update - Fed'l judge finds overwhelming evidence of gratuitous violence and misconduct by ICE in Chicago

[mandrill]

Sen. Lindsey Graham refuses to back off effort to sue for $500K in taxpayer funds


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is refusing to back down from the demand that the Justice Department give Republican senators a $500,000 settlement after their calls to and from President Donald Trump were exposed.

Trump announced in October that he believed the Department of Justice (DOJ) owed him $230 million for the special counsel investigations into past actions. Republican senators have followed his lead, requesting that they to get a settlement from the DOJ.

Among the investigations was Operation: Arctic Frost, in which then-DOJ special counsel Jack Smith probed whether Trump violated the law by deploying fake electors in battleground states President Joe Biden narrowly won to sign false documents that were eventually submitted to Congress. The evidence collected on the matter included a call list of those both calling Trump and who he was calling. Those phone numbers were documented along with the date and length of the call. Many of those calls were to Republican lawmakers ahead of the Jan. 6 certification of the 2020 election. Despite claims, no call was monitored or "wiretapped."

Among those lawmakers was Graham.

Speaking to Semafor congressional bureau chief Burgess Everett, Graham said he was "open to changes," since so many members of the House and Senate were outraged. He added, however, that he wasn't giving up.

"The idea that I'm backing off and just letting this vote? you can forget that," Graham said, according to Everett.

"I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side to find a way to make this section more acceptable. But I am not backing off. I am not going to accept repeal," Graham added.

CNN reported this week that the bill that ended the government shutdown included a provision requiring the Justice Department to inform lawmakers when they're being investigated or their information is being subpoenaed.

Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said earlier on Thursday that the demand is "tone deaf" and " wrong-headed."

 

[mandrill]

Attorney general sues school district over Ten Commandments


Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued a local school district over its refusal to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms, even as his personal life draws attention following his wife’s announcement that she is divorcing him on “biblical grounds.”
Knewz.com has learned that Attorney General Paxton’s lawsuit targets the Galveston Independent School District after it declined to comply with a new state law requiring all public school classrooms to post the biblical text beginning in the 2025–2026 school year.

Attorney General Paxton’s lawsuit

Attorney General Paxton recently announced the lawsuit on social media, writing, “I sued Galveston ISD after it refused to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. By refusing to follow the law, Galveston ISD chose to both blatantly ignore the legislature and also ignore the legal and moral heritage of our nation.”
The mandate stems from Senate Bill 10, a measure passed by the Texas Legislature that orders all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments.

Legal challenges from civil liberties groups

Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed lawsuits arguing the law is unconstitutional and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Paxton’s divorce overlaps with political fight

Paxton’s lawsuit came weeks after his wife, Texas state Senator Angela Paxton, publicly announced she is divorcing him. In July, she wrote that she had filed for divorce on “biblical grounds,” citing adultery, the Seventh Commandment, as the basis.
“Today, after 38 years of marriage, I filed for divorce on biblical grounds,” she wrote. “I believe marriage is a sacred covenant and I have earnestly pursued reconciliation. But in light of recent discoveries, I do not believe that it honors God or is loving to myself, my children or Ken to remain in the marriage. I move forward with complete confidence that God is always working everything together for the good of those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose.”

Attorney General Paxton’s response to the divorce

Paxton addressed the divorce on his own social media accounts, saying the couple had endured “countless political attacks and public scrutiny.”
“After facing the pressures of countless political attacks and public scrutiny, Angela and I have decided to start a new chapter in our lives,” he wrote. “I could not be any more proud or grateful for the incredible family that God has blessed us with, and I remain committed to supporting our amazing children and grandchildren. I ask for your prayers and privacy at this time.”

 

[mandrill]

Federal prosecutors move to dismiss charges against woman shot by Border Patrol agent in Chicago


CHICAGO (AP) — Federal prosecutors moved Thursday to dismiss charges against a woman who was shot several times by a Border Patrol agent last month during the federal immigration crackdown in the Chicago area.

Prosecutors had accused Marimar Martinez, 30, and Anthony Ruiz, 21, of using their vehicles to strike and box in Border Patrol agent Charles Exum’s SUV on Oct. 4 on Chicago’s southwest side. Exum then exited his car and opened fire on Martinez, who suffered seven gunshot wounds.



FILE - Federal immigration enforcement agents detain a protester in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago on Oct. 23, 2025. (Anthony Vazquez/Chicago Sun-Times via AP, File)© The Associated Press
Hours before a status hearing, prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the charges against the two defendants, marking a dramatic reversal in one of the most closely watched cases tied to the crackdown in and around the country’s third-largest city.

In a statement sent to The Associated Press, Martinez’s lawyer, Christopher Parente, praised the U.S. attorney’s office “for doing the right thing here and dismissing the indictment."

Joseph Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, said the office is “constantly evaluating new facts and information relating to cases and investigations arising out of Operation Midway Blitz.”

Ruiz's attorneys didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Since “Operation Midway Blitz ″ began in September, the Department of Homeland Security has characterized protesters as violent rioters and vowed to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. But of the more than two dozen people arrested for impeding or assaulting federal officers or other protest-related offenses, none have gone to trial and charges have been dropped against at least nine of them. Judges have expressed skepticism over the strength of some cases.

The case against Martinez and Ruiz wasn't the only one prosecutors sought to drop Thursday. They also moved to dismiss charges against Dana Briggs, a 70-year-old Air Force veteran who was arrested during a protest outside a federal immigration facility in the suburb of Broadview, just west of Chicago. Although prosecutors claimed Briggs refused to move and struck a Border Patrol agent’s arm as the agent pushed back a crowd, other protesters and activists offered a contrasting narrative, saying an agent, unprovoked, pushed Briggs to the ground.

Attorneys say evidence contradicted government's narrative

After they were arrested, Martinez and Ruiz were charged with assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon — a vehicle. No officers were seriously injured.

In text messages presented as evidence during a Nov. 5 hearing, Exum bragged about his marksmanship.

“I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes,” the text read. “Put that in your book boys.”

Lawyers for Martinez and Ruiz have consistently challenged the evidence and had pushed for the case to quickly move to a trial.

Parente claimed body camera footage contradicted federal prosecutors' narrative of Martinez's actions. He said DHS released “objectively wrong information,” claiming that Exum had “steered into” Martinez rather than the other way around. He also accused federal authorities of tampering with evidence when Exum was allowed to drive the car, which Parente called “critical evidence,” back to Maine rather than keeping it in Chicago to be examined.

Martinez and Ruiz were both released pending trial after a judge noted they had no prior criminal record.

Fate of detainees in limbo

Immigration agents have been accused of unnecessarily using force during the crackdown, including firing pepper balls and tear gas and using other aggressive tactics against protesters. The operation has sparked a public backlash and a bevy of lawsuits.

On Thursday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halted a lower court judge's order to release on bond hundreds of detained immigrants.

Last week U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings said he would consider a list of more than 600 detainees after determining that the federal government violated a 2022 consent decree that outlines how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can make so-called warrantless arrests.

Without offering details, the federal government objected to dozens as apparent security risks while others had already been deported. That left roughly 400 people to be released as soon as Friday. Detainees, who are being held at jails nationwide, would have been released on alternative forms of detention such as ankle monitoring after each paying a $1,500 bond.


But the Chicago-based appeals court halted Cummings' order, saying it will hear arguments in the case on Dec. 2.

Attorneys for the detainees, including at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said they were disappointed by the appeals court's decision but would prepare for arguments.

“We believe we still have the opportunity to free our neighbors and reunite families who have been deeply traumatized by the Trump administration’s unlawful actions in our communities,” attorneys said in a statement.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the decision a “showing of commonsense.”

“Lawbreakers are off American streets, and we look forward to the Trump administration’s ultimate vindication on this issue," she said in a statement.

___

 

[mandrill]

Trump administration threatens to withhold $75M from Pennsylvania over immigrant truck drivers


The Trump administration threatened Thursday to withhold nearly $75 million in funding if Pennsylvania does not immediately revoke what the administration claims are illegally issued commercial driver’s licenses to immigrants.

The move by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to target Pennsylvania follows similar action against California. Both states are run by Democratic governors who have criticized President Donald Trump's administration and who are viewed as potential top-shelf contenders to be the party’s 2028 presidential nominee.



FILE - Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro visits the Hershey Company's new manufacturing plant in Hershey, Pa., April 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)© The Associated Press
Duffy has made it a priority to scrutinize how the licenses are issued since August, when a tractor-trailer driver not authorized to be in the U.S. made an illegal U-turn and caused a crash in Florida that killed three people. That incident thrust the issue into the public’s consciousness.

In a statement Thursday, DOT spokesperson Danna Almeida said all states were being reviewed.

It's unclear how many people would be affected in Pennsylvania. In any case, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro 's administration said the federal government didn't identify a single commercial driver’s license issued to someone who wasn't eligible.

Still, a letter Thursday from the Republican administration to Shapiro cited an audit that found two out of 150 people whose licenses exceeded their lawful presence in the country.

In four cases it had reviewed, the federal government said Pennsylvania provided no evidence that it had required noncitizens to provide legitimate proof that they were legally in the country at the time they got the license.

The Trump administration called on Pennsylvania to stop issuing new, renewed and transferred commercial driver's licenses and permits, as well as conduct an audit to identify those licenses whose expirations exceed the driver's lawful stay in the U.S.

It is also asking the state to void noncompliant licenses and remove those drivers from the road. The administration said approximately 12,400 noncitizen drivers hold an unexpired commercial learner’s permit or commercial driver’s license issued by Pennsylvania.

The governors of California and Pennsylvania — Gavin Newsom and Shapiro — are tough critics of Trump, and both have been repeated targets of Trump’s administration.

Shapiro’s administration said the state transportation department ceased issuing commercial driver’s licenses to noncitizens after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a regulation in late September that would severely limit which immigrants can get one.

A federal court has put the rule on hold for now, but Shapiro’s administration said its transportation department still hasn’t resumed issuing what are called “non-domiciled CDLs.”

Pennsylvania's transportation department said Thursday that it follows federal rules for verifying an immigrant applicant's lawful presence in the country by checking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s database.

But Shapiro this week suggested that DHS was falling short by failing to properly maintain that database, which states use to check an immigrant’s legal status before issuing a driver’s license to a noncitizen.

His comments came after DHS said it had arrested an Uzbek national with a commercial driver’s license issued by Pennsylvania. The man, who had a work authorization granted in 2024, was wanted in his home country for belonging to a terrorist organization, the department said.

But Shapiro said the state transportation department checked the federal database over the summer before issuing a CDL to the man, and he was authorized to get one. The state rechecked the database this week, and it still listed him as qualified to get a CDL, Shapiro said.


“They clearly are not minding the shop, and they’ve gotta get better, because every single state in the country relies on this database when making a determination as to who qualifies for a CDL. We relied on the feds before issuing this one,” Shapiro said.

California, which said it would revoke 17,000 licenses, is the only state the administration has acted against because it was the first one where an audit was completed. The government shutdown delayed reviews in other states, but the Transportation Department is urging all of them to tighten their standards. ___ Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey, and Levy from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Associated Press writer Josh Funk contributed.

Mike Catalini And Marc Levy, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

The 11 Fuck-Ups Pam Bondi's DOJ Made in Indicting Jim Comey - emptywheel

In an opinion granting access to grand jury materials, William Fitzpatrick lists 11 ways Pam Bondi's DOJ fucked up their efforts to indict Jim Comey.

www.emptywheel.net

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge blocked Trump's National Guard deployment to DC but troops aren't leaving just yet


WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to end the deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s capital. But the ruling is unlikely to be the final word by the courts, the president or local leaders in the contentious duel over the federal district.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb put her order on hold for 21 days to allow the Trump administration time to either remove the troops or appeal the decision. The ruling marks another flashpoint in the months-long legal battle between local leaders and the president over longstanding norms about whether troops can support law enforcement activities on American streets.



Members of the District of Columbia National Guard pick up trash by the Capitol reflecting pool, Friday, Nov. 21, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)© The Associated Press
Trump issued an emergency order in the capital in August, federalizing the local police force and sending in National Guard troops from eight states and the District of Columbia. The order expired a month later but the troops remained.

The soldiers have patrolled Washington’s neighborhoods, monuments, train stations, and high-traffic streets. They have set up checkpoints on highways and supported federal agents in raids that have arrested hundreds of people, often for immigration-related infractions. They’ve also been assigned to pick up trash, guard sports events, conventions and concerts and have been seen taking selfies with tourists and residents alike.



National Guard soldiers patrol at Union Station, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)© The Associated Press
The White House has said Trump’s deployment was legal and vowed to appeal the ruling.

Here's what to know about the National Guard deployment in the nation's capital.

The judge ruled the deployment was unlawful

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed the lawsuit against the administration that led to Cobb’s ruling.

Cobb ruled that Trump's troop deployment violated the governance of the capital for a variety of reasons, including that the president had taken powers that officially resided in Congress; that the federal district's autonomy from other states had been violated; and that Trump had moved to make the troop deployment a possibly permanent fixture of the city.

“At its core, Congress has given the District rights to govern itself. Those rights are infringed upon when defendants approve, in excess of their statutory authority, the deployment of National Guard troops to the District,” Cobb wrote.



Members of the National Guard patrol along the National Mall, Friday, Oct. 24, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)© The Associated Press
The judge also added that D.C. “suffers a distinct injury from the presence of out-of-state National Guard units” because “the Constitution placed the District exclusively under Congress’s authority to prevent individual states from exerting any influence over the nation’s capital.”



D.C. National Guard members clean up the park around Fort Stevens Recreation Center, Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Washington. News of the cleanup sparked a community debate over the presence of the Guard. (AP Photo/Gary Fields)© The Associated Press
Cobb added that repeated extensions of the troop deployment by the National Guard into next year “could be read to suggest that the use of the (D.C. National Guard) for crime deterrence and public safety missions in the District may become longstanding, if not permanent.”

Troops won't necessarily leave the capital following the ruling

The Trump administration has three weeks to appeal the decision and White House officials have already vowed to oppose it. Troops remained stationed around the city on Friday after the ruling came down.

Before the ruling, states with contingents in the capital had indicated their missions would wrap up around the end of November unless ordered otherwise by the administration. According to formal orders reviewed by The Associated Press, the Washington D.C. National Guard will be deployed to the nation’s capital through the end of February. One court document indicated that the contingent could stay into next summer.

Deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon and Chicago have each faced court challenges with divergent rulings. The administration has had to scale back its operations in Chicago and Portland while it appeals in both cases.

The White House stands by the deployment


The White House says the Guard's presence in the capital is a central part of what it calls successful crime-fighting efforts. It dismissed the ruling as wrongly decided.

“President Trump is well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement with specific tasks,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. “This lawsuit is nothing more than another attempt — at the detriment of DC residents — to undermine the President’s highly successful operations to stop violent crime in DC.”

That stands in contrast to what local D.C. leaders say.

Schwalb, the District's attorney general, praised the judge's decision and argued that the arrangement the president had sought for the city would weaken democratic principles.

“From the beginning, we made clear that the U.S. military should not be policing American citizens on American soil," Schwalb said in a statement. “Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent, where the President can disregard states’ independence and deploy troops wherever and whenever he wants, with no check on his military power.”


D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has tried to strike a balance between working with some federal authorities and the opposition of some of her voters, has not publicly commented about the ruling.

States across the country have watched D.C.'s legal case play out

The case could have legal implications for Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to other cities across the country. Dozens of states had joined the case, with their support for each side split along party lines.

The District of Columbia has always had a unique relationship with the federal government. But the legal dispute in D.C. raises some similar questions over the president's power to deploy troops to aid in domestic law enforcement activities and whether the National Guard can be mobilized indefinitely without the consent of local leaders.

Prior to the D.C. deployment, Trump in June mobilized National Guard troops in Los Angeles as some in the city protested against immigration enforcement activities. Since deploying troops to Washington, Trump has also dispatched National Guard troops to Chicago, Portland and Charlotte, with more cities expected to see deployments in the future.


The mostly Democratic governors and mayors who lead the cities and states in the administration’s crosshairs broadly oppose the deployments. Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, in a November interview with the AP, warned of the “militarization of our American cities." Pritzker and other Democratic governors have been among the most intense legal opponents to Trump's troop deployments and federal agent surges nationwide.

Some Republican leaders have welcomed federal law enforcement intervention into their states and lent state resources and agents.

Yet some of Trump's allies have expressed concern. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, chair of the Republican Governors Association, warned that Trump's deployment of National Guard troops without a state's consent “sets a very dangerous precedent.”

Matt Brown, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Prosecutor asks Arizona Supreme Court to review decision that stalled fake elector case


PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona's attorney general announced Friday that she is appealing a ruling that has stalled the criminal case against President Donald Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others for trying to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss in the state.

Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes' office said it is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to review a lower-court ruling that sent the sprawling case back to a grand jury.

Friday was Mayes’ deadline to tell the court whether she would appeal. Otherwise, she risked the case being dismissed.

“An independent grand jury of ordinary Arizonans found that there was sufficient cause to charge the defendants with the alleged crimes,” Mayes said in a statement. “These defendants were charged based on two things: the facts and the law. We remain squarely focused on ensuring the defendants are held accountable because there is nothing more important than enforcing the rule of law.”

There has been no movement in the case at the trial court level in six months after a judge concluded grand jurors hadn’t been shown the text of a law that governs the certification of presidential contests and was invoked by those charged in defending themselves.

Defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed.

A Republican activist pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, and charges were dismissed against Jenna Ellis, a lawyer for Trump’s 2020 campaign, as part of an agreement with prosecutors. The remaining defendants have pleaded not guilty.

Michael Columbo, an attorney who represents state Sen. Jake Hoffman, who is charged in the case, said in a statement that the court already made a preliminary finding that Mayes pursued the case to punish the defendants for lawfully exercising their constitutional rights.

“We hope that she will use the extra time she purchased by filing this petition to reach the decision that is right and just for the defendants and the people of Arizona, which is to dismiss the case,” Columbo said

Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

A judge threw out a similar case in Michigan in September. And last year, a special prosecutor dropped a federal case alleging Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election. Cases related to alleged fake elector schemes remain in Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin, but none are near the trial stage.

___

Montoya reported from Albuquerque.

Jacques Billeaud And Susan Montoya Bryan, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

RFK Jr. says he personally directed CDC's new guidance on vaccines and autism


NEW YORK (AP) — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. personally directed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to update its website to contradict its longtime guidance that vaccines don't cause autism, he told The New York Times in an interview published Friday.

His comments provide clarity into who directed the CDC's website change, after many current and former staffers at the agency were surprised to see new published guidance on Wednesday that defies scientific consensus. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine critic, has upended the public health agencies he oversees and pushed for and enacted changes that have unsettled much of the medical community, which sees his policies as harmful for Americans.

“The whole thing about ‘vaccines have been tested and there’s been this determination made,’ is just a lie,” Kennedy said in the interview, which was conducted Thursday.

The CDC's “vaccine safety” page now claims that the statement “vaccines do not cause autism” is not based on evidence because it doesn't rule out the possibility that infant vaccines are linked to the disorder. The page also has been updated to suggest that health officials have ignored studies showing a potential link.

Public health researchers and advocates strongly refute the updated website, saying it misleads the public by exploiting the fact that the scientific method can't satisfy a demand to prove a negative. They note that scientists have thoroughly explored potential links between vaccines and autism in rigorous research spanning decades, all pointing to the same conclusion that vaccines don’t cause autism.

“No environmental factor has been better studied as a potential cause of autism than vaccines,” the Autism Science Foundation said in a statement Thursday. “This includes vaccine ingredients as well as the body’s response to vaccines. All this research has determined that there is no link between autism and vaccines.”

Kennedy, a longtime leader in the anti-vaccine movement, acknowledged to The New York Times the existence of studies showing no link to autism from the mercury-based preservative thimerosal or from the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. But he told the newspaper there are still gaps in vaccine safety science and a need for more research.

The move creates another disagreement between the health secretary and Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician and Louisiana Republican who chairs the Senate health committee. During his confirmation process, Kennedy pledged to Cassidy he would leave the statement that vaccines do not cause autism on the CDC website. The statement remains on the website but with a disclaimer that it was left there because of their agreement.

Kennedy told The New York Times he talked to Cassidy about the updated website and that Cassidy disagreed with the decision.

“What parents need to hear right now is vaccines for measles, polio, hepatitis B and other childhood diseases are safe and effective and will not cause autism,” Cassidy posted on X on Thursday. “Any statement to the contrary is wrong, irresponsible, and actively makes Americans sicker.”

The updated website comes as Kennedy has taken other steps as health secretary that sow doubt in immunizations. He has pulled $500 million for their development, ousted and replaced every member of a federal vaccine advisory committee and pledged to overhaul a federal program for compensating Americans injured by shots. He also fired former CDC Director Susan Monarez less than a month into her tenure after they clashed over vaccine policy.


Dr. Sean O’Leary, head of the infectious diseases committee at the American Academy of Pediatrics, told reporters in a briefing Thursday that the CDC's website update was perpetuating a lie.

“This is madness,” he said. “Vaccines do not cause autism, and unfortunately, we can no longer trust health-related information coming from our government.”

The Department of Health and Human Services, which didn't make Kennedy available for an interview with The Associated Press this week, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ali Swenson, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Whistleblower Documents Implicate Emil Bove in Criminal Contempt Order by Chief Judge Boasberg

Email released by whistleblower would presumably implicate Bove in the “contumacious conduct” identified by Chief Judge Boasberg.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[mandrill]