Asia Studios Massage

update - Trump DoJ starts harassment / lawfare campaign against NYS att'y-gen'l Leticia James

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,877
115,682
113
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge agreed on Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole — a ruling that could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.




U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand “expedited removal” for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration's plans.

The case “presents a question of fair play” for people fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries, Cobb said in her 84-page order.

“In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,” she wrote. “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

Fast-track deportations allow immigration officers to remove somebody from the U.S. without seeing a judge first. In immigration cases, parole allows somebody applying for admission to the U.S. to enter the country without being held in detention.




Immigrants' advocacy groups sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge three recent DHS agency actions that expanded expedited removal. A surge of arrests at immigration courts highlights the lawsuit’s high stakes.

The judge's ruling applies to any non-citizen who has entered the U.S. through the parole process at a port of entry. She suspended the challenged DHS actions until the case's conclusion.

Cobb said the case’s “underlying question” is whether people who escaped oppression will have the chance to “plead their case within a system of rules.”

“Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?” she added.


A plaintiffs' attorney, Justice Action Center legal director Esther Sung, described the ruling as a “huge win” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families. Sung said many people are afraid to attend routine immigration hearings out of fear of getting arrested.

“Hopefully this decision will alleviate that fear,” Sung said.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After being arrested, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

President Donald Trump sharply expanded fast-track authority in January, allowing immigration officers to deport someone without first seeing a judge. Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.


“Expedited removal” was created under a 1996 law and has been used widely for people stopped at the border since 2004. Trump attempted to expand those powers nationwide to anyone in the country less than two years in 2019 but was held up in court. His latest efforts amount to a second try.

ICE exercised its expanded authority sparingly at first during Trump’s second term but has since relied on it for aggressive enforcement in immigration courts and in “workplace raids,” according to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

___

Spagat reported from San Diego.

Judge pauses Trump administration's push to expand fast-track deportations
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,877
115,682
113
Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, should be stripped of his law license for his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, a Washington-based disciplinary panel has ruled.

The D.C. Bar's Board on Professional Responsibility issued its ruling on Thursday, stating that Clark "persistently and energetically sought" to pressure Justice Department leaders to make false claims about election fraud and had made "intentionally false statements."





The board concluded that his conduct violated professional ethics and warranted disbarment: "Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so," the board said in its report.

"[Clark] persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue. He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated."

In response, Clark called the process "100% politicized and said, "I know I did the right thing ... and wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I had not proceeded to internally raise the election questions I did."

Why It Matters
If upheld, the panel's ruling would reinforce accountability for government lawyers alleged to have been involved in attempts to subvert election results and add to a growing list of Trump-aligned attorneys facing sanctions over 2020 election challenges.

The board said the ruling is intended to deter future efforts to pressure federal agencies into making false claims on matters of national importance; that it is essential for upholding professional ethics and maintaining public trust in the justice system.




What To Know
Clark served as assistant attorney general in Trump's first administration and became a key figure in the president's attempts to challenge his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

According to a Senate Judiciary report, Clark pushed Justice Department superiors to send a letter to Georgia lawmakers stating that federal investigators had found "significant concerns" about the election's outcome—a claim officials had already determined to be false.

When department leaders refused, Clark continued to advocate for the letter's release and met directly with Trump about potentially replacing then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, the Senate report said.

That plan led to a contentious meeting at the White House on January 3, 2021, during which several senior Justice Department and White House officials threatened to resign if Trump installed Clark as acting attorney general, the report added.




Clark's attorney, Harry MacDougald, said during disciplinary hearings last year that the letter was part of normal debate between lawyers and punishment would have a "chilling effect."

Growing List of Trump Allies Hit With Sanctions

Jeffrey Clark, who now serves as acting head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, is not the first Trump-aligned attorney to face professional sanctions for actions related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and joins a list who have faced or are facing disciplinary action:

  • Rudy Giuliani: Disbarred in Washington and New York.
  • John Eastman: Suspended while appealing disbarment in California.
  • Jenna Ellis: Three-year suspension in Colorado.
  • Kenneth Chesebro: Lost law license in New York.
Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in Washington and lost his New York law license for advancing false claims of election fraud.


John Eastman, who advised Trump on strategies to challenge the election results, has been suspended from practicing law while he appeals a California judge's disbarment recommendation.

Jenna Ellis, a former Trump campaign attorney, agreed to a three-year suspension of her law license in Colorado after admitting to making false statements about the election and pleading guilty in a related Georgia criminal case.

Attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who helped design the so-called "alternate electors" plan, lost his New York law license earlier this year.

What People Are Saying
Jeffrey Clark, responding to Thursday's "100% politicized" decision, said on X: "I know I did the right thing in 2020 and 2021 during the first President Trump Administration and wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I had not proceeded to internally raise the election questions I did."


Harry MacDougald, Clark's attorney, said: "They want to disbar Jeff Clark for the heresy of privately recommending further investigations of the 2020 election." In criticizing the disciplinary proceedings, he argued they unfairly targeted his client for legal advice, saying: "This is a pure thought crime and a travesty of justice."

James Burnham, Managing Partner at King Street Legal, said on X: "I worked closely with Jeff Clark in both Trump Administrations. This is an outrageous weaponization of the bar ethics process—one that could be turned against any lawyer serving in government at any time. All steps must be taken to push back."

Rachel Cauley, White House OMB communications director also denounced the ruling, calling it: "...another chapter in the Deep State's ongoing assault on President Trump and those who stood beside him in defense of the truth," adding: "Jeff Clark has been harassed, raided, doxed, and blacklisted simply for questioning a rigged election and serving President Trump."


What Happens Next
The recommendation now goes to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which will make the final decision on whether Clark will permanently lose his license.

Under D.C. Bar rules, the finding triggers an automatic suspension of Clark's ability to practice law unless he successfully petitions the court within 30 days to block it.


Trump Ally Faces Disbarment for 'Dishonesty': Panel
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,877
115,682
113
U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb ruled Friday that President Donald Trump's administration cannot use "summary deportation" for anyone who had previously been paroled into the United States.

Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney posted the ruling on Bluesky in which the judge shames the administration for using tactics many of those immigrants saw in the countries from which they fled.

"More broadly, this case presents a question of fair play," she wrote.

Parole means the immigrants have been granted permission to enter and stay in the country temporarily, despite not meeting the standard requirements for admission

Plaintiffs ... and hundreds of thousands of others like them, fled oppressive regimes and perilous conditions in their home countries. They arrived for inspection at the United States border pursuant to procedures created and advocated by the U.S. Government. They were paroled into this country under those procedures and given the chance to prove their claims for asylum or other relief authorized by our laws. In a world of bad options, they played by the rules."

"Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so," Cobb continued.

"This case’s underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules. Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that—as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges ... may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?"

Cheney noted that this ruling shields "hundreds of thousands of people that ICE had targeted for quick removal and courthouse arrests."

Read more here.

Judge shames Trump as she shields 'hundreds of thousands' of immigrants from deportation
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar

Bucktee

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2024
2,162
2,536
113
The big question floating around some very powerful men is "how do we get rid of her but make it look like an accident. After Epstein, back-to-back suicides is a no-go."
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,877
115,682
113
NEW YORK (AP) — The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut.




In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF’s actions were counter to the agency's mandate.

The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses “violate the law and jeopardize America’s longstanding global leadership in STEM.”

Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut.

In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more.



The headquarters of the National Science Foundation is photographed May 29, 2025, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)© The Associated Press
Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."



NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science.

A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to “create opportunities for all Americans everywhere” and “not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.”



The headquarters of the National Science Foundation is photographed May 29, 2025, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)© The Associated Press
The plaintiff states are trying to “substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing.

The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields.




The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment.


Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,856
1,690
113
Oblivion
Victim Family Drops Trump’s Worst Nightmare on Air
Trump will not be able to shake the “Epstein virus”
I think that Maxwell will be released, maybe not pardoned which might damage Trump more than he is already damaged and then Maxwell will go into exile in another country.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: mandrill

KDK13

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2022
959
1,390
93
I wonder if this is the prelude to the pardon.
"We can't do it now for political reasons, but we'll give you more comfy quarters until after the mid term elections, and then we do the pardon."
NEW YORK (AP) — The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut.




In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF’s actions were counter to the agency's mandate.

The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses “violate the law and jeopardize America’s longstanding global leadership in STEM.”

Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut.

In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more.



The headquarters of the National Science Foundation is photographed May 29, 2025, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)© The Associated Press
Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."



NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science.

A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to “create opportunities for all Americans everywhere” and “not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.”



The headquarters of the National Science Foundation is photographed May 29, 2025, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)© The Associated Press
The plaintiff states are trying to “substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing.

The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields.




The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment.


Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,877
115,682
113


Donald Trump reported at least $630 million and possibly more than $676 million in business income on his 2025 public financial disclosure, filed on Friday evening. The disclosure, covering the period from January 1 to December 31, 2024, provides a snapshot of Trump’s finances right before he took office, giving insight into the conflicts of interest he may face over the next four years.

Only five months into his second term as president, Trump is brazenly using his office to profit. He blurred the lines between foreign policy and his businesses by taking a trip in his official capacity to three Middle East countries where he has developments–including one in partnership with a company owned by a foreign government–and sparked a bidding war for his $TRUMP cryptocurrency by hosting an exclusive dinner for the top 220 holders at his Virginia golf club, offering access to the president in exchange for purchasing his memecoin.

Just this week, he launched a Trump-branded smartphone and mobile service, adding to his array of Trump-branded products including watches, sneakers, fragrances and Bibles, which earned him a total of $6.6 million in royalties in 2024. Retail may seem like a drop in the bucket for Trump, but he reported $8.8 million in income from his online retail store, which launched over 168 products during the presidential transition period. Personal and presidential business are often intertwined, with products on the Trump site including “45-47” and inauguration-themed collections.

The Trump brand is significantly more involved in foreign business than during his last term, opening the door for unprecedented conflicts of interest. Trump’s international properties—there are 20 Trump-branded projects that will be open or in development during his presidency—reported at least $87 million in business income in 2024. This includes a $10 million development fee from a property in Mumbai, a $5 million licensing fee from his Vietnam development and a $5 million licensing fee from a project in Dubai. This means that Trump’s own financial interest in the countries where he is operating his businesses could affect foreign policy decisionmaking, and governments could attempt to influence Trump through their treatment of his businesses.

Trump’s hefty debts further complicate the picture, with the filing reporting over $270 million in liabilities. The filing lists over $50 million in debt for judgments in multiple court cases, the civil fraud case brought by the New York attorney general and cases brought by E. Jean Carroll. All of his court debts are labeled “stayed pending appeal”. Based on the specific numbers from these judgements, Trump’s total debts surpass $600 million.

Adding yet another conflict of interest, one of Trump’s greatest sources of income last year was cryptocurrency. He reported $57 million in token sales from World Liberty Financial, a crypto company of which he is a partial owner, and $1.1 million in licensing fees and royalties from his NFT. His financial interest in crypto has already massively surpassed what is reported on this disclosure, which doesn’t include income from his $TRUMP memecoin that was launched earlier this year, nor does it reflect the Trump family’s latest crypto venture, his sons’ bitcoin mining company, American Bitcoin. He is profiting from these while his administration loosens regulations on crypto.

During Trump’s last term, CREW tracked over 3,700 conflicts of interest between his presidency and businesses. With the expansion of his foreign developments and his foray into cryptocurrency, among other ventures, he seems poised to rack up more conflicts than ever, with even less transparency than last time.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
99,762
27,078
113
Trump will not be able to shake the “Epstein virus”
I think that Maxwell will be released, maybe not pardoned which might damage Trump more than he is already damaged and then Maxwell will go into exile in another country.
We are finally witnessing the splintering of MAGA. The Epstein virus will take out one group, tariffs will take out another, cutting medicare will lose another group.
The question is how many richaceg's are there in the US, who will back everything through a sunk cost fallacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeezer

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
23,017
18,122
113
We are finally witnessing the splintering of MAGA. The Epstein virus will take out one group, tariffs will take out another, cutting medicare will lose another group.
The question is how many richaceg's are there in the US, who will back everything through a sunk cost fallacy.
Lots and lots of sheep that will excuse their cult leader of all crimes, all stupidity and all dementia related activities.
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,856
1,690
113
Oblivion
Maxwell will be released in a back room deal and the former Mossad agent will live quietly in extreme exhile in either France or Israel or both. The system is rigged as Trump said when he was campaigning in 2016 and he is successfully re-rigging it to support his machinations. Trump is laying down several layers of insulation to staive off growing revelations about his Epstein bromance and connection with the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

So Trump employed Giuffre at Mar a Largo to do massages while she was underaged and then was aware that Epstein solicited her away to work as an underaged prostitute. Giuffre serviced Prince Andrew among others while been trafficked and pimped by Epstein
and then committed suicide this year around the time of Trump’s inauguration.

It is very apparent that Maxwell who was just moved to a minimum security prison without explanation from the Oval Office is a major power broker and connected to more of the same. The Codicil associated with Maxwell is ominous for Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew and other ultra powerful yet to be named people. Probably if Maxwell is killed then very damaging information will be revealed so Trump et al.must keep her alive but silent . Trump will not pardon her for obvious reasons of optics but he will spring her from prison and jet her off out of America as he waits for the legacy of the Epstein paedophile shot clock to run out .
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts