This turn was not a response to any upsurge of conservatism in public opinion. Rather, working through a network of think tanks, policy organizations, and media outlets, business elites and conservative political actors mobilized to discredit post–World War II economic and social liberalism and to some extent the New Deal itself. Economist Thomas I. Palley distinguishes between the dominant pre-1980 and post-1980 growth models. Before 1980, economic policy, building on Keynesian insights, aimed at full employment and linked wage and productivity gains in a “virtuous circle of growth.” After 1980 a commitment to full employment was abandoned and the link between productivity and wage growth was severed. “Adherents of the neo-liberal orthodoxy made controlling inflation their primary policy concern, and set about attacking unions, the minimum wage, and other worker protections. Meanwhile, globalization brought increased foreign competition from lower-wage economies and the prospect of off-shoring of employment,” Palley notes.1 Over time this set of macroeconomic policies would come to be known as neoliberalism. 2 The new emphasis was on business-oriented tax cuts, economic deregulation, reductions in social safety net programs, and attacks on the power of labor unions.

While the Right-turn is most strongly associated with President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989), it is important to note the administration of the last Democratic president, Jimmy Carter (1977–1981), was also marked by, and in several ways originated, a shift to the Right. Especially from late 1978 onward Carter embraced fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, a version of supply-side economics and the deregulation of the airline, railroad, and trucking industries. He also appointed Paul Volcker as chair of the Federal Reserve System in 1979. Volcker, aiming to curb inflation, adopted a restrictive monetary policy that reduced economic growth and led to a severe recession. Finally, in national security policy, Carter reversed the post-Vietnam decline in defense spending and in reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan identified the Middle East as a strategic area of US interests, laying the groundwork for repeated US military interventions in that region in the decades since. This led some observers to call Carter the most conservative Democratic president since Grover Cleveland (1885–1889, 1893–1897).

During the Reagan years some Democratic Party leaders moved to adapt themselves to the conservative environment by courting business interests and countering the progressive presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988....

-- W. F. Grover et al., The Unsustainable Presidency

When we think of prosperous eras in modern U.S. history, conservatives often point to the Reagan administration as a crucial turning point. To the corporate class, there’s a good deal of truth to this, but mostly to the extent that the seeds of neoliberalism planted in the '70s were watered during this period. The full blossom would come under President William Jefferson Clinton. Today, establishment Democrats recall the Clinton years with the same fondness conservatives treat the Reagan era with. Forget the sex scandals, questionable real estate investments and swirling conspiracies about body counts. The real scandal of the Clinton '90s was the death of progressivism.

-- The Clinton Years: The Most Neoliberal Presidency in U.S. History, by Unfucking the Republic

-- Dixie Mafia, by Wikipedia

Dan Lasater is a talented entrepreneur. Born poor in rural Arkansas, he started a chain of hamburger restaurants called Scotty's at the age of 19 and succeeded in undercutting McDonald's by selling burgers at 12 cents instead of 15 cents -- and making up the profits with a higher price for french fries, a formula that apparently made him a millionaire by his mid-twenties. [11] By the time he was 30 he was the owner of the Ponderosa steakhouse chain in Ohio and Indiana, with annual sales of more than $300 million. Cashing in his equity for around $15 million, [12] he turned to horse racing and soon became the most successful breeder and racer of thoroughbreds in the world. With stables of 80 horses in Florida and Kentucky, he was the leading money winner three years in succession -- 1974, 1975, and 1976 -- netting a total of $10 million in prizes, and winning the Eclipse Award of the racing industry. But according to a police statement by one of his employees, Lasater's success with the horses was achieved by "putting in the boot"-fixing the races. [13]

It was at the Oaklawn Race Track in Hot Springs that Lasater first befriended Virginia Kelley, the mother of Governor Clinton, and began to close his vice around the First Family of Arkansas. Collecting governors was one of his business specialties. In early 1983 he bailed out Governor John Y. Brown of Kentucky with $300,000 cash in a paper sack at the Lexington airport. At the time Brown was desperately trying to stay one step ahead of the IRS. He had withdrawn $1 million out of a Florida bank without a "cash transient" report. [14] "I just took care of John Y.'s money problems," Lasater told his colleague Michael Drake. [15]

Lasater also tried to befriend Governor Tony Anaya of New Mexico, offering him a consulting job at the end of his term. Anaya never took up the offer, but he did use taxpayer funds to construct an 8,900-foot runway at the Angel Fire Ski Resort owned by Dan Lasater.

The governor was viewed by his opponents as naive but honest. However, the Attorney General's Office in Santa Fe was later to investigate Lasater for suspected "narcotics trafficking via aircraft with possible Organized Crime ties" operating out of Angel Fire. [16] At the time of the alleged drug trafficking, Angel Fire was managed by Patsy Thomasson, later to become Director of the Office of Administration at the White House [under Bill Clinton]. "I put Patsy in as the assistant chairman, and she pretty well ran that project for me," said Lasater. [17]

But the show trophy of his collection was undoubtedly Governor Clinton, who seemed to require more favors than most. When Clinton needed a safe house for his delinquent half-brother Roger, it was Lasater who spirited him out of Arkansas and gave him a sinecure job as a "stable hand" in Ocala, Florida. And when Roger fell behind in payments to his Medellin contact -- a stash of cocaine had been stolen from his convertible, which his mother had just given him -- it was Lasater who paid the debt, or perhaps a better word is ransom. [18] The Colombians, apparently, were hinting that there could be violent reprisals against the Governor himself. [19]

Always restless, Lasater moved into the bond business in 1980. A brief business partnership with Senator George Locke was dissolved, because of enveloping SEC violations, before Lasater embarked on his own as Lasater & Company. One former broker told me that he never witnessed enough authentic business to justify the existence of Lasater's office at 312 Louisiana Street. He suspected that Lasater was "shuffling money." [20] By the mid-1980s Little Rock was a hub of petty racketeering and fly-by-night securities trading. The target: small, deregulated thrifts that had been neglected by the big firms on Wall Street. "You have no idea how crazy it was here in the mid-eighties," said Ron Davis, a former Lasater broker. "At one point there were 54 investment houses in Little Rock. There were 4,000 brokers working in this city. In 1987 we did more institutional sales than any other city in the world, and that includes New York, London, and Tokyo. You had used car dealers signing up making a $1 million a year in commissions."[21]

For investigators attuned to the methods of organized crime, the Lasater empire looked suspiciously like a laundromat for tens of millions of dollars of drug profits. Nor was this an idle hunch. In 1977 Lasater had lost a Lear jet in Santa Marta, Colombia, after it was confiscated by the Colombian authorities on suspicion of narcotics trafficking. The aircraft was insured at Lloyds of London, so he was not too bothered by the event, but the FBI took note. [22] The jet had been leased to a Las Vegas outfit called Jet Avia, which was under investigation for Mafia ties. It had been flown to Colombia to evacuate a badly burned pilot who had crashed a DC-6 loaded with marijuana in the jungle. [23] Among the passengers on the jet was Jamiel "Jimmy" Chagra, viewed as one of the most dangerous mob bosses in the United States. In 1982 he was prosecuted for conspiring to murder Judge John H. Woods, the first U.S. federal judge to be assassinated this century. He was acquitted on that charge, but was ultimately convicted on charges of cocaine smuggling.

Lasater was a player in the cocaine trafficking network of the Dixie Mafia as early as the mid-1970s. Intelligence reports show that the DEA had opened a file on Lasater in 1983 and had assigned him a tracking number of 141475. [24] Lasater was tipped off at once. A source called him in 1983 to inform him that he was listed in the computer as the subject of a DEA probe. [25]

In February 1984 Lasater, accompanied by Patsy Thomasson, flew to Belize in his private jet to negotiate the purchase of a 24,000-acre ranch. [26] The deal fell through because of a dispute with the "governor of Belize who was hard to deal with." One member of the Lasater party boorishly proposed "that the governor should be wasted." [27] This caused some heartburn for the U.S. Ambassador who was present during these interesting negotiations. Also present was a lawyer from Washington, D.C., named Ed Cummings, who had flown down with Lasater. [28]

Ostensibly, Lasater was looking for a horse farm. But the property, known as the Carver Ranch, was in fact a refueling stop for smugglers coming up from Colombia. Located near the border with the Yucatan, it has cropped up in a number of investigations. One of them was the "Mena" probe of Arkansas State Trooper Russell Welch, which focused on the smuggling empire of Barry Seal. This is what Welch wrote in his notebook during a debriefing of one of Seal's pilots: "With orders from Seal he would fly to a place in Southern Colombia, bordering Peru, and pickup 200 kilos of cocaine. This operation was to be staged from 'Carver Ranch' ... operated by Chester Cotter. Seal met Cotter through Roger Reeves. [Roger Reeves was the intermediary who introduced Barry Seal to the Medellin Cartel.] Seal used this ranch frequently." [29] So, apparently, this ranch was no horse farm. It was part of the Medellin trafficking empire.

It was certainly well known among the drug pilots. Basil Abbott, a convicted smuggler, told me that he used it frequently when he operated from Belize in the early 1980s. He remembers Cotter, the manager, as a man with legendary sway over the local "peons." He would have the fuel supplies ready at the landing strip. The usual route to the United States, explained Abbott, was through a blind spot in the mountains of Mexico, near Monterrey, crossing the border five miles east of the McAllen control tower. "There were about seven or eight of us doing it, and none of us ever got caught," he said. On one occasion in early 1982 he flew a Cessna 210 full of cocaine into Marianna, in the rice delta of eastern Arkansas. The aircraft was met by an Arkansas State Trooper in a marked police car. "Arkansas was a very good place to load and unload," he said. [30]

Lasater had his own agents in the State Police. One of them was a narcotics investigator named Mike Mahone, whom he had befriended at the Oaklawn Race Track in the box of Virginia Kelley -- Governor Clinton's mother. [31] Lasater spotted easy prey. The subsequent courtship offers a revealing insight into his methods of corrupting law enforcement. First he invited Mahone to spend the July 4th weekend, 1985, in one of his condominiums at the Angel Fire Ski Resort. [32] Having broken the ice, the bribery began. It was disguised, of course. What Lasater did was to instruct one of his subordinates to buy a run-down property belonging to Mahone. The price was inflated, netting the State Trooper a windfall profit. [33] Lasater also paid off $7,500 of a delinquent loan that Mahone had taken out in his sister's name.

In return for these little favors, Mahone was generous with police intelligence. In the early summer of 1986 he met with Lasater and Senator Locke at a hotel in Chicago to brief them on the status of the investigation into their drug activities. [34] He warned them to be careful of their telephones and told them that the two State Troopers on the case -- Doc Delaughter and Larry Gleghorn -- had a "hard on" for Lasater. The two officers could be found at "Spanky's" restaurant, he added, as if tempting Lasater to take drastic action.

Trooper Mahone advised Lasater to freshen up his image by donating money to the Gyst House for Drug Abuse. So, with a nice sense of the absurd, Lasater launched a philanthropic Blitzkrieg that included funding for the Florence Crittenden Home for Unwed Mothers. This caused huge amusement at Lasater & Company, where the running joke was guessing which of the unwed mothers Lasater had sent there in the first place. [35] (Years later, Lasater was profiled by CNN's investigative reporter John Camp as a humble born-again Christian, trying to redeem his soul by helping in a soup kitchen.)

It was chilling for Doc Delaughter to discover that he was being betrayed by criminal elements within his own police department. But nothing about this case was normal, least of all the two status reports he gave to Colonel Tommy Goodwin, the commander of the State Police. They were strictly verbal, conducted on the telephone, and both times the calls were patched through to the personal offices of Governor Clinton.

"I don't know if Bill Clinton was listening on the line," said Delaughter. "I wasn't in the room. But he had no business being in the loop." [36]

Delaughter believed that he had sufficient evidence to pursue a full-fledged investigation of Lasater for drug trafficking. At the very least there were grounds for probing his transportation of cocaine on private jets. But Delaughter was squeezed out of the investigation, prevented from attending the critical interviews of Lasater, Senator George Locke, and Roger Clinton. In the end, U.S. Attorney George Proctor offered Lasater a plea agreement that charged Lasater with a conspiracy to distribute cocaine for "recreational use." It was a slap on the wrists. Lasater was paroled after one year, most of it spent at a halfway house in Little Rock. The prosecutor was later appointed to be head of the Justice Department's Office of International Affairs by President Clinton.

At the sentencing U.S. Federal Judge Thomas Eisele said: "There are a lot of people who would like to believe that your financial success was derived, because it was so spectacular, from nothing less than being in the drug business. But I have to rely on the evidence, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you were making money in the drug business," he intoned before falling into tabloid cliche: "I think we are dealing with essentially an American tragedy, a case where the American dream turned into the American nightmare."

Others in law enforcement were less inclined to regard Lasater as a victim. According to The Albuquerque Journal, the FBI and U.S. Customs in New Mexico opened a fresh probe in 1988 under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, naming Dan Lasater as the chief target. But it fell apart in early 1989 due to jurisdictional bickering between the FBI and Customs on one side, and the DEA on the other. [37]

Governor Clinton gave Lasater a state pardon in 1990, purportedly so that he could regain his hunting license. The pardon was of dubious validity, because Lasater had been sentenced by a U.S. federal court, not a state court. But it sent a signal to the Arkansas authorities that Lasater should be allowed to resume his financial and broking activities without hindrance.

Lasater retreated to a 7,400-acre heavily guarded estate in the Cockspur Mountains of Saline County. (Complaints by neighbors about low-flying aircraft had been passed on to the DEA, according to Captain Gene Donham of the Saline County Sheriffs Department.) But Lasater's influence lives on through the tenacious Patsy Thomasson, his adjutant and partner in adventures at the Carver Ranch. Her rise to prominence in Washington is remarkable, given that she worked so closely with Lasater -- a convicted drug distributor -- continuously from June 1983 until July 1992. "I was his eyes and ears. Whatever needed to be done I did," she explained. [38]

The Albuquerque Journal reported that Thomasson was still listed as the registered agent of Lasater's Phoenix Mortgage Company after she went to work at the White House. She was executive vice president of Lasater & Company, and president of Angel Fire Corporation and the Phoenix Group Incorporated. She was the signing officer for Agency del Sol, Portfolio Services Incorporated, Emerald Isle condominium development, and Starfire Resorts Incorporated.

When Lasater was sent to prison, she was given "durable power of attorney" to manage his business empire. This included everything from signing checks, to selling off his properties, and filing lawsuits in his name.

A self-styled "yellow-dog Democrat" with short black hair and a brusque no-nonsense manner, she had once served on the staff of Arkansas Congressman Wilbur Mills. At Lasater's, she was viewed as the link to the Democratic Party by the firm's employees. "We'd all have to make contributions to the Clinton campaign funds, anywhere from $500 on up, scaled on earnings," said one bond salesman, describing the obligatory tithing system at the firm. "Patsy was the one who handled the money." [39]

Feared and disliked by many members of the firm, she was clearly a favorite with Bill Clinton. He installed her as executive secretary of the Arkansas Democratic Party to help build the foundations for his presidential bid. After the 1992 elections, she was catapulted into one of the most powerful positions in Washington -- Director of the White House Office of Administration, in charge of personnel, computers, security, and drug testing -- where she continued to make her presence felt in the successive scandals that have beset the Clinton presidency.

She participated in a six-hour meeting on May 15, 1994, with the FBI that eventually led to the investigation and firing of the Travel Office staff. And it was, of course, Patsy Thomasson who was found sitting in Vincent Foster's office on the night of his death, rifling through his drawers. All this without benefit of a White House security clearance. For reasons that have never been explained, the Secret Service refused to give Patsy Thomasson a White House security clearance until March 5, 1994. [40]

-- The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

The five waiting men were clearly taken aback when Governor Bill Clinton stepped from the vehicle with his aide, Bob Nash, and led the entourage into the World War II ammunition storage bunker that would serve as the meeting place.

In a low tone, Cathey turned to Terry and said: "Shit! I was afraid he'd show up. That'll certainly upset our agenda. I'm glad Johnson is here. He'll be able to handle him."

The waiting group of five had expected Nash, but not his boss, Arkansas' Commander-in-Chief, Bill Clinton. By his mere appearance, Clinton was risking exposure of his involvement in unauthorized covert operations. But he seemed desperate.

The meeting had been called at Camp Robinson, an Army facility outside Little Rock, to get some problems ironed out. In addition to the governor and his aide, the "guest list" included Max Gomez (Felix Rodriguez), John Cathey (Oliver North), resident CIA agent Akihide Sawahata, Agency subcontractor Terry Reed -- and the man in charge, the one who would call the shots. He called himself Robert Johnson.

Johnson had been sent from Washington to chair this very delicate operational briefing that would hopefully extricate the Agency from its entanglement in what was becoming a messy situation in Arkansas....

Cathey began the briefing.

"Governor Clinton," he said switching to his toastmaster tone, "I'm glad you could attend tonight's meeting with us. We're both surprised and honored. Bobby (Nash) didn't inform us you would be attending ... However, let's get down to it....

Terry viewed this meeting as his initiation into the inner circle. But this impromptu appearance by Governor Clinton, however, would expose Terry to yet more things that he had no "need to know." It would also confirm his suspicions that operations in Arkansas were being run with Clinton's full knowledge....

"Gentlemen," Cathey said, "this meeting is classified Top-Secret. The items discussed here should be relayed to no one who does not have an operational need to know. I repeat Top-Secret. There are to be no notes taken."...

Johnson, Cathey said, was the personal representative of CIA Director William Casey and had been sent to chair the meeting. Casey was too important to show his face, Terry assumed. But he felt honored, and yet surprised, to find he'd been dealing with someone so closely connected to the Director of Central Intelligence, the top of the intelligence pyramid.

"Thank you," Johnson said. "As Mr. Cathey mentioned, I am the emissary of Mr. Casey, who for obvious security reasons could not attend. We are at a major junction of our Central American support program. And I am here to tie up a few loose ends. As you are all aware, the severity of the charges that could be brought against us if this operation becomes public ... well, I don't need to remind you of what Benjamin Franklin said as he and our founding fathers framed the Declaration of Independence ..."

Cathey interrupted. "Yeah, but hanging is a much more humane way of doing things than what Congress will put us through if any of this leaks out." This marked the only time during the briefing that laughter was heard.

"This is true," Johnson replied. "And therefore, Governor Clinton, I'm going to find it necessary to divide this meeting into groups so that we don't unnecessarily expose classified data to those who don't have an absolute need to know. We can first discuss any old business that concerns either "Centaur Rose" or "Jade Bridge", and I think that you will agree that afterwards you and Mr. Nash will have to excuse yourselves ..."

Clinton was visibly indignant, giving the angry appearance of someone not accustomed to being treated in such a condescending manner.

"It seems someone in Washington has made decisions without much consulting with either myself or my aide here, Mr. Nash. And I'd like to express my concern about the possible exposure my state has as you guys skedaddle out of here to Mexico. I feel somewhat naked and compromised. You're right, there are definitely some loose ends!"...

Nash interjected: "Sir, Governor Clinton's concerns are that there may be some loose ends cropping up from the Mena operation in general. As you know, we have had our Arkansas State Police intelligence division riding herd on the project. And that has been no simple task. Even with some of our ASP officers undercover over there, we couldn't have gained any real inside knowledge had it not been for Mr. Reed's ability to report it directly to me. This thing about Barry Seal getting Governor Clinton's brother involved is what's got us all upset. I mean, as we speak, there's an investigation going on that could spill over onto some very influential people here in Arkansas, and people very close to the governor personally ..."

Johnson looked like he was getting irritated. Clinton had not been scheduled to be there and his original agenda now was being discarded.

"Hold on!" Johnson shot back. "Calm down! Mr. Casey is fully in charge here. Don't you old boys get it. Just tell me what has to be taken care of, or who needs to be taken care of, and I'll fix it for you!"

Johnson boasted to the group that Attorney General Edwin Meese, by arranging the appointment of J. Michael Fitzhugh as U.S. Attorney in Western Arkansas, had effectively stonewalled the ongoing money laundering investigations in Mena where the Contra training operations had been centered. It was his impression, Johnson said, that everything was now "kosher" and the "containment" was still in place. Operations "Rose" and "Bridge" had not been exposed because federal law-enforcement agencies had been effectively neutralized. But Johnson said he was now concerned that the "drug" investigation there might expand beyond his control and unmask the residue of black operations.

Now the meeting was starting to turn into a shouting match. Terry quietly observed that Clinton appeared on the verge of losing his well-rehearsed, statesman-like demeanor. Stopping investigations around Mena had helped the CIA and its bosses in Washington, but it had not solved any of the governor's local political problems. And these same problems were threatening to unveil the Mena operations.

It was the spring of 1986, just over a month after Barry Seal's assassination in Louisiana. Clinton was facing a very tough and dirty reelection campaign. His Republican opponent was certain to be ex-Governor Frank White, the only man who had ever defeated Clinton. The newspapers were filled with stories about Clinton's brother, who had been convicted and served time from federal drug trafficking charges, giving White the dirt he needed to launch a serious and damaging political attack.

Roger Clinton had "rolled over" and turned informant, enabling the Feds to begin an investigation of investment banker Dan Lasater, a close personal friend and campaign contributor of Clinton's. This investigation, it was clear, could spill over into Lasater's firm, possibly exposing CIA money-laundering and other possible illegal activities. [1]

The investigation of Clinton's brother had been carried out largely by disloyal state police officials who were backing White, and without Clinton's knowledge, when the inquiry was first initiated. Terry wondered whether a "coup" was building? Clinton was clearly in big political trouble, and his demeanor now was not the cool and composed man people saw on television. Perhaps the CIA and the Reagan administration wanted another "presidente," a Republican one, in its banana republic?

Rumors were also running wild that the bond underwriting business, in which Lasater was a major figure, had been used to launder drug money. In addition, candidate White had another big issue to run with. He would charge later that Clinton was directing choice state legal work as bond counsel to the prestigious Rose Law firm, where his wife, Hillary, was a senior partner. And Clinton had to be fearful that exposure of the Mena operations would be the death blow to his reelection hopes. And, if that weren't enough ammunition, the governor was also facing a possible state budgetary shortfall of more than $200 million.

By his comments, the governor's political problems and his potential exposure were clearly on his mind. Clinton showed his contempt for the young man from Washington as he lost his composure, jumped to his feet and shouted: "Getting my brother arrested and bringing down the Arkansas bond business in the process isn't my idea of kosher! You gents live a long way from here. Your meddling in our affairs here is gonna carry long-term exposure for me! I mean us. And what are we supposed to do, just pretend nothing happened?" He was angry.

"Exactly, pretend nothing's happened," Johnson snapped back. "It's just like the commercial, you're in good hands with Allstate. Only in this case, it's the CIA." Johnson paused, took a deep breath, and continued. "Mr. Clinton, Bill, if you will, some of those loose ends you refer to here were definitely brought on by your own people, don't you agree? I mean your brother didn't have to start shoving Mr. Seal's drugs up his nose and your friend, Lasater, has been flaunting his new wealth as if he's trying to bring you down. We're having to control the SEC and the IRS just to keep him afloat.

"Our deal with you was to help 'reconstruct the South,''' Johnson sniped, using a term Southerners hate, since it reminds them of the post-Civil War Yankee dominance of the South. "We didn't plan on Arkansas becoming more difficult to deal with than most banana republics. This has turned out to be almost comical."

"Bobby! Don't sit here on your black ass and take this Yankee shit!" Clinton yelled at Nash in an appeal for support. "Tell him about Seal bribing those federal agents!" It was getting to resemble a verbal tennis match as volleys were being lobbed, each one with more intensity. From the comment about Seal, Terry concluded that Clinton did in fact have his own intelligence network, too.

"Why, Mr. Clinton, with racial slurs like that, the federal government could terminate educational busing aid here," Johnson wryly shot back. "I thought Arkansas was an equal opportunity employer!"

Nash touched the governor's arm, coaxing him back into his chair.

Johnson continued, "The deal we made was to launder our money through your bond business. What we didn't plan on was you and your token nigger here to start taking yourselves seriously and purposely shrinking our laundry."

"What do you mean by shrinking the laundry?!" Clinton asked still shouting. By now, Clinton's face was flushed with anger.

To the CIA, Arkansas had to be a money-launderers' heaven. To understand why, one must realize that intelligence agencies have the same problem as drug traffickers. To launder cash, a trafficker must either find a bank willing to break the law by not filing the documentation required for cash deposits, or go offshore where reporting requirements are less strict. Like traffickers, once offshore, the CIA must use wire transfers to get their money into the U.S., but at great risk of detection.

The trafficker, having broken the law to make his money, has no legal recourse if his banker double-crossed him. In other words, it's an insecure investment, which pays low interest, if any.

Arkansas offered the CIA something money launderers are rarely able to achieve, a secure business environment containing a banking industry where vast amounts of money move around unnoticed as part of the normal course of business. Through its substantial bond underwriting activities, the state had a huge cash flow that could allow dirty and clean money to co-mingle without detection. All they were lacking was the "dirty banker" to cooperate with them by ignoring the federal banking laws.

And that they found within the Clinton administration. This "banker" was none other than the Arkansas Development and Finance Authority, or ADFA, which was a creation of, and directly under the control of, the governor's office. Its official mandate was to loan money to businesses either already in or coming to Arkansas in order to develop an industrial base for new jobs that Clinton had made the centerpiece of his administration. ADFA, was in effect, a bank making preferred loans.

But, from what Terry had learned from Seal and Sawahata, that was not all ADFA was doing. ADFA, in effect a state investment bank, was being "capitalized" by large cash transfusions that the Agency was taking great pains to hide.

"No paper, no trail," seemed to be the dominate doctrine of the Agency's activities since, by design, cash dropped from an airplane in a duffel bag is not the standard way of transferring money.

ADFA was designed to compete for the profits generated by the bond issues necessary to industrialize Arkansas. The old Arkansas Industrial Development Commission that Clinton had inherited had no money of its own, and was forced to send prospective clients seeking industrial development loans to the established, privately-run investment banking industry in Little Rock. The state could be very selective in its referral business, however, and those who received the state's business stood to profit handsomely.

This insider referral business was alive and well when Terry moved to Arkansas, and he saw Seth Ward's son-in-law, Finis Shellnut, jockey for a position to reap these profits by going to work for Lasater, who was getting the lion's share of the secret sweetheart deals.

Before ADFA's creation, the state sent preferred business directly to investment banking firms like Lasater's. All that was needed for money-laundering was the firm's silence and a source of cash, which, in this case, the CIA provided. The heads of these firms were a coterie of wealthy and well-connected people who got even richer by doing what comes natural in Arkansas, "The Natural State" as it's called ..... dealing incestuously under the table.

Arkansas desperately needed new businesses -- and so did the CIA. It had plenty of black money, but that alone was not enough. "You can't kill an enemy by lobbing dollars at him" was the phrase Cathey had used with Terry to explain the CIA's dilemma of having the monetary resources to fund the Contras, but no legal way to deliver it directly. The Agency was barred by Congress from converting the cash into weapons and training the Contras needed on the battlefield, at least not through traditional Department of Defense suppliers.

Under Director William Casey's plan, the CIA needed other companies that would be a source of secretly-produced weapons that would find their way into the hands of the Contras. These selected businesses needed payment to perform these services for the CIA, and that cash came to them conveniently in a legal and undetectable manner, through ADFA, in the form of industrial development loans backed by tax-free development bonds. The CIA should have been showing a profit through accrued interest on their secured investments. But a problem had arisen. As Johnson had said, the "laundry" was shrinking.

And Johnson was not happy about that as evidenced by the way he was firing back at Clinton. [b][u]It was apparent that Johnson knew Clinton and his people had not abided by his agreement with the Agency.

"Our deal was for you to have 10 per cent of the profits, not 10 per cent of the gross," Johnson sternly admonished Clinton.

"This has turned into a feeding frenzy by your good ole boy sharks, and you've had a hand in it, too, Mr. Clinton. Just ask your Mr. Nash to produce a business card. I'll bet it reads Arkansas Development and Finance Authority. We know what's been going on. Our people are professionals; they're not stupid. They didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, as you guys say. This ADFA of yours is double-dipping. Our deal with you was to launder our money. You get 10 per cent after costs and after post-tax profits. No one agreed for you to start loaning our money out to your friends through your ADFA so that they could buy machinery to build our guns. That wasn't the deal. Mr. Sawahata tells me that one of ADFA's first customers was some parking meter company that got several million in ... how shall we say it ... in preferred loans.

"Dammit, we bought a whole gun company, lock, stock and barrel and shipped the whole thing down here for you. And Mr. Reed even helped set it up. You people go and screw us by setting up some subcontractors that weren't even authorized by us. Shit, people who didn't even have security clearances. That's why we're pulling the operation out of Arkansas. It's become a liability for us. We don't need live liabilities."....

Clinton had paused for a moment to ponder Johnson's words. "What do ya' mean, live liabilities?" he demanded.

"There's no such thing as a dead liability. It's an oxymoron, get it? Oh, or didn't you Rhodes Scholars study things like that?" Johnson snapped.

"What! Are you threatenin' us? Because if ya' are ..."

Johnson stared down at the table, again took a deep breath, and paused. It appeared he wanted to elevate the tone of the disintegrating exchange.

"Calm down and listen," Johnson said. "We are all in this together. We all have our personal agendas ... but let's not forget, both the Vice President [George Bush] and Mr. Casey want this operation to be a success. We need to get these assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a golden opportunity. The timing is right. We have communists taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves. Mr. Seal is an example of what happens to lone wolves. They just don't survive in the modern world of intelligence.

"I'm not here to threaten you. But there have been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and unexposed only because Mr. Seal carried with him a falsely created, high-level profile of a drugrunner. All the cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation. That put the police in a position where we could control them. We fed them what we wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our restaurant and our menu. Seal was himself a diversion. It was perfect until your brother started free-enterprising and now we have to shut it down. It's as simple as that. Mr. Seal was a good agent and it's a shame he's dead. But, hopefully, our new operation will build on Seal's success in sustaining our Contra support effort while goddamn Congress dilly dallies around as the Russians take over Nicaragua."

Clinton just glared back. "That was a good sermon, but what can you specifically do to end this investigation concerning my brother and the bond business?"

"Your brother needed to go to jail," Johnson said staring at the governor. "As governor you should intervene and make things as painless as possible now. As far as the money investigation goes, Mr. Meese is intervening right now. There will be no money investigation. The U.S. attorney's office (in Little Rock) is 'getting religion' as we speak. *

"There may be nothing we can do about your friend Lasater's drug problem. I suggest that he and everyone else caught with their pants down take the bad along with the good and do a little time -- as your brother has. It's a shame. But bartenders shouldn't drink. If some of our people are going to be in the drug business as a cover, they should do as Mrs. Reagan says and 'just say no'."

Johnson had applied the balm and now the massage began. "Bill, you are Mr. Casey's fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek. We would never put all our eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that you're a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you're No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you've always wanted.

-- Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA: How the Presidency was Co-opted by the CIA, by Terry Reed & John Cummings

They're out there and they're not really very powerful. And you can see this when in 1948,
Harry Truman wins election again, you know, the picture of him standing there with the newspaper over his head that says Dewey wins or Dewey beats Truman.
That is the Chicago Tribune printed those up ahead of time, because Truman had actually been the first American president to,
campaign in Harlem, which is a black neighborhood, primarily a black neighborhood.
Then, and everybody thought that would kill him with white voters. And it didn't it didn't because people were like, yeah, okay, we're on board of this. So,
it doesn't really take off until 1954 and in 1954, with Brown versus Board of Education, which used federal troops
and federal monies to desegregate the schools. At first it Brown v board and 54
is the Supreme Court saying that public schools must be desegregated. And then in 1957,
Eisenhower sends the troops to Little Rock, Little Rock Central High School, to desegregate those schools.

With that, there's a really key moment, because when that happens, those people who want to get rid of this government
say to white voters primarily who were the voters who are benefiting from this liberal consensus from the unions and from the the
the food benefits and from the new highways and from the good jobs. They say to them, see, we told you that this government was going
to use your cash, your tax dollars, and redistribute them to black people.
And that idea that this liberal consensus, this government that was designed to create wealth for all of us was actually
about cash giving cash from white people to black people, essentially in the 1950s.
And then, of course, it includes brown people and women. And you know, LGBTQ plus and so on.
What that what we are seeing now is the, the, the, the logical outcome of that all along,
those people who wanted to destroy this liberal consensus have said, we got to get rid of it because your tax dollars are going to those people
and starts, as I say, in the 50s, and it really takes off under Nixon and then under Reagan.
And then you get the Willie Horton ads under, George H.W. Bush, and then you get, George, George
W Bush with the, the, the, the dividing he was doing. And finally we get Donald Trump talking about criminals coming from Mexico
and making fun of, disabled Americans and, and, and making vile comments about women and so on.
But where we are now is literally what they were trying to do in the 1950s,
this unelected man is sitting in the, the, the, the bowels of our government
deciding what he thinks is doing what he thinks are programs
that are benefiting people of color and women and, and, and, disabled
Americans and, religious minorities and, gender minorities and so on.
And this is where the rubber finally hits the road. People like me have been saying all along,
based actually from me on something Lincoln said, if you start to say you people are not welcome in this polity
that is trying to create wealth for everybody, it is only a question of time
until you are one of those groups that is being shut out. And so what what Musk is doing and his people are doing
is they are literally saying, Department of Education. We don't need the department of Education.
Do you know the Department of Education does, among other things, it's the one that funds special needs,
that needs education and, provides grants to poor schools.
You know, especially poor schools. Well, you know, that is going to affect a lot of Americans
who probably thought that Donald Trump was a great idea. One of the things that they have said they are going to cut is,
as I say, these, these programs that are they said we're cutting religious stuff.
But one of the things that they cut seemed to cut is they say we don't know whether it's happened or not.
Is, an organization that that that gets grants to establish nursing homes,
and that's going to affect everybody, and it's going to affect everybody,
not just because, I mean, maybe you don't have anybody in a nursing home. I don't. But all of that money that we have used in our federal government
to support a society that grows wealth for everybody
means that if you shut down a nursing home, it's really bad news
for the people who no longer can have that level of care. It's also really bad news for the people who worked in the nursing home,
and who maybe drove people around from that nursing home and provided the food and the linens and, you know, the equipment to that nursing home.
But think about then what that does to the communities. So the people who work to the nursing home are no longer going to be buying coffee
at your coffee shop and on down across the American economy. What we are seeing here is the ultimate destruction
of the idea of this liberal consensus that was designed to use our government,
our tax dollars, us as a way to create a structure,
the roads and the hospitals and the schools and the safety net. Because if you have, you know, before we had Social Security
and you were an old, older person, not only were you in danger of starving to death, but you were a real burden on your kids.
Once we have Social Security, you actually can help your kids out. Or there's a reason for you to be living with them
because you actually have some payments that you can help with that household. This whole idea of creating this, this net
that is going to create wealth for all of us, we are seeing destroyed. In order for somebody like Elon Musk and those oligarchs in our country
to turn all of that wealth back into cash and to put it in their own pockets.
That's not going to turn out well for anybody. And so the bigger picture here is not well, I never really liked
the grant that went to, puppet theater. Anyway, I made that up.
I just thought maybe that was something somebody might say. That's a stupid use of money.
You may say, I don't care because I don't like that. But what you're not seeing is that
those grants are made by our representatives in Congress,
theoretically, to guarantee that we have created this consensus, this liberal consensus, that we will use our tax dollars
to create a world in which we have access to the resources to create wealth for all of us.
And that destruction cannot be done piecemeal. And again, what what what what Musk is doing is saying,
I'm going to tear it all down if I don't agree with it. Out he goes. And then if it turns out, you know that we need nursing homes,
we can bring in a weak private. The private industry will fill that in. But here's the kicker
this isn't X and it isn't a private company. It's a nation, and it's a nation, first of all, in which you can't stop
payments for a month and expect everything to be able to to pick up again.
I mean, you know this in your own life. What are you going to do if they if they cut veterans benefits, you know, just not eat for a month?
I mean, that's that is literally not how this works. So first of all, the hardship is extraordinary.
But second of all, you'll take down the whole system. And then of course, is is quite likely what a few of the
the oligarchs like Musk want. That's what Timothy Snyder said over the weekend in a great piece, he wrote that they want to destroy everything, leave us all helpless,
leave us all, you know, unable to function all divided. And they will sell the parts that are valuable
and keep the, you know, keep the money. And the rest of us are just on our own, and maybe we can create something
entrepreneurially, or we can just work for them. And you know, Tim Snyder put it in terms of, you should think of the government
like a car that maybe when you voted, you thought of the fact you were going into, to a mechanic shop
and you just wanted a tune up on the car because you didn't really like the way it was running. And so you voted for somebody to take it into the mechanic shop and change it,
and you drive into the mechanic shop, and the people who are there don't really look like mechanics, but you leave the car there
and you come back for it, and they tell you they have stripped it of all the parts that were valuable, sold those parts,
kept the money, and you should thank them for what they've done. And that's what we're looking at right now. So,
let me. Go here to.
What to do about it. Because I know people are completely freaking out. I want to start once again.
Musk is not elected. He has no more power to do this than I do. That's important to remember because
he's a funny character in that he is able to wield a lot of power
over the elected Republicans right now because he's threatening to to fund somebody to to run against him in a primary.
And so they're doing what he wants. But if he is able to do this, he doesn't need them anymore.
And they need to wake up to that because once he doesn't need them anymore, why should he keep them?
I mean, like I say, maybe, maybe for cocktail parties, but he's probably got his own friends for that.
So it's important to remember that he is not himself the person who has the authority to do this.
And the fact that the people who are really pushing this for him are six young people between the ages of 19 and 25.
This is not the Huns crossing the Alps. This is a group that is essentially launched.
It has launched as is in the middle of a coup against you and me in 300 and, 332 million Americans.
And there's seven of them. And that's an important thing to remember, because the question right now is not
whether you're a Trumper or whether you're MAGA or any of or whether you're Republican or whether you're Democrat or any of those things.
The first question is who elected Elon Musk? And that's a question to take to everybody, because right
now, Elon Musk and his gang of what did somebody just call them? Gizmo Crats somebody call them gizmo Crats, which I kind of like.
These people have access to your information and they, you know, they could if they wanted to.
I'm not saying they're going to, but they could stop any payments they want to. And literally I mean, is that something that matters to
is there anybody you know who would say, oh, I don't care, I trust them, you know, I, I and without leaving fingerprints, by the way,
if some tech people have been writing to me about about what you can do with that sort of power, and I will not
express more about that, but you could, you know, you can go in and start change and stuff
and get people in a lot of trouble really fast without leaving fingerprints on it. And, I mean, it's chaos is what it is.
Is there anybody who doesn't care about that? So the first thing to do
and I want to shout, give a shout out here to my friend,
Joanne Freeman, a scholar of the American Revolution, because I asked her last night,
you know, we are operating outside the Constitution, so the place to look is at the American Revolution.
When they didn't have a constitution, how did they mobilize people to understand what was at stake?
When we were talking about things like cheap tea, I mean, the the the monopoly that the Crown put on the tea from the East
India Company actually made it cheaper to buy than tea had been before. And how did you,
how did you convince many pre literate people of how to that this was important for them to boycott because it would give,
it would establish the principle that Parliament could tax the colonists without without them having a say there.
How did you do that? And what she said, I thought was really interesting. She said, governments
need popular buy in to be legitimate. They have to have people behind them in order to be legitimate.
And you see this with Trump. I was screaming about how he had a landslide. More people voted for somebody other than Donald Trump, than voted for him.
There was no landslide. You see it when he talked about how huge his inaugural,
crowd was, the first time around and his refusal to do a second inaugural. Probably because he recognized
he wouldn't have the kind of numbers that he would like to see there. You need to to be legitimate.
You need to have support. You need to have popular support. You can see this again, even in places like Russia, where
every time they hold an election, they get 87% support. Right. You know, that's not true. But they're trying to push that idea on their remaining supporters.
So nobody dares to turn out against them. So in this moment, make your voices heard.
That is any time any representative has,
a representative Senator has a town hall. Go to it. Any time they have any kind of a public event, go to it.
If you if they have open office hours or they're available in their offices, go to them.
And I would urge you a couple of things, just as I'm, I'm. Is it like, it's kind of a rabbit hole?
No violence, really, no violence. And that's not me being wussy.
That's that. If you study America, it's not true in other countries, but in America,
the United States of America, any time a movement turns violent, people turn against it.
So if you're being strategic, no violence. And, and, you know, behave with respect,
but make it really clear that you do not support Elon Musk having control of the United States government.
You can all you don't have to be there in person either. Call, call and everybody every day and ask to speak to
whomever is in charge of whatever it is you issue is you care about. Again, being polite and and, and overwhelm.
As you know, the you may not know, the switchboards went down in Washington yesterday because so many people called every day.
Keep that up. Keep that drumbeat going, and do it at the state level as well, because those people have contacts with the national level.
Make sure people know how you feel. Now another let me step back a little bit on another thing here.
Please don't yell at the Democrats. You can certainly say we want leadership or whatever,
but I promise you, they're doing the best they can. They do not hold power. So they're trying to gum the works up wherever they can.
And what tends to happen again in the United States is that,
people recognize that Republicans aren't going to change, so they yell at the Democrats, and it's really demoralizing.
People yell at me all the time because obviously they want to see changes and they're yelling at me about it.
I promise you, I have zero power to make a Democratic lawmaker do anything.
So yelling at me just makes me feel bad when I'm drinking my coffee, yell at the people who are causing the problem, yell at the arsonists
who are setting the building on fire, not at the people trying to put the fire out, but make your voices heard all the time.
Make sure you're out there and that people see this and that they see how enormously unpopular this is.
But I'm not done. There are other ways to get out. The word I said on Sunday that I thought people should make sure that their,
Republican voting family members and friends understand that Musk has taken control of all their private information.
And a lot of people, some people said it worked and people didn't know about that. Other people said they got a lot of pushback on that.
One of the things somebody said, they did was to go to their local bank in a red
district and say, what steps, you know, are you taking to protect my information?
And in the person did that, not expecting them to have an answer and they didn't. But the people there did not know what was going on.
And this was a way to say, well, haven't you heard that the Treasury systems have been breached and that Musk
has, has taken all or has access to all our private information? Now, again, people aren't
going to believe you the first time, but if you hear it enough times, people are going to start to pay attention because right now we need to demonstrate
that what is going on does not have popular support. Now,
Musk is the immediate problem and pushing on the senators especially. But the Republicans who are supporting them is crucial.
But I think the larger picture here is really important for people to understand that
all these years, people have thought that this government that what Trump calls the deep state, the swamp, you know, all these words that they've used for it
are their neighbors who are doing the work of creating a world
where we all have access to educations and health care and the opportunity to work hard and rise.
That's what the US government is. That is us working together to make it possible for our neighbors
to survive and to prosper, but also for ourselves. And the cutting of these programs, especially the Department of Education,
which Trump wants to get rid of. Congress doesn't. But Trump is going to try and get rid of it. U.S. aid, which has been enormously.
I mean, aside from the fact the morality of it, you can't have a better return on your investment than and then putting
less than 1% of the budget into programs in 60 countries all around the world that, for example, undercut ISIS.
I mean, that's that's part of keeping us safe.
That idea that that this government is there to protect and to support all of us
is, is not just to help our neighbors, but also to help us. And I think this is the point place that a lot of MAGA voters
jump ship and said, oh, no, no, no, this government is only helping, you know,
some racial, ethnic, religious, gender minority.
And I'm not one of them. I don't care. But now they're seeing that what's being cut
our nursing homes are money for roads are, education are the kind of money that will keep hospitals afloat.
Law enforcement grants, all those things that we did together
are the things that are currently on the chopping block. And what will happen and spatters right here
is that the the valuable parts Musk and his cronies
are going to sell off and keep the money from. And we're all back on our own trying to figure out how to survive
as a society with our all those pieces falling apart. And it's important to understand that, and it's important to talk about that
with people. I will I will be talking about it more. But really what we're seeing is the the logical outcome of
where we have been for the last 40 years, that idea that we would undercut the government by saying your tax dollars are going to help black kids
go to school, it's a waste of money that is now finally coming home to roost.
And we are seeing that the take down of that liberal consensus is the take down of the American society that we built after World War two
to make sure that everybody, everybody in society had access to the tools, the health,
the education and the infrastructure to enable them,
as well as all of their neighbors to prosper. And that's going to be a really important thing going forward, because this isn't just about,
whether or not you care about this particular thing or that particular thing. Americans need to understand that, that
this is what the federal government is and what the federal government does. And the Republicans have been really good for the last 40 years at doing things
like calling out one little tiny piece of one grant and saying,
did you really want your tax dollars to go to study? Here you go.
The mating habits of the Atlantic cod. You know, of course, you know, people would roll their eyes and say,
well, that's really stupid. Why do I care what the Atlantic cod are doing? You care what the Atlantic cod are doing because they're,
a major part of the, food chain in the Atlantic that has been utterly disrupted.
And the problem is nobody can figure out why they I mean, scientists are working on.
And maybe they've decided this by now, but two years ago, they couldn't figure out why they're not able to repopulate those banks with fry.
And it appears to be something to do with they actually have home ground, but that's what that home ground is.
It's been lost because of the destruction of those species in the 1970s. That's not about something stupid having to do with a little fish.
That's something having to do with the health of the Atlantic Ocean and that, you know, grants and funding are not just handed out
like checks when they're done, really through the federal government. It's a little different when, George W Bush went into Iraq or Afghanistan. But,
but that's what our representatives and the people they hire are doing with our money to try to make sure that we are secure,
as in it through our Defense Department defending us, our Defense Department, and that we have health
and Human services and that we have education
and that we have transportation and that, you know, you can go on through here, that we are operating with, as I say, this consensus
that we will use our tax dollars to create wealth for all of us
and not simply use them as cash to put in the pockets of a few oligarchs.
I. Again, I'm going to say just one more time here.
Things are bad, and, you know, I'm I'm I tend to be a glass half full person. This is a bad moment.
It is not over. You know, the the people who are throwing up their hands and saying it's over.
American democracy is over. Listen, I'm not happy about where we are. This is the worst place we have ever been as a country.
But it's not over. You know, as I say, power is sloshing around. The president is dotty, and he is not clear.
He's in control. You've got this rogue guy from South Africa running amok in the computers.
There's probably going to be fallout from that because my guess is, is they start messing around with computers.
Things are going to fall apart pretty quickly. There's a lot of places still where a lot is still not determined.
And I would urge you to look at the difference between that and a country like Syria was before
the fall of Al Assad a few weeks ago. You couldn't speak up.
You couldn't, you know, you were under the the finger of under the thumb of that guy who had these, these torture prisons and so on and so forth.
We're not there yet. Now, we could get there. I mean, I didn't talk at all about the other things that Trump has been doing, not least that,
he thinks he's been talk or he has been talking to El Salvador about taking not only undocumented migrants,
but also American prisoners, American citizens, which is so unconstitutional I can't even begin to articulate it.
Or the fact that his new secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, refused to outlaw torture, during his confirmation hearings,
or the fact that they have opened a 3000 bed,
camp at Guantanamo Bay. And I make that that distinction. You need to read these articles carefully in the news.
It's not 3000 person, it's 3000 bed.
And people are making the assumption that those two things are the same things. And they are not.
You'd like to think that that that's what they're talking about. But it's 3000, 30,000, not 3030 thousand
bed migrant camp. All of those things could come to America, but we are not there yet.
We have pockets of resistance in the states. The state governors are doing in in blue states are doing a fabulous job.
We have foreign countries that are pushing back against the Trump administration. We have lawsuits being filed right and left.
We have people out, protest, and we have people calling so much they shut down the the, the circuit boards
yesterday or the switchboards yesterday in Washington DC. And we have, interestingly enough, not only independent media like me,
but we have, I think, a renewed interest on the part of
other forms of media in this story, because
one of the things that always kind of made me crazy about the Trump years is that reporters tended to chase everything Trump,
Trump said, because it was newsworthy and he was always off the wall. He's no longer the big story.
The big story is Musk. And what's happening to the government. And all of a sudden, if you're watching, which you may or may not be on,
on social media, especially on blue Sky, you've got all sorts of reporters saying to sources,
here's my my encrypted information, please let me know any information you've got.
And that is going to change the the media dynamic as well. So before you throw up your hands and say it's all over, it's not all over.
There are 332 million of us. Very few people want to see American democracy fall.
The people who are not standing against it in the Senate are cowards. And I will say that the Republicans are cowards and they need to find a spine.
He's going to come for you anyway. You might as well take a stand against him now and defend your constituents.
And I guess I will leave you with this. I've made this this comparison before.
I used to read a great blog, and one of the the people who wrote into it once
a year was a long haul trucker who was at the time was incarcerated. But he would write once a year, all the things that you should know
as a driver, not as a long haul trucker, but as a regular driver, because he'd seen everything. And, you know, there was stuff like, just so you know,
we can see inside your cars and we I've seen everything and just see you now, you know, here's this, here's that.
But one of the things he always said was, first of all, slow down five miles
an hour faster is not going to matter in terms of how fast you get there. And five miles slower could save your life.
So slow down. And the other thing he said is, he said, if you want to survive an accident, don't stop driving.
He said, you know, in in many accidents when somebody is coming into a bad situation, they panic.
They take their hands off the wheel and they cover their eyes. And he said 100% of the time that's a fatal accident.
You can't take your hands off the wheel and cover your eyes. You got to keep driving.
He said, you know, it may not turn out well for you, but it could be that the accident that you're pulling into slides off the side of the road.
Or it could be that there's a lucky bounce and you miss it, or it could be that you managed to steer around it.
Whatever you do when you are in a catastrophe, do not stop driving.
And that's the position we're in right now. We must not stop driving, and that's where we are.
If you need to take a break, do it. Make sure you're always with friends. Make sure that when you push back against these things,
you have a community around you to help you do it. Number of places where you can find formulas for talking to your your,
representatives on the phone for writing. Don't bother email. They throw that out. You can write letters, you can write postcards.
Calling and showing up are the most important things to do. There are a number of organizations where they will help you build
what they call squads for example, at Red Wine and Blues so that you're not alone. There are all kinds of places that will help you organize,
but for right now, let's just keep driving.
Thank you for being here. I'll see you again soon.

[admin]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AGENTS ASSOCIATION; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; and JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; and JANE DOE 3, Plaintiffs,
v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00328
Filed 02/04/25

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association (“FBIAA”), by and through their attorneys, and John Does 1 through 4 and Jane Does 1 through 3 (the “Doe Plaintiffs”), collectively, the “Plaintiffs,” by and through their attorneys, hereby bring this Complaint against the Defendants United States Department of Justice and United States of America. In support thereof, upon personal knowledge as well as information and belief, Plaintiffs allege the following:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Plaintiffs consist of longtime current special agents and other personnel employed at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). They have brought this case to remedy Defendants’ unlawful retaliation for their pursuit of lawful and appropriately commenced cases and investigations in their capacity while employed with the FBI regarding the attacks on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Plaintiffs seek this Court’s protection from Defendants’ anticipated retaliatory decision to expose their personal information for opprobrium and potential vigilante action by those who they were investigating.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 because Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel officers and employees of the United States and its agencies to perform duties owed to Plaintiff and required under law.

2. Sovereign immunity for non-monetary relief is waived under 5 U.S.C. § 702, which entitles Plaintiffs to relief when Defendants acted unconstitutionally and beyond statutory authority.

3. Venue is appropriate in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e).

PARTIES

4. FBIAA is a non-profit professional organization dedicated to the service of FBI agents. Its mission is to advocate for the careers, economic interests, conditions of employment, and welfare of its members. Its membership includes both current and former Special Agents. FBIAA has approximately 14,000 members. The FBI employs approximately 13,800 Special Agents. Approximately 12,000 of the FBI’s 13,800 Special Agents are members of FBIAA.

5. The Doe Plaintiffs include Special Agents, forensic examiners, a forensic chemist, and an intelligence analyst. Each are currently employed by the FBI.

6. Defendant, the United States Department of Justice, is a Cabinet agency within the executive branch of the United States government and controls its subordinate component FBI, which employs the Plaintiffs.

7. Defendant, the United States of America, is responsible for the exercise of state action being challenged by Plaintiffs in this case.

FACTS

8. FBI employees are regularly called upon to undertake some of the most critical and high-stakes law enforcement investigations in our nation. They work at the direction of senior leaders at the Department of Justice to investigate and help prosecute complex crimes, often against sophisticated and powerful adversaries.

9. The FBI’s mission is as diverse as it is sensitive. FBI Special Agents have among the broadest of investigative authorities and are frequently the lead investigators on cases involving counterterrorism, fentanyl trafficking, child pornography, cybercrime, and other critical threats. FBI agents are empowered by law to conduct investigations of and to make arrests for offenses enumerated in the United States Code.

10. The targets of their investigations often have many tools of their own at their disposal that can be used to interfere with the FBI’s work or to endanger its agents.

11. On any given day, an FBI agent may be face-to-face with an individual who would sooner resort to violence than submit to the law. FBI agents, including those among the FBIAA Plaintiffs, have worked undercover using pseudonyms in order to operate within an investigation.

12. Other employees of the FBI, for example, certain of the Doe Plaintiffs, are not Special Agents but support investigations in other ways like computer or intelligence analysis and forensic examination.

A. January 6, 2021

13. The events of January 6, 2021, and the activities leading up to the violence that ensued on the U.S. Capitol on that day, have been well documented by courts in this circuit. Specifically, “[o]n January 6, 2021, a mob professing support for then-President Trump violently attacked the United States Capitol in an effort to prevent a Joint Session of Congress from certifying the electoral college votes designating Joseph R. Biden the 46th President of the United States. The rampage left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol. Then-Vice President Pence, Senators, and Representatives were all forced to halt their constitutional duties and flee the House and Senate chambers for safety.” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, at 15-16 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

14. Following the November 3, 2020 presidential election in which “Americans elected Joseph Biden as President, giving him 306 electoral college votes[,] [t]hen-President Trump . . . refused to concede, claiming that the election was ‘rigged.’” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th at *18 (quoting President Donald J. Trump, Statement on 2020 Election Results at 0:34-0:46, 18:11-18:15, C-SPAN (Dec. 2, 2020), https://www.c-span.org/video/?506975-1/ ... on-results). In the ensuing weeks following the 2020 election, “President Trump and his allies filed a series of lawsuits challenging the results of the election,” and “[t]he courts rejected every one of the substantive claims of voter fraud that was raised.” Id. (citing Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Secretary of Pennsylvania, 830 F. App’x 377, 381 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[C]alling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”) (additional citations omitted).

15. On January 6, 2021, Congress proceeded in its solemn Constitutional duty “[a]s required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act,” and “a Joint Session of Congress convened on January 6, 2021 to certify the results of the election.” Id. (citing 3 U.S.C. § 15; 167 Cong. Rec. H75-H85 (daily ed. Jan. 6, 2021)). In advance of the Constitutionally-mandated certification of the electoral votes, “President Trump had sent out a Tweet encouraging his followers to gather for a ‘[ b]ig protest in D.C. on January 6th’ and to ‘[ b]e there, will be wild!’” Id. (quoting Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Dec. 19, 2020, 1:42 AM).

16. On January 6, 2020, “[s]hortly before noon . . . President Trump took the stage at a rally of his supporters on the Ellipse, just south of the White House,” where he gave a speech “reiterat[ing] his claims that the election was ‘rigged’ and ‘stolen,’ and urged then-Vice President Pence, who would preside over the certification, to ‘do the right thing’ by rejecting various States' electoral votes and refusing to certify the election in favor of Mr. Biden.” Id. at 18-19 (quoting Donald J. Trump, Rally on Electoral College Vote Certification at 3:33:05-3:33:10, 3:33:32-3:33:54, 3:37:19-3:37:29, C-SPAN (Jan. 6, 2021), https://www.c-span.org/video/?507744-1/ ... tification (“January 6 Speech”)). Nearing “the end of the speech, President Trump announced to his supporters “we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue * * * to the Capitol and * * * we’re going to try and give our Republicans * * * the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." Id. (quoting January 6 Speech at 4:42:00-4:42:32). President Trump “[u]rg[ed] the crowd to ‘demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated[,]’ he warned that ‘you'll never take back our country with weakness’ and declared ‘[w]e fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.’” Id. (quoting January 6 Speech Id. at 3:47:20-3:47:42, 4:41:17 -4:41:33).

17. Thereafter, “[s]hortly after the speech, a large crowd of President Trump's supporters—including some armed with weapons and wearing full tactical gear—marched to the Capitol and violently broke into the building to try and prevent Congress’s certification of the election results.” Id. Violence ensued. “The mob quickly overwhelmed law enforcement and scaled walls, smashed through barricades, and shattered windows to gain access to the interior of the Capitol. Police officers were attacked with chemical agents, beaten with flag poles and frozen water bottles, and crushed between doors and throngs of rioters.” Id. at 18 (citations omitted).

18. “As rioters poured into the building, members of the House and Senate, as well as Vice President Pence, were hurriedly evacuated from the House and Senate chambers. Soon after, rioters breached the Senate chamber. In the House chamber, Capitol Police officers barricaded the door with furniture and drew their weapons to hold off rioters. Some members of the mob built a hangman’s gallows on the lawn of the Capitol, amid calls from the crowd to hang Vice President Pence.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Alford, 89 F. 4th 943 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (“That afternoon, however, a mob broke through the perimeter, tore down the barricades and clashed with police. Members of the mob entered the Capitol through broken windows and then threw open the doors to their compatriots. Ultimately, the mob delayed the electoral certification by several hours. Both the Senate and the House recessed shortly after 2:00 p.m. and did not resume until 8:00 p.m. that night after law enforcement secured the building.”).

19. “The events of January 6, 2021 marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812. The building was desecrated, blood was shed, and several individuals lost their lives. Approximately 140 law enforcement officers were injured, and one officer who had been attacked died the next day. In the aftermath, workers labored to sweep up broken glass, wipe away blood, and clean feces off the walls. Portions of the building’s historic architecture were damaged or destroyed.” Thompson, 20 F.4th at 19.

C. Federal Law Enforcement Investigations and Prosecutions in the Aftermath of January 6

20. Following the events of January 6, 2021, the FBI and Department of Justice began investigating the myriad federal crimes seemingly committed, pursuant to the missions of their respective law enforcement agencies. In fact, federal law enforcement mobilized that very day to assist in quelling the riots, bringing order to the Capitol, and seeking out those who broke the law.

21. Investigative efforts were centralized out of the District of Columbia federal district (“DDC”). Functionally, this meant that FBI agents swore out arrest warrant affidavits in front of DDC magistrate judges. Upon receipt and review of the sworn affidavit, DDC magistrate judges approved the FBI’s arrest warrant applications and provided a signed, lawful arrest warrant to the arresting FBI agent or FBI task force officer (local law enforcement detailed to the FBI) for execution.

22. In some instances, individuals were arrested pursuant to a grand jury indictment. In these cases, FBI agents testified in front of a federal grand jury under Fed. R. Crim P. 6. If the grand jury found probable cause based on the evidence presented, a supervising court would then issue a lawful arrest warrant for execution.

23. Many of the perpetrators of the January 6 riots fled Washington, D.C., immediately after the carnage. Because of this, the FBI had to coordinate efforts across the country in order to amass evidence. This frequently entailed applying for search warrants under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 in the district where the evidence was to be located. Again, the FBI applied for warrants via sworn affidavits presented to neutral and detached magistrate judges. In the context of search warrants for physical property (e.g., phones, clothes, stolen property), these lawful warrants were issued by a multitude of magistrate judges outside of DDC.

24. On November 18, 2022, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as a Special Counsel to investigate matters relating to the events of January 6, 2021. See In re Sealed Case, 77 F. 4th 815 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Even prior to that appointment, however, federal law enforcement investigated and prosecuted over 1,500 individuals in connection with the events of January 6, 2021. All told, the Department of Justice charged nearly 1,600 individuals with crimes from the attack. See https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/96547204 ... ir-stories (last visited February 4, 2025).

25. In the ensuing years, President Trump repeatedly referred to the defendants in the cases arising from the events of January 6, 2021 as “hostages.” See, e.g., https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 3255858788 (with audio of incarcerated January 6 defendants) (last visited February 4, 2025); Emma Barnet and Jillian Frankel, Trump says there will be a “bloodbath” if he loses the election, NBC News (March 16, 2024) (discussing his comments at a 2024 rally referring to January 6 prisoners as “hostages”), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rcna143746 (last visited February 4, 2025).

26. Trump has also repeatedly and publicly attempted to portray the FBI not as law enforcement investigators but as “[t]hugs”, “[t]yrants,” and “Gestapo.” See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 5533954622 (last visited February 4, 2025) and https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 8482982758 (last visited February 4, 2025). 29. He has also been a prolific promulgator of conspiracy theories in an attempt to redefine the events of January 6. See Alyssa Meiman, Trump has spread conspiracy theories about January 6th more than 175 times on Truth Social, CREW (June 6, 2024), https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... th-social/ (last visited February 4, 2025).

29. He has also been a prolific promulgator of conspiracy theories in an attempt to redefine the events of January 6. See Alyssa Meiman, Trump has spread conspiracy theories about January 6th more than 175 times on Truth Social, CREW (June 6, 2024), https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... th-social/ (last visited February 4, 2025).

D. Actions Since January 20, 2025

30. During his inauguration speech on January 20, 2025, Trump once again referenced his perceived “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, stating “The vicious, violent and unfair weaponization of the Justice Department and our government will end.” See https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/2025 ... l-address/ (last visited February 4, 2025).

31. One of President Trump’s first actions following his inauguration was pardoning or commuting the sentences of every single person prosecuted by the Department of Justice for conduct related to January 6, 2021. Proclamation, “Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021” (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ry-6-2021/.

32. Since receiving their presidential pardons or commutations, the leaders of the January 6 riot and others have tagged FBI agents who worked on the investigation and prosecutions of those rioters.

33. For example, on February 1, 2025, a leader of the violent Proud Boys gang publicly posted the following on social media:

Enrique Tarrio@NobleOne

I'm calling for the firing and the arrest of Special Agent Nicole Miller of the @FBI for perjury, tampering with evidence and violating 18 USC 1512 Obstructing an Official Proceeding.

Throughout the trial of @ENordean @RealJoeBiggs @zachrehl @DomPezzola0351 And I, Agent Nicole Miller lied on the stand, Tampered with evidence and eavesdropped on attorney client privileged calls. She hid her messages that showed personal bias against us during her illegal investigation.

She must be brought to justice and made to answer for her crimes. True justice can only be accomplished by holding our government accountable for the crimes they committed.

To ALL J6ers I encourage you to tell your stories and name those who committed these heinous acts. They tried to take OUR lives for political gain and we cannot let things stand. You want to Make America Great Again? This is a start.

19:14 2/1/25

@NobleOne, X, (February 1, 2025, 5:14 PM), https://x.com/NobleOne/status/1885889389160513818) (last visited February 4, 2025).

34. Originally sentenced to 22 years in prison, Enrique Tarrio has been recently released from federal custody and has openly expressed his intent to seek retaliation against the FBI. In his X bio line, he claims to be the “United States Secretary of Retaliation.”

35. Mr. Tarrio has also threatened that “[t]he people who did this, they need to feel the heat, they need to be put behind bars, and they need to be prosecuted…. Success is going to be retribution.” Rachel Leingang, Proud Boys leader thanks Trump for January 6 pardon and vows revenge, The Guardian (Jan. 24, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... que-tarrio (last visited February 4, 2025).

36. As of the date of this affidavit, multiple hashtags are trending on X that allow January 6 convicts-turned-pardons to link to each other in posts promoting violence and insurrection against law enforcement agents. For example, the below user @magashredguitar (“Steve”), whose bio claims he was a “J6 attendee,” re-posted the following post from another January 6 convict-turned-pardon recipient Chris Quaglin (@CQuaglin) which apparently depicts Mr. Quaglin’s FBI interview subsequent to his arrest in 2021. On February 3, 2024, Steve captioned his re-post “This FBIer better have filled out that survey today asking about his J6 prosecution (persecution) involvement.”



37. For context, according to the Department of Justice, Quaglin was ultimately sentenced to 12 years in prison before being pardoned by President Trump. The Department of Justice described that on January 6, 2021, Quaglin, dressed in a hard-sided helmet, full-faced gas mask, and carrying a backpack and bear spray (chemical irritant), “was part of the initial group of rioters who overtook the police line,” assaulted multiple Capitol Police officers with is hands, hit another officer with his gas mask, stole another police officer’s shield and attacked him with it, and “raised a can of chemical irritant in the air, reaching around the officers' shields, and sprayed the officers directly in their faces.” According to the Department of Justice, Quaglin showed no remorse for his crimes and instead claimed to be a political prisoner, despite the fact that his assaults on multiple police officers were caught on camera. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/new- ... er-charges (last visited February 4, 2025).

38. Violent threats against FBI agents who have carried out lawful orders in relation to January 6th or subsequent investigations have been a consistent problem for the FBI for years. For example, in 2022, agents who carried out the search of then-former-President Trump's home were doxed on Trump’s social media network, which climaxed when an individual attempted a siege of the FBI field office in Ohio, resulting in his death. Around the same time, a Pennsylvania man was arrested and charged with threatening to kill FBI agents. The threat of retaliation by vigilantes was so profound that “the FBI issued a joint intelligence bulletin warning of an increase in threats, quietly hardened its facilities and scrubbed personal information from websites to protect personnel from possible danger.” See Perry Stein et al., As the FBI Comes Under Threat, its Leaders Try to Stay out of the Fray (August 20, 2022) (emphasis added), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national -security/2022/08/20/fbi-comes-under-threat-its-leader-tries-stay-out-view/ (last visited February 4, 2025).

39. Another pardoned January 6 felon, upon release from prison, threatened that his next actions would be “To regroup, go home and find out the nefarious actors in local homes and towns.” Ryan J. Reilly and Gary Grumbach, Relief, revenge but little repentance: Trump’s pardons delight Jan. 6 offenders, NBC News (Jan. 22, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rcna188798 (last visited February 4, 2025).

40. In addition to the above examples of January 6 rioters, individuals currently serving in senior executive branch officials in the current administration have regularly publicized the names of disfavored individual civil servants in an attempt to intimidate them. For example, White House Advisor Elon Musk of DOGE recently shared the names and titles of individual civil servants holding “relatively obscure climate-related government positions,” generating a “barrage of negative attention” for those employees and leading at least one of them to delete their social media accounts. Hadas Gold and Rene Marsh, Elon Musk publicized the names of government employees he wants to cut. It’s terrifying federal workers, CNN (Nov. 27, 2024), https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/27/business ... index.html (last visited February 4, 2025).

E. Recent Department of Justice Activity

41. In the weeks since, the administration has summarily fired or forced into retirement law enforcement personnel involved in investigations and prosecutions arising out of the events of January 6, 2021. On January 27, 2025, the administration fired more than a dozen prosecutors who worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team. See Sarah N. Lynch and Andrew Goudsward, Trump’s Justice Department launches sweeping cuts targeting Jan. 6 prosecutors, FBI agents, Reuters (Jan. 31, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-la ... 025-01-31/ (last visited February 4, 2025). On Friday, January 31, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove “told the top federal prosecutors in each state to compile a list of all prosecutors and FBI agents who worked on the investigation of the Capitol riot.” Id. (emphasis added). Bove did so by issuing a memo entitled “Terminations.”

42. “That memo ordered eight FBI officials to resign or be fired, saying that their participation in the Jan. 6 cases represented part of what Trump has called the ‘weaponization’ of government,” id., and identified at least some of the terminated officials. See Ken Dilanian, Tom Winter, Jonathan Dienst & Ryan J. Reilly, Senior FBI official forcefully resisted Trump administration firings, NBC News (Feb. 1, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... rcna190301 (last visited February 4, 2025).

43. Upon information and belief, supported by credible press reports, acting leadership at the Department of Justice has begun to take steps towards the mass, unlawful termination of Bureau employees who had any involvement in certain investigations related to President Trump, including Jan. 6 cases, and the lawful search of President Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago. Adam Goldman at al., Trump Officials Fire Jan. 6 Prosecutors and Plan Possible F.B.I. Purge, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2025); Evan Perez, et al., Trump DOJ demands list of thousands of FBI agents, others who worked on Jan. 6 and Trump investigations for possible firing, CNN (Jan 31, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/31/politics ... ry-6-fired (last visited February 4, 2025).

44. Upon information and belief, as many as 6,000 FBI employees may currently be targeted for unlawful firing. See Adam Goldman et al., Top F.B.I. Agent in New York Vows to ‘Dig In’ After Removals at Agency, N.Y. Times (Feb. 2, 2025) (“Mr. Trump’s political appointees plan to purge career bureau officials, including rank-and-file field agents. That number could reach 6,000 — or about a sixth of the bureau’s 38,000 employees, according to the F.B.I.”), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/us/p ... trump.html (last visited Feb. 4, 2025).

45. In addition to being unlawful, a mass, unlawful firing of 6,000 FBI employees would be catastrophic to national security.

46. On Sunday, February 2, 2025, the Defendants ordered certain FBI agents to answer a questionnaire about their work on cases related to the events of January 6, 2021, to be completed by 3:00 p.m. the following date, February 3, 2025. The survey was titled “A/DAG Memo Response: Events that Occurred at or Near the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.” The survey memo included the following questions (all marked “require I'md), each accompanied by a drop-down menu of available answers:

1. What is your current title?

2. Are you currently a supervisor?

3. Are you currently an ASAC or SSIA?

4. Are you currently an SES employee (e.g., SAC, Section Chief, DAD, AD, etc…)?

5. What was your title when you participated in investigation(s) or prosecution(s) of events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on January 6, 2021?

6. Were you a supervisor when you participated in investigation(s) or prosecution(s) of events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on January 6, 2021?

7. Were you an ASAC or SSIA when you participated in investigation(s) or prosecution(s) of events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on January 6, 2021?

8. Were you an SES employee when you participated in investigation(s) or prosecution(s) of events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on January 6, 2021?

9. What division are you currently in? (The drop down menu is sorted first by Field Offices, Legat Offices, then HQ divisions, and then in alphabetical order by the division’s 2-character code).

10. What division were you in when you participated in investigation(s) or prosecution(s) of events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on January 6, 2021?

11. What was your role in the investigation(s) or prosecution(s) relating to events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on January 6, 2021?1

12. What was the approximate date of your last activity relating to the investigation(s) or prosecution(s) relating to events that occurred at or near the US Capitol on January 6, 2021?

47. Strangely, the selection of FBI agents who received this information included many who did little to no work on January 6 investigations, while others who did work January 6 investigations did not receive a survey request. On information and belief, Department of Justice is currently in a state of transitional disorganization and has been unable to confirm the accuracy of this basic informational data of its members.

48. On information and belief, the Defendants intend to publicly disseminate the names of those employees who responded to this survey, and/or those employees who the Defendants plan to demote, transfer and/or terminate based on this survey, and/or publicly disseminate employees’ responses to the survey questions outlined above.

49. Such public disclosures would directly put the safety of all impacted individuals at risk as well as their family members.

COUNT ONE: Violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(6)

50. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate all allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

51. The Privacy Act requires that an agency, “prior to disseminating any record about an individual to any person other than an agency . . . make reasonable efforts to assure that such records are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency purposes.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(6).

52. On information and belief, Defendants have disseminated or will imminently disseminate records about the Plaintiffs and their involvement in sensitive investigations.

53. On information and belief, Defendants have not made any reasonable efforts to ensure that the maintenance and public release of the records at issue in this case are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency purposes.

54. Defendants’ violation will cause substantial and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ anticipated intentional, willful, and unauthorized disclosure(s) of records pertaining to Plaintiffs will have demonstrable adverse effects on them. Among others, these effects include a risk to their safety and that of their family members, damage to their personal and professional reputations, harm to future employment opportunities and the ability to earn a living, and significant emotional distress. This bell cannot be unrung, and once the Plaintiffs’ personal information is released it will be eternally available on social media.

COUNT TWO: Violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)

55. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate all allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

56. Defendant Department of Justice is an “agency” within the meaning of the Privacy Act, Whittle v. Moschella, et. al., 756 F. Supp. 589, 596 (D.D.C. 1991), and maintains one or several “system of records” as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5). This/these system(s) of records contain(s) “records,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4) that pertain to and are about Plaintiffs, including their personally identifying information.

57. The disclosures of Plaintiffs’ names based on their work on investigations and prosecutions arising out of the January 6, 2021 events came from FBI and/or DOJ sources. The information about Plaintiffs’ case assignments is stored exclusively within FBI and/or DOJ systems of records.

58. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) provides that “[n]o agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the records pertains.” No exception to this disclosure prohibition applies in this case. Upon information and belief, Defendants plan to willingly and intentionally disclose Plaintiffs’ identifying information without their prior consent or approval, in violation of this provision.

59. Defendants’ violation will cause substantial and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ anticipated intentional, willful, and unauthorized disclosure(s) of records pertaining to Plaintiffs have demonstrable adverse effects on them. Among others, these effects include a risk to their safety and that of their family members, damage to their personal and professional reputations, harm to future employment opportunities and the ability to earn a living, and significant emotional distress. Once the Plaintiffs’ personal information is released it will be eternally available on social media.

COUNT THREE: Violation of Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)

60. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate all allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

61. Under the APA, a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity . . . without observance of procedure required by law . . . [or] . . . unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).

62. Here, the Defendants’ current and anticipated actions are contrary to the Defendants’ right to privacy, their right to qualified immunity as law enforcement officers acting pursuant to lawful orders, and are in flagrant violation of well-established procedures for the safeguarding of personally identifiable information.

COUNT FOUR: Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361

63. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate all allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

64. The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provide a statutory basis for jurisdiction in cases seeking relief in the nature of mandamus against federal officers, employees, and agencies, and they provide for an independent cause of action in the absence of any other available remedies.

65. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, constitute unlawful, intimidating, and threatening behavior towards Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs’ lawful actions of executing lawful search and arrest warrants and participating in lawful investigations of crimes committed by January 6 perpetrators.

66. Defendants do not have discretion to redefine the truth of January 6, 2021. Nor do Defendants have any discretion to recast the lawful actions taken by the FBI and the previous leaders within the Department of Justice as illegal, let alone any discretion to retaliate and disclose names.

67. Defendants have no discretion when it comes to ensuring the safety of the American people from extremist violence, let alone the safety of their own employees.

68. If no other remedy is available through which the unlawful termination orders may be rescinded, then Plaintiffs are entitled to relief in the nature of mandamus compelling Defendants to recognize Plaintiff to rescind the unlawful termination orders.

COUNT FIVE: First Amendment Violation for Retaliation Based on Perceived Political Affiliation

69. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate all allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

70. The First Amendment protects government employees from discrimination and adverse action based on a perception—even an incorrect one—about the employee’s political beliefs, expression, or affiliation.

71. As set forth above, Defendants are subjecting Plaintiffs to imminent and irreparable risks of physical, reputational, and financial harm based solely on their perceived lack of political loyalty, in violation of their First Amendment freedoms. This retaliation is all the more outrageous given that it is based solely on their faithfully performing their job duties to investigate crimes and uphold the law.

COUNT SIX: Due Process Violation (Reputational Harm)

72. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate all allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

73. Defendants’ actions imminently violate Plaintiffs’ substantive Due Process rights, which arises from their protected interest in their stellar reputations following distinguished yearslong careers at the FBI.

74. The Fifth Amendment protects against both “reputation plus” and “stigma plus” harm caused by government actors. Here, Defendants’ actions harm Plaintiffs’ interests beyond their reputations, with the loss of their present government employment and the intent to harm their future employment prospects. In addition, Defendants’ actions have actually stigmatized Plaintiffs’ reputations by charging Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons with dishonesty through allegations of improper political motivations in their faithful performance of their job duties to investigate crimes and uphold the law, which stigma hampers their future employment prospects.

75. As set forth above, Plaintiffs are being targeted for firing and public identification based on the false and defamatory premise that they abused their positions of authority for partisan reasons.

COUNT SEVEN: Due Process Violation (Intentional Violation of Privacy Interests)

76. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate all allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

77. The Fifth Amendment requires the government to balance federal officers’ constitutional privacy interests against the purported public interest in disclosure.

78. Defendants’ disclosure of the identities of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons would cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs by exposing them to the reasonable probability of violence. As set forth above, there are multiple indications on social media and other sources promoting violence and insurrection against law enforcement agents, including FBI agents such as Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons. Plaintiffs therefore have a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of their identities will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals either from the government or private parties.

79. Plaintiffs’ constitutional privacy interests outweigh any limited public interest in the compelled disclosure of their identities. Thus, Plaintiffs have a right to nondisclosure under the circumstances here.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

80. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:

a) Enjoin Defendants from any further collection or dissemination of personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons;

b) Issue writs of mandamus as appropriate;

c) Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and

d) Award other relief as the Court deems just.

Dated: February 4, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark S. Zaid
Mark S. Zaid, D.C. Bar #440532
Bradley P. Moss, D.C. Bar #975905 Attorney for Plaintiffs John Doe 1-4 and Jane Doe 1-3
LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. ZAID, P.C.
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 498-0011
Fax: (202) 330-5610
[email protected]
[email protected] /s/ Norman L. Eisen

Norman L. Eisen, D.C. Bar #435051
Tianna J. Mays, D.C. Bar #90005882
Attorney for Plaintiffs John Doe 1-4 and Jane Doe 1-3
STATE DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS FUND 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE #15180 Washington, DC 20003
Tel: (202) 594-9958
[email protected]
[email protected]

For the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association,

/s/ Christopher Mattei
Christopher Mattei (Pro Hac Vice Pending)
ttorney for Plaintiff Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association
Federal Bar No. 27500
KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, PC
350 Fairfield Ave., Suite 501
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tel: (203) 336-4421
Fax: (203) 368-3244
[email protected]

/s/ Margaret M. Donovan
Margaret M. Donovan (Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Attorney for Plaintiff Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association
Federal Bar No. 31787
KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, PC
350 Fairfield Ave., Suite 501
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tel: (203) 336-4421
Fax: (203) 368-3244
[email protected]

_______________

Notes:

1 For this answer, a respondent can check from the following box options: [] Analytical support; [] Approved ECs or other documents in a case file; [] Arrest-led operation or participated in arrest; [] Assigned as case agent for investigation(s); [] Assigned as co-case agent for investigation(s); [] Conducted baseline database checks for case opening; [] Conducted surveillance of subject(s); [] Discovery; [] Evidence collection or disposition; [] Grand jury subpoena – submission or review; [] HQ Program Management Support; [] Interviewed witness(es), subject(s), and/or complainant(s); [] Responded to lead set [sic] by another office; [] Search warrant – led operation or participated in search; [] Supervised squad conducting investigation(s); [] Testified at trial; and [] Other (with a fillable space).

[admin]

[USAID] was created originally by President Kennedy and by Congress to engage in what today we call, "soft power," or the projection of American influence, and American foreign policy objectives by rendering aid to people. And that could be anything from helping people build effective water projects, to fighting HIV AIDS, to malaria nets, and antimalaria campaigns, to building up development projects, democracy -- we're all over the world with USAID. It's less than 1% of the overall budget. The whole foreign aid budget's around $40 billion a year, compared to 900 billion that goes to the Department of Defense alone, without getting into other national security agencies and departments. So it's a a tiny fraction. But that money means something, and has helped to buy lots of goodwill for America, and also help to prevent diseases that come back and haunt us, and also prevent the disease of authoritarianism and autocracy. Which is one of the key reasons that Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to dismantle it right now.

But we're already hearing now, with them having pulled the plug on all foreign aid projects of USAID all over the world, that China is moving in to say, "Well, they don't want to help you, but we're happy to help you.

I mean one of the things people love about America is the compassion of America, the Democratic solidarity of America, the fact that we're a country with a big heart made up of people who come from all over the world, and we stand with people. And then suddenly, we're sending the message that we are going to stop programs to help pregnant women and infants all over the world? We're going to stop programs to bring food raised by farmers in Iowa, and Louisiana, and California, to starving people in Asia and in Africa? It just makes no sense. But it is coherent from a political philosophy. Which is that America can only get its way by being a bully. And and we're seeing that same strategy play out right now with these tariffs and these trade wars...

I mean I've seen tv ads that the Canadian government and Ontario government are running in America saying, "Remember we are allies; we are closest trading partners; we are friends; we go back and forth; we were together in World War II fighting the Nazis." And so good for Canada reminding the American people of the relationship that we actually have. And that's something that obviously people who live in Michigan and Minnesota and the northern states understand better than people who live in the South, and so. But you know, the Wall Street Journal itself called this the Dumbest trade war in American history. Nobody can even understand why Donald Trump is doing it. It just makes no sense. It's incoherent. More chaos. More dysfunction....

In fact, Elon Musk, who's obviously pulling Donald Trump's strings now, is completely in bed with the CCP and the Chinese government. So they're not going to do anything to help people in Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or the Tibetans. They're not going to do anything to challenge the authoritarian autocrats who they emulate. They think that there might be some political mileage in having a fake trade war with China, but everybody understands the game that's being played. This is like Orwell's 1984. They basically want to cede a sphere of influence to China so China can just stomp on the human rights of anybody under them. And they want to be able to do the same thing here. I mean, to the point of ridiculousness, of saying they're going to take over Panama and Greenland. We do need two new states in America, but it's not Panama and Greenland, it's Puerto Rico and Washington DC. That's what we're fighting for.

-- "COUP!" Jamie Raskin issues TAKEDOWN of Elon Musk, by Brian Tyler Cohen, Feb 4, 2025

[Elon Musk] We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.

Could gone to some great parties.

Did that instead.

[admin]

Sen. Whitehouse Makes the Case Against Russ Vought's Nomination to Lead OMB
by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Feb 5, 2025

Senator Whitehouse and Senate Democrats hold up the Senate Floor to oppose Russ Vought's disgraceful nomination.



Transcript

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.

MR. WHITEHOUSE: WELL, WE'RE IN INTERESTING TIMES, MR. PRESIDENT. AND WE'RE BEGINNING TO SEE THE
CORPORATE AND BILLIONAIRE TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. AND IN THAT CORPORATE AND
BILLIONAIRE TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE
NOMINEE RUSS VOUGHT TO RUN OMB HAS A KEY ROLE.
AND THAT KEY ROLE TO DO THE WORK FOR THE BILLIONAIRES AND THE BIG
CORPORATIONS IS WHAT MAKES HIM UNFIT AND DANGEROUS AND WHAT
COMPELS US TO COME TO THE FLOOR TONIGHT TO WARN THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE OF WHAT THIS GUY WILL DO AND WHO HE IS.
LET'S START WITH A LITTLE HISTORY. THIS IS THE GUY WHO VIOLATED THE
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT BY WITHHOLDING 214 MILLION
APPROPRIATED DOLLARS FROM THE SOLDIERS F AND DYING IN
THE TRENCHES OF UKRAINE AGAINST
PUTIN'S THUG ARMY. IT WAS THAT STUNT THAT LED TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP. THIS IS THE GUY WHO CAUSED LIVES
TO BE LOST IN THOSE UKRAINIAN TRENCHES BY WITHHOLDING FUNDING
THEY NEEDED DESPERATELY, WITHHOLDING THE FUNDING THEY DESPERATELY NEEDED ILLEGALLY AND
WITHHOLDING THAT DESPERATELY NEEDED FUNDING ILLEGALLY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A SCHEME BY
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIANS TO GIVE HIM DIRT ON HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY OF WHERE THIS GUY WILL GO.
THE OMB IS THE NERVE CENTER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND TO
HAVE SOMEONE THERE OF THAT CHARACTER IS DANGEROUS.
VOUGHT IS ALSO LAWLESS. THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT THAT HE VIOLATED, THE GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE SAID THIS. FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE PRESIDENT TO
SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THOSE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED INTO LAW.
HE VIOLATED THAT AND THEY SPECIFICALLY FIND THEREFORE WE
CONCLUDE THAT OMB VIOLATED THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.
IS HE RE-PENTANT ABOUT THAT NOW
THAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICES THAT CALLED IT OUT AS BEING ILLEGAL. NEVER MIND THE UKRAINIAN LIVES
HE CAUSED TO BE LOST. NO. HE CONTINUES TO SAY THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN THOUGH NO COURT HAS EVER SAID SO. HE WAS PRESSED ON THIS QUESTION
IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. IN ANSWERING THE APPROPRIATIONS
RANKING MEMBER SENATOR MURRAY'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, HE SAID, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS STATED THAT
THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I AGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S
POSITION. AGAIN, NO COURT HAS SAID THIS.
HE SAID, IF I AM CONFIRMED AS THE DIRECTOR OF OMB, I WILL
FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND ULTIMATELY THE PRESIDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.
PAY ATTENTION. I WILL FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND ULTIMATELY THE
PRESIDENT. NOT I WILL FOLLOW THE LAW. NOT I WILL FOLLOW COURT DECISIONS THAT SAY WHAT THE LAW
IS. NO. I WILL FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND ULTIMATELY THE
PRESIDENT. SO LET'S JUST HAVE A QUICK LOOK AT WHO HIS LEGAL COUNSEL IS.
PEOPLE MAY REMEMBER THIS. THIS IS A PAINTING THAT WAS
COMMISSIONED BY THIS GUY, THE BILLIONAIRE HARLAND CROW.
AS YOU MAY REMEMBER THE BILLIONAIRE HARLAND CROW HAS BEEN FUNDING THE LIFESTYLE OF
THE NEXT PERSON OVER, JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SECRET
GI GIFTS TO THE THOMAS FAMILY.
AND THE NEXT GUY OVER IN THE
PAYMENTSING -- BY THE WAY, IF YOU SAW KRISTI NOEM SWORN IN BY JUSTICE THOMAS, HE HAS A PICTURE
OF THIS RIGHT BEHIND THEM. HE'S SO PLEASED WITH IT THAT HE'S GOT HIS OWN VERSION OF IT.
HIM WITH HIS BILLIONAIRE SUGAR DADDY AND WITH MARK PAOLETTA.
THIS IS THE GUY WHO IS GOING TO BE THE LEGAL COUNSELS WHO ADVICE
VOUGHT IS GOING TO LISTEN TO. THIS GUY IS NECK DEEP IN THE
BILLIONAIRE COURT CAPTURE SCHEME. OF COURSE HIS ADVICE IS GOING TO BE WHAT THE BILLIONAIRES SAY.
THE NEXT GUY OVER IS LEONARD LEO, THE COURT FIXER.
THIS IS BASICALLY A PANORAMA OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT. THE BILLIONAIRE WHO FUNDS IT, THE JUSTICE WHO SECRETLY ACCEPTS
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BILLIONAIRE GIFTS, THE GUY WHO COOKS UP THE WHOLE SCHEME AND
TRAVELS WITH JUSTICES ON THESE BILLIONAIRE-FUNDED TRIPS, AND IS
HERE AT THE BILLIONAIRES' ESTATE IN THE ADIRONDACKS WITH THEM AND
OF COURSE MARK PAOLETTA. THAT'S WHOSE ADVICE HE'S GOING TO TAKE. AGAIN, HE WAS
CAREFUL NOT TO SAY NOT THE COURTS, NOT THE LAW. THE BILLIONAIRE COURT-FIXER GUY WHO'S NOW HIS COUNSEL AND THE
PRESIDENT WHO'S ALREADY SAID HE THINKS THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS GUY ON THIS QUESTION OF THE
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT, HE HASN'T SAID HE'S GOING TO FOLLOW THE LOU EITHER. IN FACT, HE SAID, THE
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT IS A STUPID LAW, AND HE TWEETED AT
RUSSELL VOUGHT, IMPOUND BABY, IMPOUND. HUH, YEAH, YOU'RE GOING TO GET
SOBER, LEGAL ADVICE FROM A GUY WHO SAYS IMPOUND, BABY, IMPOUND, AND HANGS OUT WITH BILLIONAIRES WHO FUND THE CAPTURE OF THE
SUPREME COURT AS PART OF LEONARD LEO'S SCHEME. THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW
THIS GUY, RUSSELL VOUGHT, IS A CREATURE OF THE FAR-RIGHT
BILLIONAIRE DARK MONEY WORLD. BEFORE HE WENT TO OMB THE FIRST
TIME, HE WORKED AS VICE PRESIDENT OF HERITAGE ACTION. WHAT IS HERITAGE ACTION?
HERITAGE ACTION IS A BILLIONAIRE-FUNDED DARK MONEY GROUP THAT ADVOCATES FOR THE
THINGS THAT DARK MONEY BILLIONAIRES WANT, AND HE FOR YEARS WORKED FOR THEM.
THEN HE WENT INTO OMB, AND I SUBMIT HE STILL WORKED FOR THEM, ALTHOUGH THEY WEREN'T PAYING HIS
PAYCHECK AT THE TIME. HE GETS BACK OUT AFTER TRUMP WON, AND HE SETS UP SOMETHING
CALLED THE CENTER FOR RENEWING AMERICA. AGAIN, A BILLIONAIRE-FUNDED DARK
MONEY ENTERPRISE WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO ADVOCATE FOR THE THINGS
THAT THE DARK MONEY BILLIONAIRES WANT. IT ALSO, BY THE WAY, TOOK CARE
OF THE REFUGEES FROM THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
THAT CREEPY CHARACTER JEFFREY CLARK, WHO WAS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND TRIED TO WANGLE
HIS WAY INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BY PROPOSING
THAT HE WOULD PUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INTO THE ELECTION-FIXING SCHEME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RUNNING DOWN IN GEORGIA, THAT
GUY. WHERE DID HE LAND? RIGHT, THE CENTRALITY FOR RENEWING AMERICA.
CONSIDER THE CENTER FOR RENEUROAMERICA, COURTESY OF -- THE CENTER FOR RENEWING AMERICA.
WHO ALSO THERE?
MR. PAOLETTA?
WHO ELSE? KASH PATEL, THE GUY WHO HAS THREATENED OVER AND OVER AGAIN
TO TURN THE FBI INTO A POLITICAL WEAPON FOR DONALD TRUMP AGAINST
HIS ADVERSARIES. HE WENT SO FAR AS TO REPOST A
TWEET OF HIMSELF CHAINSAWING THE
HEADS OFF MEMBERS OF HIS ENEMIES LIST. YEAH, THIS IS THE GUY WHO PUBLISHED AN ENEMIES LIST OF WHO
HE WAS GOING TO GET IN WHAT HE CALLED A MANHUNT, A MANHUNT BEGINS NOW, HE SAYS OF HIS
ENEMIES LIST. AND TRUMP WANTS TO PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF THE FBI SO IT BECOMES
HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL WEAPON. AND KASH PATEL HAS SHOWN TIME
AFTER TIME, INSTANCE AFTER INSTANCE, HE IS ALL TOO WILLING TO DO THAT.
AND WHERE DID HE LAND? YEAH, RIGHT AT VOUGHTS'S CENTER
FOR RENEWING AMERICA. SO THIS GUY VOUGHT IS NECK DEEP
IN THE BILLIONAIRE DARK MONEY OPERATION THAT IS WORKING RIGHT
NOW TO TAKE OVER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND RUN IT ITS OWN
WAY. THE WAY IT WANTED TO DO THIS IS THROUGH THE PLAN THAT IT COOKED
UP AND PAID FOR CALLED PROJECT 2025. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST
COUPLE OF WEEKS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, YOU SEE PROJECT 2025 PLAYING OUT AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND WHO WAS THE CENTRAL ARCHITECT OF THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S PROJECT
2025? OH, YES -- RUSSELL VOUGHT. PAID FOR WITH $120 MILLION.
YOU KNOW IN RHODE ISLAND THAT'S STILL A PRETTY GOOD NUMBER. $120 MILLION FROM A COUPLE OF
RIGHT-WING BILLIONAIRE FAMILIES TO COOK UP A SCHEME TO RUN THE
GOVERNMENT AND VOUGHT BOTH WRITES IT AND NOW GOES INTO IMPLEMENT PROJECT 2025.
IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE GUY'S LAWLESSNESS FROM ANOTHER ANGLE,
HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, SO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, FOR INSTANCE, THAT IS AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT AGENCY BECAUSE IT ADJUDICATES DISPUTES IN THE ENERGY SECTOR
AND BECAUSE IT MAKES POLICY AND HAS TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT IT HAS TO BE INDEPENDENT TO
HAVE THIS ADJUDICATIVE FUNCTION, OR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR THE FEDERAL RESERVE. HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THEM SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT. HE SAYS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
IS IDENTIFY THE POCKETS OF INDEPENDENTS AND SEIZE THEM.
SEIZE THEM. FOR THE CORPORATE AND BILLIONAIRE TAKEOVER THEY WANT
TO SEIZE THE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES IN GOVERNMENT SO THAT THEY'RE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
BIG DONORS WHO PUT THIS ADMINISTRATION IN. HE SAID SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE
FEDERAL RESERVE, IT IS VERY HARD TO SQUARE THE FED'S INDEPENDENCE
WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
EXCEPT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SQUARED THE FED'S INDEPENDENCE WITH THE
CONSTITUTION FOR DECADES. THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENT AGENCIES GOES BACK TO THE
HUMPHREYS EX-HE CAN COULD YOU -- EXECUTOR'S CASE.
THIS HAS BEEN PRECEDENT IN WHICH LITERALLY DOZENS OF CASES INVOLVING INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
HAVE COME BEFORE THE COURT, AND IT HAS NEVER SAID THAT IT'S HARD TO SQUARE THE INDEPENDENCE OF
AGENCIES CONGRESS HAS DEEMED TO BE INDEPENDENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS IS AN ECCENTRIC AND LAWLESS
LEGAL VIEW AND THEY INTEND TO IMPOSE IT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LAW. THERE ARE -- NUMBER ONE, HE
SAID, IS GOING AFTER THIS WHOLE NOTION OF INDEPENDENCE. THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, HE SAYS.
THE SEC, THE FCC, THE CFPB -- NONE OF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
THE CONSTITUTION UNDERSTANDS. OH, YEAH -- EXCEPT FOR THOSE 90 YEARS OF SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY THAT.
IN ADDITION TO THE BILLIONAIRE
STOOGERY THAT HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN FOR DECADES, IN ADDITION TO HIS PENCHANT FOR LAWLESSNESS
WHERE THERE IS CLEAR SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, HE'S JUST A
LITTLE BIT STRANGE. HERE'S WHAT HE HAS SAID ABOUT
THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT --
WE WANT THEM, HE SAID, TO BE TAU MATTERICALLY AFFECTED -- TAU
MATTERICALLY AFFECTED. WHEN THEY WAKE UP IN THE MORNING, WE WANT THEM TO NOT
WANT TO GO TO WORK BECAUSE THEY ARE INCREASINGLY VIEWED AS THE VILLIANS.
THE POSTMAN, THE VILLAIN; THE MEAT INSPECTOR WHO MAKES YOUR
STEAK SAFE, THE VILLAIN A THE PEOPLE WHO DO BRAIN CANCER RESEARCH FOR US.
YES WE DEFINITELY WANT THEM TO BE VIEWED AS VILLIANS. HE GOES ON, WE WANT THEIR
FUNDING TO BE SHUT DOWN SO THAT -- AND OF COURSE HE PICKS THE EPA BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING MOSTLY WITH POLLUTER
BILLIONAIRES -- WE WANT THEY ARE FUNDING TO BE SHUT DOWN SO THAT THE EPA CAN'T DO ALL OF THE
RULES AGAINST OUR ENERGY INDUSTRY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BANDWIDTH FINANCIALLY TO DO SO.
WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN TRAUMA.
IF YOU WANT THAT'S NORMAL, YOU WANT TO GO HAVE JUST A LITTLE LOOK IN THE MIRROR. HE WANTS MASS FIRINGS, WHICH
WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THREATENED. HE WANTS TO ELIMINATE THE CIVIL
SERVICE, FIRE STAFFERS SO THAT THEY CAN BE REPLACED WITH LOYAL
PARTISANS. SO LET'S SAY YOU'RE BIG POLLUTER. LET'S SAY YOU'RE A BIG OIL
COMPANY. LET'S SAY YOU'RE NOT CLEANING UP YOUR METHANE LEAKS.
YOU'RE SPEWING METHANE INTO THE AIR FOR EVERYONE ELSE TO BREATHE. PROGRAMS THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR COMES TO YOU AND SAYS TO YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESS HERE. YOU'RE SPILLING METHANE INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE. IT IS POISONING PEOPLE. YOU'VE GOT TO KNOCK IT OFF. NOPE. OUT YOU GO.
BRING IN THE SYCOPHANTS, BRING IN THE LOYAL PART, BRING IN --
LOYAL PARTISANS, BRING IN PEOPLE WHO HAVE TELL THE PEOPLE AT WORK
NOW, NEVER MIND. WE'VE GOT YOUR BACK NOW. YOU JUST KEEP LEAKING THAT METHANE. HERE'S ONE THAT KIND OF STUNNED
ME. PRETTY SIMPLE QUESTION. I ASKED HIM, DID JOE BIDEN WIN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
WHAT WAS HIS ANSWER? I BELIEVE THAT THE 20 ELECTION WAS RIGGED F -- I BELIEVE THAT
THE 2020 ELECTION WAS RIGGED. NO COURT HAS EVER BELIEVED THAT. PEOPLE GOT THEIR BAR TICKET
REMOVED FOR TELLING COURTS FALSEHOODS THAT THE ELECTION WAS
RIGGED. THIS WAS THE FIRST BIG LIE OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND
HE'S NOT OVER IT. AND HE WANTS TO GO AND RUN THE
NERVE CENTER OF OMB. HE EVEN WANTS TO INVOKE THE INSURRECTION ACT, BRING IN THE
UNITED STATES MILITARY ONTO DOMESTIC SOIL TO BREAK UP PEOPLE
WHO ARE PROTESTING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. THIS IS NOT A NORMAL GUY.
THIS IS NOT A GUY WHO RESPECTS THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION. THIS IS A TOOL OF A VERY SMALL
RIGHT-WING BILLIONAIRE ELITE, AND HE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF WITH HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE TRUMP
SCHEME TO HOLD BACK URGENTLY NEEDED MONEY FROM UKRAINIAN WARRIORS TRYING TO DEFEND THEIR
COUNTRY AGAINST PUTIN SO THAT HE COULD PUT PRESSURE ON ZELENSKYY
TO DEVELOP DIRT ON TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENT. HE WAS PART OF THAT SCHEME. WHAT A GIECHLT THE LAST THING
THAT I'LL MENTION -- WHAT A GUY. THE LAST THING THAT I'LL MENTION IS THAT HE HAS DESCRIBED JOE BIDEN AND HIS ADMINISTRATION AS
HAVING ENGAGED IN CLIMATE FANATACISM.
CLIMATE FANATACISM. THIS FROM THE SLOW, CAUTIOUS,
TEMPERATE, NONCOMBATIVE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. I WISH THEY'D BEEN A LITTLE BIT
MORE FANATIC. BUT THEY SURE WEREN'T. THEY WERE SLOW, THEY WERE
CAUTIOUS, THEY WERE TEMPERATE, THEY WERE NONCOMBATIVES AND HE
FOUND THAT TO BE FANATIC. WELL, I'LL CLOSE WITH WHAT'S
COMING BECAUSE WHAT'S COMING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BEGINNING MELTDOWN IN PROPERTY
INSURANCE MARKETS ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY, WHICH IS GOING TO CASCADE INTO A PROBLEM IN
MORTGAGE MARKETS AROUND THE COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET A MORTGAGE IF YOU CAN'T GET PROPERTY INSURANCE.
AND UNLESS YOU'RE SELLING BILLIONAIRE TO BILLIONAIRE PALM BEACH ESTATES A, IF YOU WANT TO
SELL YOUR HOME, YOU GOT TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO CAN GET A MORTGAGE. IF YOUR HOME CAN'T GET A
MORTGAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET INSURANCE, YOU CAN'T I FIND A BUYER AND SO YOUR PROPERTY
VALUES CRASH. AND THE CHIEF ECONOMIST FOR
FREDDIE MAC HAS WARNEDED THAT THIS INSURANCE TO MORTGAGE TO PROPERTY VALUES CRASH IS GOING
TO HAPPEN AND IS GOING TO HIT AS HARD AS THE 2008 MORTGAGE METTLEDOWN. SO SOMEBODY THAT TAKES THIS NOT
SERIOUSLY AT ALL IS THE WRONG PERSON TO LEAD US AS WE HEAD
TOWARDS DISASTER. OUT OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, WHERE'S WHERE WE'RE SEEING
MASSIVE NONRENEWAL RATE INCREASES. THAT IS THE INSURANCE COMPANIES
TELLING PEOPLE WHO PAY THEIR PREMIUMS FOR YEARS, YOU'RE FIRED. WE DON'T WANT YOU ANYMORE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO INSURE YOUR
PROPERTY ANY LONGER. YOU'RE DONE. OR JACKING UP THE RATES. AND YOU CAN SEE OBVIOUSLY WHERE
THE HIGH PERCENTAGE PLACES ARE. IT'S IN COASTAL AND WILDFIRE AREAS.
HERE'S ANOTHER ONE. THIS FOLLOWED OUR BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT, BUT THAT I
JUST AMERICANSED. THIS IS WHERE HOME INSURANCE PREMIUMS ARE PREDICTED TO GO BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
UP TO A 300% INCREASE.
THATS'S QUADRUPLING. IF YOU HAVE A $600,000 INSURANCE
POLICY THAT'S $2400. THAT'S ALL OVER. IT'S IN THE HOT SPOTS FOR WILDFIRE AND IN THE HOT SPOTS
FOR COASTAL PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM STORMS AND SEA LEVEL RISE. AND WHEN YOU RAISE HOME
INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY THAT MUCH, WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU KNOCK DOWN THE VALUE OF THE HOME. BECAUSE WHEN YOU BUY A HOME, IF
YOU'RE BUYING INTO A, LET'S SAY, $24,000 EXPENSE EVERY YEAR, THE
PRESENT VALUE OF $24,000 OUT OF YOUR POCKET YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR COMES OFF THE VALUE
OF THE HOUSE. SO IT WILL KNOCK DOWN PROPERTY VALUES. INDEED, IT IS PREDICTED THAT IN
MANY OF THESE AREAS HOMES ARE GOING TO LOSE AS MUCH AS 100% OF
THEIR VALUE. A HOME THAT PEOPLE HAVE INVESTED IN, PURCHASED, LOVED, RAISED
THEIR CHILDREN IN WILL LOSE ITS VALUE IN SOME PLACES COMPLETELY
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET INSURANCE, YOU CAN'T GET A MORTGAGE, YOU CAN'T FIND A BUYER, THE PLACE IS
GOING TO BURN, THE PLACE IS GOING TO FLOOD. AND IT'S NOT JUST ME WARNING OF
THESE THINGS. HERE IS AN ARTICLE FROM THE
"ECONOMIST" MAGAZINE, NOT EXACTLY A LIBERAL GREEN PUBLICATION, PREDICTING GLOBALLY
THAT THE NEXT HOUSING DISASTER IS GOING TO COME FROM CLIMATE
CHANGE. SEVERE WEATHER BROUGHT ABOUT BY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IS SHAKING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE
WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT ASSET CLASS -- REAL ESTATE. THE WORLD IS FACING ROUGHLY A
$IT 25 TRILLION HIT. THE IMPENDING BILL IS SO HUGE IT WILL HAVE GRIM IMPLICATIONS NOT
JUST FOR PERSONAL PROSPERITY, BUT ALSO FOR THE FINANCIAL
SYSTEM. CLIMATE CHANGE IN SHORT COULD PROMPT THE NEXT GLOBAL PROPERTY
CRASH. AND IF YOU LOOK BACK HERE TO FLORIDA, YOU SEE HOW ACUTE THE
TROUBLE IS AS THAT INSURANCE MARKET MELTS DOWN.
HOME INSURANCE IN FLORIDA, THE AVERAGE ANNUAL PREMIUM FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE STATE IS LIKELY TO HIT
NEARLY $12,000 THIS YEAR, SAYS "THE ECONOMIST" MAGAZINE.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION HAS BECOME FLORIDA'S LARGEST HOME INSURER.
IT'S EXPOSURE IS NOW $423 BILLION, MUCH MORE THAN THE
STATE'S PUBLIC DEBT. THIS IS A HIGH-RISK SITUATION. THE FINANCIAL TIMES REPORTING
SAYS THAT BILLION-DOLLAR-PLUS DISASTERS OCCUR ONCE EVERY THREE WEEKS NOW ON AVERAGE COMPARED
WITH EVERY FOUR MONTHS FOR
EQUIVALENT EASTERS IN THE
1980'S. CRACKS IN THE U.S. HOUSING MARKET WILL WIDEN. THIS DANGER OF HOUSING VALUES
COLLAPSE IS ALREADY UNDER WAY. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE U.S. ARE OVERVALUED BY $121
BILLION TO $237 BILLION FOR FLOOD RISKS ALONE. NOT THE WILDFIRE RISKS OUT WEST.
THE FLOOD RISKS ALONE. THAT'S THE FINANCIAL TIMES. "THE NEW YORK TIMES," WITHOUT
INSURANCE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A MORTGAGE. WITHOUT A MORTGAGE, MOST AMERICANS CAN'T BUY A HOME.
HEADLINE -- INSURERS ARE DESERTING HOMEOWNERS AS CLIMATE
SHOCKS WORSEN. BLOOMBERG NEWS, U.S. HOME INSURANCE REAL ESTATE MARKETS
TEETER ON FINANCIAL CRISIS.
HERE'S WHAT THEY SAY. IT'S HARD TO OVERSTATE THE ROLE THAT INSURANCE PLAYS IN THE
MODERN ECONOMY. BANKS WON'T MAKE MORTGAGE LOANS FOR UNINSURABLE PROPERTIES. WITHOUT THOSE LOANS, THE REAL
ESTATE MARKET SLOWS TO A CRAWL WHICH IN TURNS EATS AWAY HOUSEHOLD WEALTH AND THE TAX
REVENUE THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RELY ON. FOR INSURERS TO PLAY THEIR PART
THEY HAVE TO FEEL CONFIDENT PREDICTING HOW MUCH DAMAGE THEY MAY HAVE TO COVER. THEY BUILD MODELS OF THE FUTURE
BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT ALL THE TIME. JUST ENOUGH TO WIN BY MORE THAN
THEY LOSE. CLIMATE CHANGE HAS MADE THAT MUCH HARDER. A WARMING WORLD IS MORE
DANGEROUS AND UNPREDICTABLE IN THE 1980'S. THE U.S. EXPERIENCED ROUGHLY
THREE DISASTERS A YEAR THAT DID AT LEAST $1 BILLION IN DAMAGE.
NOW THE ANNUAL OCCURRENCE IS CLOSER TO 18. AND IT'S NOT JUST NEWS REPORTS.
HERE'S THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ANALYSIS. THE RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE TO
THE UNITED STATES IN THE 21ST CENTURY, AS EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS FROM HUMAN
ACTIVITIES ACCUMULATE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND OCEAN, IN THE
UNITED STATES THOSE CHANGES WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, REAL ESTATE, AND
FINANCIAL MARKETS. HERE'S THE FINANCIAL STABILITY BOARD. IT'S THE GLOBAL BOARD THAT
ADVISES BANKS ON HOW TO STAY SOUND.
L CLIMATE RELATED VULNERABILITIES IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM WHEN TRIGGERED BY CLIMATE
SHOCKS COULD THREATEN FINANCIAL STABILITY AND IN THE REAL ECONOMY OR THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM
LEANED TO FINANCIAL LOSSES. CLIMATE SHOCKS COULD ALSO AFFECT THE REAL ECONOMY THROUGH DAMAGE TO REAL ASSETS OR THE CREATION
OF STRANDED ASSETS OR A DISRUPTION TO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THAT CAN FEED BACK TO THE
FINANCIAL SYSTEM. I'LL CUT TO ONE OF THE END POINTS HERE. THE PROJECTED PHYSICAL RISK
IMPACT FROM CLIMATE CHANGE COULD CAUSE GLOBAL GDP TO DECLINE VERSUS THE BASELINE BY 5.3% BY
2030 AND BY UP TO 15% BY 2050. THAT IS A GLOBAL RECESSION,
FOLKS. DRIVEN BY CLIMATE CHANGE, POUNDING INSURANCE MARKETS WHICH POUND MORTGAGE MARKETS.
AND THIS GUY THINKS THAT TAKING CLIMATE SCIENCE SERIOUSLY IS
FANATACISM.
HERE'S WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT SOME OF THIS STUFF. PENALTIES ON HIGH POLLUTION
IMPORTS. LETTING HIGH POLLUTION CHINESE PRODUCTS INTO OUR COUNTRY, PUTTING A PENALTY ON THAT?
12% OPPOSE. 74% SUPPORT.
A 62% BE POSITIVE SWING. CARBON POLLUTION LIMITS ON BIG
COMPANIES, 12% DISAPPROVE, 72% SUPPORT. IMPOSE A FEE ON BIG POLLUTERS,
10% OPPOSE. 74% SUPPORT. A 64% SWING.
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WANTS TO SOLVE THIS CLIMATE PROBLEM WHICH IS WHY THE BILLIONAIRES NEED TO
COME IN AND TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE INSIDE WITH
PEOPLE LIKE RUSSELL VOUGHT, SO
THEY CAN DEFEAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, CONTINUE TO POLLUTE, AND LET THE ECONOMIC MAYHEM ENSUE.
AND I'LL CLOSE WITH THIS LAST IMAGE JUST BECAUSE I REALLY LOVE
IT. HERE'S THE MAGA GUYING STANDING
OUTSIDE THE WALL OF TRUMP
MAR-A-LAGO PALACE. WE SHOWED THOSE ELITES WHO'S IN CHARGE. MEANTIME INSIDE ARE THE
HELICOPTERS FROM WALL STREET, BIG TECH, BEZOS, PHARMA, BIG AG,
MUSK, MUSK, KOHL, BIG OIL,
CRYPTO BROS. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. MAGA MAY HAVE THOUGHT IT WON THE ELECTION, BUT HERE'S WHO REALLY
WON THE ELECTION. THE LOOTERS AND THE POLLUTERS. THE MUSKS WHO ARE RUNNING INTO
OUR INFORMATION SYSTEMS LOOTING DATA OUT OF THEM FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES, AND THE POLLUTERS WHO
WANT TO PRETEND THAT THIS CLIMATE CHANGE THREAT IS NOT
REAL. RUSS VOUGHT IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE HE WON'T FACE THE FACTS ON THESE THINGS BECAUSE HE

[admin]

BREAKING: Trump & Musk ACCEPT MAJOR LOSS in Court... SURRENDER?!?!
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Feb 6, 2025
The Intersection with Popok



The rule of law is on a winning streak, beating the Trump administration six times already in the first 16 days. In breaking news, we have the latest temporary restraining order against Trump to stop Elon Musk from accessing Americans, personal and sensitive financial and medical information. Popok reports.



Transcript

[Michael Popok] We got a breaking news story here on legal AF. We have the fifth temporary restraining order entered against the Trump Administration. This time they've agreed to it. That's how bad their legal position is this time related to stopping Elon Musk and his phony Doge from accessing yours and my sensitive financial and medical information contained on the treasury Department servers related to all federal payments to Americans Medicare, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, welfare checks, student loans -- you name it! It's all housed on that server. Think about the things you've submitted, or been forced to submit, to the federal government in order to receive payments. That's what Elon Musk had access to.

Well no more, because there is a consent order, meaning the Trump Administration knew they were going to lose, and they entered into a temporary restraining order to avoid the judge doing it for them. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, senior judge, you could tell there was no love lost between the Judge and Donald Trump, because she thinks it was outrageous that he pardoned all the Jan6 insurrectionists after she worked to convict them. Justice convicted them. And she sentenced them. And so now we have the revenge of the DC judges.

I'm Michael Popok. As I said at the top of this, it's rule of law: 5; Trump Administration: 0. We have 5, actually 6 -- we have 5 temporary restraining orders; 1 preliminary injunction against 3 major issues that are important to Donald Trump; 1 win for the birthright citizenship not being eliminated from the Constitution by blocking an executive order; 1 preliminary injunction; 1 temporary restraining order for the federal funding related to stopping the federal funding to States, and not for-profits, that has been blocked; 2 temporary restraining orders stopping transgender men/women from being housed in a male prison, stopped by temporary restraining order.

and now, we've got the writing on the wall. We've got this group in Doge that said "Uncle! We'll agree to a temporary restraining order to stop Elon Musk, at least temporarily." Why is it temporary? It's because in the life cycle of a case in federal court, it starts with a temporary restraining order where the Judge kind of peeks under the hoods and says, "Yeah, I think you're going to win this case ultimately, and there's other factors that have to be analyzed: the balance of equities and you're going to suffer irreparable harm and all of that, and I'm going to hold the ring in the case -- it's got to go back to the status quo before the bad thing happened until I get around to a full-blown evidentiary hearing and a fuller record, and then she will consider it on a preliminary injunction standard, which is a similar standard, with more evidence, later in the case."

Well, the Judge said effectively, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who's a senior status Judge who's been doing this for a long time, she took a look at the papers, and she said to the parties, "Yeah, I could rule on this temporary injunction, or you guys could work it out and come up with something, meaning you, the Department of Justice/Department of the treasury/Trump, like, you're going to lose. So you might want to try to get something out of this, half a loaf out of this."

So the parties talked, and they did narrow the actual injunction from what the lawsuit seeks, but that doesn't mean that at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing in a month or two, that doesn't mean the Judge is going to adopt this narrow injunction, narrow block of Elon Musk, but he has been blocked.

I'll go over with you how it's narrower than what was originally sought, but that doesn't matter at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing which will probably be in the next week, two weeks, three weeks or so.

Meantime, the thing is blocked. And if you're the Movant, the party seeking the injunction, or the temporary restraining order, you don't care when the preliminary injunction hearing is set as long as you have your TRO right now, because you got what you want. Everything's stopped. Nothing can be done.

So here's what happened. Let's start with the lawsuit that got filed on February 3rd, then I'll read to you from the proposed order and the consent and we'll go from there.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Alliance for Retired Americans, 815 16th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 80 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001, and
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, 1800 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220,
Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20220, and
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 3201 Pennsylvania Drive, Building E Landover, MD 20785,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 25-313

[url=x]COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF[/url]

So this was filed by Norm Eisen's group, for those that follow him closely here on the MeidasTouch Network and legal AF, under a couple of organizations he works with. One of them is State Democracy Defenders Fund; and the Public Citizen Litigation group. And they filed on behalf of the Alliance for Retired Americans; the American Federation of Government Employees by way of the AFL/CIO. So a labor union. And another labor union, the Service Employees International Union for the AFL/CIO, against the Treasury Secretary; the Department of Treasury; the Bureau of Fiscal Service, which is the one that takes in all the $5 trillion worth of revenue through the Internal Revenue Service, and other ways, and pays out $4-1/2 trillion dollars a year to payees like you and me. Really, it's the Trump Administration.

And what they, listen listen to these allegations. I'll read to you from the complaint first, then we'll get to the Order. Page 4, paragraph 7:

People who must share information with the federal government should not be forced to share information with Elon Musk or his “DOGE.” And federal law says they do not have to. The Privacy Act of 1974 generally, and the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxpayer information, make it unlawful for Secretary Bessent to hand over access to the Bureau’s records on individuals to Elon Musk or other members of DOGE. Plaintiffs file this action to put an immediate stop to Defendant’s systematic, continuous, and ongoing violation of federal laws that protect the privacy of personal information contained in federal records. This Court’s exercise of equitable authority is the only adequate avenue available to Plaintiffs to protect the trust that Plaintiffs’ members, and other citizens, taxpayers, and workers, have placed in the federal government in reliance of the laws that Congress enacted to assure the public that what Secretary Bessent is doing would never happen.

And then basically they're saying the Treasury Secretary, a week on the job, just turned over the keys to the servers and computers to Elon Musk, and they've been sucking it out with their own servers, apparently, trying to get the information.

I think damage has already been been done that needs to be redressed by the court. That looks like it'll be done at the preliminary injunction standard hearing.

Scott Beseant, in order to make changes in the privacy policy, or to make changes in how documents and information, data, private data of you and me is handled, he's got to go through the Administrative Procedures Act. He's got to announce it; he's got to publish it; he's got to tell us about it, and we have to have time to object, and do public comment; he has to file all sorts of notices about Privacy Act changes. He didn't do any of that! He just said, "Oh, there's the door."

You know, even when they try to do something good they do something terrible. Like when they nominated the guy, just to digress for a second, Scott Bessent, he's the first openly gay Treasury Secretary. He was there with his husband and his children when he got sworn in and I was like, "Well, all right. I get it. I mean I disagree with everything about the Trump Administration policy, but I do recognize the historic precedent of having Scott Bessent, who's a gay American, become Treasury Secretary. But all he's done is just turn over the keys to the kingdom immediately to whoever Donald Trump told him to do, exercising no independent judgment at all. So I'm done celebrating Scott Bessent.

Here's the Prayer for Relief. This is what the lawsuit seeks. Then I'll compare it to the judgment, or the new consent temporary restraining order that's about to be entered by the Judge. What they're see seeking is:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:

a. Declare that Defendants’ decision to implement a system by which Elon Musk or other DOGE-affiliated individuals may access the Bureau’s records and obtain personal information about individuals and taxpayers contained there is unlawful.
b. Enjoin Defendants from continuing to permit such access or obtain such personal information.
c. Enjoin Defendants to ensure that future disclosure of individual records will occur only in accordance with the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and the SORNs applicable to the system of records at issue.
d. Grant any temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief necessary to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is contained within the system of records.
e. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees for this action; and
f. Grant any other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Now, here's what they ended up with. They ended up with something a little bit narrower than that. But, you know, it's only temporary. They filed a consent motion saying that the parties had gotten together at the Judge's urging and they've agreed to the following Proposed Order being entered by the Judge. All that means is that there's a temporary restraining order by consent.

I think it's interesting that the the guy for the Department of Justice, Trump's Department of Justice, that's signing on a lot of these things, is this guy Brett Shumate. I've talked about Brett Shumate, because they pressed him into action on day 1 to go argue in Seattle Washington about Birthright citizenship, being able to be removed from the Constitution by way of an Executive Order, where he got his head handed to him in two seconds flat by Judge Coughenour. It's the same Brett Shumate. So, they're sending him out to do a lot of the losing in the Department of Justice.

But what they've now agreed to is that the defendants will not provide access -- this is from the Proposed Order -- to any payment record or payment system maintained by The Bureau except to the two different people that work in the Treasury Department, blocking Elon Musk.

Now, I don't think, it's not defined payment record. And I don't like payment record. I want medical records; financial data; privacy data; personal information. I don't think this goes far enough. But it's only for a week or two as Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sets the full preliminary injunction hearing which, spoiler alert, the Trump Administration is going to lose. That will end up being the 2nd or 3rd preliminary injunction against this Administration.

But we kind of dove in there a little bit, got into the weeds, about how things work in courts with injunctions and temporary restraining orders. But that's the math: 32 cases filed already; 5 different temporary restraining orders; 1 preliminary injunction, soon to be 2 preliminary injunctions. So seven losses for the Trump Administration. And we're only 16 days in.

[admin]

DOGE shuts down "illegal" Payments to Lutheran Family Services
February 2, 2025

Elon Musk
@elonmusk

The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments

General Mike Flynn @GenFlynn
Now it's the "Lutheran" faith (this use of "religion" as a money laundering operation must end):

Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations receive massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, and the numbers speak for themselves. These funds, total BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars.

Here are just a few of the recent grants awarded (pre @RobertKennedyJr) by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

LUTHERAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICE INC: $367,612,906
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE SOUTH, INC: $134,190,472.95
LUTHERAN SERVICES FLORIDA, INC.: $82,937,819.95

There are MANY more organizations cashing in on our hard-earned money. These entities are receiving huge sums, which raise serious questions about how taxpayer funds are being spent and who’s benefiting.

It’s time to hold these organizations accountable. American taxpayers deserve transparency. Enough is enough!

And there is much more where these screen shots below came from.

[admin]

Elon Musk's DOGE agency gains access to Medicare, Medicaid payments
by Allen Cone & Darryl Coote
upi.com
U.S. News
Feb. 6, 2025 / 12:35 AM / Updated at 1:23 AM
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/02 ... 738814437/


Hundreds protest the Trump administrations aggressive moves to reshape the American government and American society at City Hall in Los Angeles, Calif., joining thousands in front of state capitals across the United States, on Wednesday. Protesters denounced his comments on a U.S. "take over" of Gaza, his immigration crackdown, anti-trans orders and Elon Musk's role in the White House. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI.

Feb. 6 (UPI) -- Representatives of Elon Musk's new federal agency have access to payments and contracting information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the healthcare coverage to more than one third of Americans.

Musk, who is worth around half a trillion dollars, was appointed by President Donald Trump to head the Department of Government Efficiency shortly after he won the Nov. 5 election.

"CMS has two senior Agency veterans -- one focused on policy and one focused on operations -- who are leading the collaboration with DOGE, including ensuring appropriate access to CMS systems and technology," CMS said in a statement Wednesday to media sites, including CNN and USA Today. "We are taking a thoughtful approach to see where there may be opportunities for more effective and efficient use of resources in line with meeting the goals of President Trump."

Government outlays, including waste

Musk said Wednesday that he believes CMS is rife with problems.

"Yeah, this is where the big money fraud is happening," he said on X, which he owns.

More than $100 billion in improper Medicare and Medicaid payments were made in 2023, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The $51.5 billion with Medicare and $21 billion with Medicaid represent 43% of all improper payments in the government.

The Wall Street Journal story first reported DOGE's work at the agency with access to payment and contracting systems but it has not yet received access to databases containing identifiable health information about Medicare and Medicaid enrollees.

The agency disbursed $1.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2024, about 22% of total federal spending. Musk has vowed to cut between $1 trillion and $2 trillion from the federal budget. Much of that budget is for Social Security, Medicaid, military and debt payments.

Medicare, the federal health program for adults 65 and over and the disabled, has about 66 million people while Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program covers nearly 80 million. About 12 million receive Medicare and Medicare.

Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services and Dr. Mehmet Oz, a former famous television host, to lead CMS. They haven't been confirmed by the U.S. Senate yet.

DOGE

Despite its name, DOGE is not a federal department but a Temporary Organization to be terminated July 4, 2026.

Since it was formed by Trump via a Jan. 20 executive order, it has attracted much controversy, criticism and litigation.

Musk's agency has access to systems at the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Musk has said that "suspicious transactions" would be paused for review, but both CNN and CBS, citing Treasury officials, report that DOGE only has "read-only" access to the Treasury system.

It has been sued by federal employee unions over its access to the Treasury as well as over its formation, while several lawsuits state violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which establishes protections to prevent advisory committees from being inaccessible to the public, biased and partial.

It has received staunch Democratic pushback over its effective shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has described the organization as "an unelected shadow government" that is "conducting a hostile takeover of the government.

Protests

On Wednesday, protests were staged across the country against Trump's rule of the government by executive order and Musk's involvement as an unelected official.

In Los Angeles, UPI photographed protesters at City Hall waving signs calling for Musk to be arrested and deported. Other signs accused him of having "hijacked" the U.S. government.

"No one elected Elon Musk," one states. "Elon Musk is a terrible president," states another.

Musk's money from government

In 2024, Musk's SpaceX received at least $3.8 billion in government contracts, USA Today reported.

And his Tesla electric motor and clean energy company has received at least $2.8 billion in federal, state and local grants and tax credits since 2009, according to Good Jobs First.

[admin]

Japan Airlines plane collides with Delta jet at Seattle airport: The incident comes a week after an American Eagle regional jet collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River near Washington D.C.
by Michelle Del Rey
in Washington D.C.
Independent
Thursday 06 February 2025 02:32 GMT

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating after a Japan Airlines flight hit a Delta Airlines plane as the aircraft were taxiing at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Wednesday.

The strike happened around 10:40 a.m. in an area that is not under air traffic control, according to the agency. The Delta plane’s wing tip was struck by the Japan Airlines aircraft. The Delta flight was heading to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico with 142 customers on board. The customers deplaned and later boarded another plane to their final destination.

The airport worked with both airlines to deplane passengers and bring them to the terminal. Incoming flights were temporarily paused due to the incident. No one was injured.

“We apologize for the experience and delay in travels,” Delta said in a statement.

The FAA announced it is investigating the incident, while the National Transportation Safety Board said it was aware of the incident and is monitoring the situation.

The Independent has emailed Japan Airlines for comment.

The incident comes a week after an American Eagle regional jet collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River near Washington D.C., killing 67 people. Three soldiers were on the helicopter and 64 people were on the plane.

The soldiers were involved in a training session, officials said after the collision. There are no definitive answers as to what may have caused the crash but investigators suspect the helicopter was flying higher than its allowed 200 feet altitude.

Preliminary data shows the Black Hawk was flying at an altitude of 325 feet when it was struck by the helicopter.

A few days later, a medical transport plane crashed in Philadelphia, killing six people on board. The aircraft was heading to Springfield, Missouri with 11-year-old Valentina Guzmán Murillol, her mother, Lizeth Murillo Osuna and four crew members. The child just underwent treatment at Shriners Children’s Philadelphia hospital. It’s not yet known what led to that crash either.

In an X post on Wednesday, Elon Musk announced his intentions to “make rapid upgrades to the air traffic control system.” Days earlier, the FAA’s primary aircraft safety notification system failed for several hours, the Tesla CEO claimed.

Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency as a “special government employee,” said his team would be working on the matter.

[admin]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9 Employees/Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.  

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; James McHenry, Acting Attorney General of the United States,

Defendant.

Case 1:25-cv-00325

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Comes now Plaintiffs, John and Jane Does 1-9 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and former agents and/or employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (hereinafter “FBI”), by and through undersigned counsel, with their Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief, and state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are currently employed agents and/or employees of the FBI, who, during the course of their duties worked on, or participated in the investigation of persons suspected of criminal activity related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol building ( “the Jan. 6 attack” or “Jan. 6 cases”) at the behest of Donald Trump, and/or the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents by Mr. Trump (hereinafter “Mar-a-Lago case”). Upon returning to the Presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions. This directive is unlawful and retaliatory, and violates the Civil Service Reform Act 5 U.S.C. §§2301 and 2303.

Additionally, on or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were instructed to fill out a survey that would identify their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases. Some Plaintiffs were required to fill out the survey themselves, others were told that their supervisors would be filling out the form. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management. Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons. Defendant’s gathering, retention, and disclosure of Plaintiffs’ activities related the acts of former President Trump is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendments to the Constitution. It is also a violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment substantive and due process rights, such that the Court has the authority to enjoin the serious harm it is likely to cause. Moreover, the publication or dissemination of the information in these surveys would be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a, and would place Plaintiffs in immediate risk of serious harm. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the publication or dissemination of these surveys, or any information derived therefrom.

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs are employees of the FBI who worked on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases, and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future (the week of February 3-9, 2025) for such activity. They intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of power by Donald Trump, or by those acting at his behest.

2. Defendant is the current Acting Attorney General of the United States, and the person authorized and tasked with enacting the political will of President Trump.

3. The Federal Bureau of Investigations is an agency under the control of the Department of Justice, with its headquarters located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535. All essential personnel decisions and employment records are housed at the FBI headquarters.

JURISDICTION

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court enjoys jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiffs assert claims under the laws of the United States. This Court also has jurisdiction over this matter because the Defendant is an agency of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346.

5. Defendant waived sovereign immunity because the Privacy Act allows for damages against the United States.

6. Sovereign immunity for declaratory relief is waived by 5 U.S.C.§ 702, and by the fact that Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.

7. Plaintiffs are not seeking any universally applicable are national remedy or injunction. Rather they seek injunctive relief only for themselves and the members of the putative Class that are parties before this Court.

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLAINTIFFS

8. The FBI investigates a variety of crimes, including terrorism, cybercrime, white collar crimes, and public corruption.

9. The FBI collects, analyzes, and shares intelligence to understand and combat security threats.

10. Additionally, the FBI provides services like fingerprint identification, laboratory examinations, and training.

11. The FBI protects the United States from foreign intelligence, espionage, and cyber operations, and combats cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.

12. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and reports its investigations to the attorney general and United States attorneys' offices. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the FBI’s work to the security of the United States.

13. FBI agents are chosen through a highly selective process, and are carefully screened for aptitude and trustworthiness.

14. FBI agents go through more than four months of intensive training at the FBI academy before beginning their duties, and attend numerous training sessions throughout their careers to adapt to new technologies and emerging threats.

15. Many FBI agents are multi-lingual and routinely interface with intelligence agencies from allied nations.

16. The training FBI agents receive is comprehensive, and in some instances, extremely expensive.

17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs assert that each agent of the FBI receives more than 3 million dollars-worth of training in a twenty (20) year career.

18. FBI agents also develop specific expertise from their assignments and field duties, much of which cannot be replicated solely by training.

19. FBI agents often face threats to their personal safety, at times going under cover and/or working in extremely dangerous areas to obtain information necessary to secure the interests of the United States.

20. FBI agents are tasked by their chain and command and leadership team, and are not free to refuse assignments based on their political or personal preferences.

21. Plaintiffs’ tasks routinely involved, inter alia, reviewing video evidence, interviewing witnesses, executing search and arrest warrants, interfacing with confidential informants, reviewing and analyzing cyber communications, investigating financial transactions and other activities for the purpose of identifying persons engaged in unlawful conduct, and assisting in the prosecution of said persons, and/or providing support for such activities.

22. On or about January 6, 2021, a protest led by Donald Trump took place at the ellipse in front of the United States Capitol building, which erupted into violence.

23. Hundreds of rioters (“Jan. 6 Rioters”) forcefully breached the Capitol building, ignoring the directions of both Capitol Police and Police Officers of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department ( “MPD”).

24. Rioters violently attacked law enforcement officers causing one fatality and hundreds of injuries. To date, five (5) police officers have died as a result of what transpired during the Jan. 6 attack.

25. Additionally, Jan 6 Rioters vandalized the halls of Congress, unlawfully entered into secured areas of the Capitol building, and threatened the lives of members of Congress and the Vice President of the United States.

26. Over the four years that followed the Jan. 6 attack, Plaintiffs worked diligently to bring to justice the persons who had engaged in illegal activity related to the incitement, planning, preparation and execution of the Jan. 6 attack, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 1,500 people.

27. A recurring theme in the trials of the Jan. 6 Defendants is that they appeared at the Capitol, and engaged in violent action at the urging and direct request of Donald Trump.

28. It is also undisputed that while Donald Trump was keenly aware of the violence taking place at the Capitol on that day, for hours he did nothing to intercede or persuade the Jan. 6 Rioters to cease their activity.

29. Information obtained during the investigation of the Jan. 6 attack also established that Mr. Trump was an active participant in the planning of the attack on the Capitol, and of the coordinated effort by some members of Congress to evade certification of the election results.

30. Plaintiffs assert that the ultimate goal of both the Jan. 6 attack and the efforts in Congress by allies of Donald Trump was to block the peaceful transition of power to the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election, Joe Biden.

31. As a result of the work of Plaintiffs and other members of the putative Class, Special Counsel Jack Smith ( “SC Smith”) achieved a Grand Jury indictment of Donald Trump which was in the process of being litigated when the 2024 Presidential Election took place.

32. Also, as a result of the work of Plaintiffs and the putative Class, SC Smith was able to secure a Grand Jury indictment of Mr. Trump for the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

33. During his campaign for office, Mr. Trump repeatedly stated that he would personify “the vengeance” or “the retribution,” for those whom he called “political hostages,” for their actions during the Jan. 6 attack.

34. On or about November 9, 2024, Donald Trump was reelected President. On or about January 20, 2024, Mr. Trump was inaugurated.

35. Shortly after his inauguration, DOJ terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 cases.

36. These terminations were directed by Mr. Trump. They were politically motivated and unlawful, and were precisely the kind of retribution promised by Mr. Trump.

37. On or about February 1, 2025, Plaintiffs learned that a similar purge of personnel was being contemplated for the FBI.

38. On or about February 2, 2025, during a teleconference with many agents and several managers, some of the Plaintiffs were informed that they would be required to fill out a survey about their activities related to the Jan. 6 cases. See EXHIBIT 1.

39. As can be seen in EXHIBIT 1, the information supplied would be retrievable by the employees name and email address, or by other identifying information such as an employee number.

40. During this teleconference, Plaintiffs were informed that the order to fill out the survey was a lawful order according to the DOJ Office of General Counsel.

41. Plaintiffs assert that the specific purpose of this survey is to identify agents and other FBI personnel to be terminated as a form of politically motivated retribution.

42. Moreover, Plaintiffs have been informed that some of their personal information has already been posted by Jan. 6 convicted felons on “dark websites” (aka the “dark web”), and are particularly concerned about further publication of their personal information.

43. Plaintiffs assert that the very act of compiling lists of persons who worked on matters that upset Donald Trump is retaliatory in nature, intended to intimidate FBI agents and other personnel, and to discourage them from reporting any future malfeasance and by Donald Trump and his agents.

44. It has been widely reported that Elon Musk and persons working with him have recently attempted to access government databases that house personal information, without regard to security protocols, and without a legitimate business purpose.

45. Plaintiffs legitimately fear that the information being compiled will be accessed by persons who are not authorized to have access to it, and who lack the requisite security clearances to handle such information.

46. Plaintiffs further assert that even if they are not targeted for termination, they may face other retaliatory acts such as demotion, denial of job opportunities or denial of promotions in the future.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

47. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of:

All FBI personnel for whom a survey was requested and/or completed by the Trump administration that identifies their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.

48. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2), and alternatively, (b)(3).

49. The Class satisfies the numerosity requirement because it is composed of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees. The number of class members is so large that joinder of all its members is impracticable.

50. Common questions of law and fact include:

A. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to determine which FBI agents and other personnel worked on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases;

B. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to catalogue FBI agents and other personnel for eventual termination;

C. Whether the survey requested by Defendant is collecting information to catalogue FBI agents for eventual other adverse employment actions;

D. Whether it is lawful for Defendant to collect the names, specific roles and other information requested in the survey for purposes of termination or other adverse employment actions.

E. Whether Defendant’s motivation in gather information about Plaintiffs’ activities is to target them for discrimination based on their real or perceived political affiliation.

F. Whether the collection of the survey’s information will result in Plaintiffs and the Class suffering irreparable harm.

G. Whether publication or dissemination of information gathered by the survey would cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm.

H. Whether the information gathered by the survey and stored by the FBI constitutes a “system of records” as Defined by the Privacy Act.

I. Whether all Plaintiffs have First and Fifth Amendment rights that would be violated if Defendant were to disclose the information gathered by the survey.

J. Whether all Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights would be violated should Defendant use the information gathered to retaliate against Plaintiffs.

51. Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class because they are subject to the same decision and motivation, derived directly from the AG, and will all be made whole by the injunctive relief requested in this Class Complaint. Further, they have no interests that are antagonistic to the claims of the Class. They understand that this matter cannot be settled without the Court’s approval.

52. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous representation of the Class. Plaintiffs have hired adequate counsel in the Center for Employment Justice, whose lawyers collectively have decades of experience in litigating complex class actions.

53. Plaintiffs’ counsel have agreed to advance the cost of the litigation contingent on the outcome of this case, and understand that no fee will be awarded without the Court’s approval.

54. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Joinder of all members of the class is impracticable, as the Plaintiff are located all over the country, and would require substantial and costly duplication of effort. Individual proceedings, therefore, would pose the risk of inconsistent adjudications. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.

55. This Class may be certified under Rule 23(b).

A. 23(b)(1). Prosecution of separate actions by individual members would create the risk of (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;

B. 23(b)(2). The party opposing the Class has acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a whole; or in the alternative

C. 23(b)(3). This action is suitable to proceed as a class action under 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over individual questions, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Given the nature of the allegations, no class member has an interest in individually controlling the prosecution of this matter.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I

(Violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution—Retaliation Based on Perceived Political Affiliation)

56. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

57. Government employees are protected by the First Amendment from discrimination or retaliation based on their political beliefs or affiliation, or the perception thereof.

58. On or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were asked to self-report their activities on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, or were told their managers would be providing such information to Trump administration officials.

59. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated list of all Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago FBI agents and other personnel is going to be forwarded to senior members in Donald Trump’s administration.

60. On or about January 31, 2025, DOJ summarily terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases precisely because of the Trump administration’s perception of those attorneys’ political loyalties.

61. Plaintiffs reasonably believe and fear that the information gathered in the survey will also be used to target them for retaliatory discharge due to the Trump administration’s perception of their loyalties.

62. Donald Trump has made repeated public pronouncements of his intent to exact revenge upon persons he perceives to be disloyal to him by simply executing their duties in investigating acts incited by him and persons loyal to him.

63. Whatever the Trump administration believes about Plaintiffs’ political affiliation, it clearly believes that persons who were involved in the investigation and prosecution of Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases are insufficiently politically affiliated with Donald Trump to be entitled to retain their employment.

64. Plaintiffs assert that there is no other legitimate agency purpose for this list to be created or to exist. The FBI has sufficient information in other forms to identify the work of FBI agents, and to either laud or discipline them for their work performance.

65. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.

66. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would be placed at immediate risk of serious personal harm and harm to their loved ones.

67. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would likely suffer measurable pecuniary damages such as loss of property, loss of income and damage to reputation.

68. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the Unite States would be severely compromised.

69. Plaintiffs emphasize that they work or worked on a wide variety of threats to the United States, originating both domestically and from abroad, and that the list of persons who would wish harm upon them for the execution of their duties is vast.

70. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.

COUNT II

(Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution – Violation of Plaintiffs’ Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights)

71. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

72. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects against harms to a person’s reputation caused by government actors, often referred to as “reputation plus” and “stigma plus” harms.

73. Plaintiffs have a clearly defined interest in the maintenance of their reputations as professionals, acquired over years of faithful service to the United States.

74. Here, the potential of publication of information related to their work on Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases is an imminent threat to both their reputations, and to their prospects for either continued or future employment.

75. Moreover, Defendant has already harmed Plaintiffs’ reputation by publicly stating and implying that their work on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases was somehow wrongful, dishonest, politically motivated or improper.

76. Not only would the publication of Plaintiffs’ names or other identifying information harm their safety and reputations, but it would also burden their ability to find future employment with any entity with an interest in maintaining positive relationships with the Trump administration.

77. The survey that Plaintiffs are being asked to submit does not afford them any opportunity to defend their honor or reputation, and does not give them an opportunity to challenge any perceptions regarding the propriety of their actions.

78. As such, Defendant violates Plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural due process rights by forcing them to fill out a survey that places them at risk for severe, underserved reputational damage without the opportunity to be fully heard and to respond regarding the same.

COUNT III

(Violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Right to Privacy)

79. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

80. The Fifth Amendment requires Defendant to balance the constitutional privacy rights of federal officers against purported public interest in their activities.

81. Plaintiffs assert that the public does not have an interest in the specific investigative, administrative and law enforcement tasks of FBI agents and employees, particularly not with respect to matters that could still be active or litigated in the future.

82. Plaintiffs assert that any publication, dissemination, or transmission of the information gathered in the survey would violate their Fifth Amendment right to privacy.

83. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.

84. Not only would the convicted felons Plaintiffs assisted to prosecute who are now at large have a keen interest in obtaining the information obtained by the survey, but so too would various other enemies of the United States.

85. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the United States would be severely compromised.

86. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.

COUNT IV

(Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a (b))

87. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

88. On or about February 2, 2025, Plaintiffs were asked to self-report their activities on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, or were told their managers would be providing such information to Trump administration officials.

89. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated list of all Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago FBI agents and other personnel is going to be forwarded to senior members in Donald Trump’s administration.

90. On or about January 31, 2025, DOJ summarily terminated all of the attorneys who prosecuted Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.

91. Plaintiffs reasonably believe and fear that the target list will also be used to target them for retaliatory discharge.

92. Plaintiffs assert that the target list is a “system of records” as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

93. Plaintiffs assert that they are being mandated to provide information to formulate the “system of record,” and are not doing so of their own volition.

94. Plaintiffs assert that there is no legitimate agency purpose for this list to be created or to exist. The FBI has sufficient information in other forms to identify the work of FBI agents, and to either laud or discipline them for their work performance.

95. Plaintiffs state that they have not given any prior consent to the dissemination of the information in the target list.

96. Plaintiffs assert that there is a real and material risk that the list itself, or parts thereof, will be shared with or leaked to persons or entities that harbor ill will towards the agents and other personnel involved in Jam. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.

97. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, Plaintiffs would be placed at immediate risk of serious personal harm and harm to their loved ones.

98. Should this information fall into the wrong hands, the national security of the United States would be severely compromised.

99. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully seek immediate relief to enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.

JURY TRIAL

100. Plaintiffs ask for trial by jury of all claims so triable.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Pamela M. Keith
Pamela M. Keith [Bar. No 448421]
Scott M. Lempert [Bar No. 1045184]
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
650 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 800-0292
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs