update - Trump claims $230M "compensation" from his own DoJ

[mandrill]

Trump mulls invoking the Insurrection Act and signals he’ll send troops to San Francisco


President Donald Trump strongly suggested that he was preparing to use the Insurrection Act to crack down on dissent nationwide in an interview Sunday while warning that National Guard deployments would take place in San Francisco next.

He spoke in a pre-recorded discussion that aired Sunday on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo about using the power of the federal government to militarize the National Guard in states where he and his team claim that Democratic officials are refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement and crime-fighting efforts, including the White House’s mass deportation campaign.

During the conversation, he falsely asserted that nearly half of all U.S. presidents have invoked the act. Fifteen U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act (out of 45 men to hold the position in total).

“Don’t forget, and I haven’t used it, but don’t forget: I can use the Insurrection Act. 50 percent of the presidents, almost, have used that. And that's unquestioned power,” the president told Bartiromo, before making a somewhat garbled point about Democratic state officials: “I choose not to. I’d rather do this [without invoking it]. But I’m met constantly by fake politicians, politicians that think that they – you know, it’s not a part of the radical left movement to have safety.”

He also confirmed that he was imminently planning to send National Guard troops to San Francisco, while describing himself as “the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.”

“San Francisco was truly one of the great cities of the world, and then 15 years ago, it went wrong. It went woke,” said the president. “But we’re going to go to San Francisco, and we’re going to make it great.”

The city, which is experiencing a 20-year low in its overall crime rate, has areas where crime and issues including drug use and homelessness are persistent problems such as the famous Tenderloin district. In 2023, according to city statistics, the Tenderloin district averaged more than four calls reporting violent crimes per day. Rates of violent and non-violent crime have fallen in the district, but still remain higher than in surrounding areas for the most part.

By sending troops to San Francisco, Trump would once again be putting himself in direct conflict with Gavin Newsom, California’s Democratic governor. Newsom, who is a leading possible contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, challenged the president in the courts after Trump used National Guard forces to protect ICE agents and detention centers in Los Angeles earlier this year.

“California will resist any effort by Donald Trump to militarize another American city for his own vanity and deranged fantasies,” a spokesperson for the governor told Politico in a statement. “California doesn’t want or need the National Guard to police its streets. In this state, we take care of our own communities—unlike Trump who can’t even pay the soldiers under his command.”


Gavin Newsom halted Trump’s use of the National Guard in Los Angeles earlier this year (AP)
The White House and Department of Justice have battled state leaders in the courts over the efforts to expand Trump’s National Guard deployments. The president deployed troops to Memphis with the support of the state’s Republican governor, and has battled with Democratic leaders in Illinois and Oregon over sending troops to Chicago and Portland.


A senior Border Patrol official tweeted that criminal organizations were allegedly plotting to “kidnap and kill law enforcement officers” in cities like Chicago, while Attorney General Pam Bondi told a Senate panel earlier this month that the deployments were necessary to protect ICE facilities.

San Francisco’s mayor hasn’t issued a statement directly responding to the president’s threats, but on Saturday released a video message thanking thousands of city residents who hit the streets as part of nationwide “No Kings” protests against the president.

Millions in cities and towns in every state turned out on Saturday for the demonstrations, which come after months of the Trump administration’s threats to federalize U.S. cities and the growing presence of ICE agents and raids in communities across the country. White House officials cast the demonstrators as far-left radicals and “terrorists” ahead of Saturday’s events. No major acts of violence were reported, despite the massive numbers protesting around the U.S.


The president trolled protesters on Sunday with another AI-generated video depicting him in a fighter jet dropping excrement on crowds in Times Square.

 

[mandrill]

Marco Rubio betrayed drug gang informants to seal El Salvador prison deal, report says


Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly agreed to abandon confidential informants who were protected by the U.S. government to seal a deal with El Salvador’s president, who agreed to indefinitely detain dozens of Venezuelan deportees in a brutal prison.

The arrangement, inked in the days leading up to Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, gave the administration access to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, decried by human rights groups as a “tropical gulag” and concentration camp that has been central to a first wave of the president’s mass deportation agenda.

On a March 13 phone call, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to the deal, on the condition that MS-13 gang members Bukele wanted imprisoned in his jail were actually “informants” protected by the Department of Justice, according to The Washington Post.

Rather than dismissing the idea, Rubio agreed to speak with Attorney General Pam Bondi to abandon those protections, adding another layer to a secret agreement exposed in court documents and reporting in the wake of a months-long ordeal that ultimately led to a prisoner exchange and the release of 250 Venezuelans from CECOT to their home country this summer.

“Americans elected President Trump because they were tired of politicians making excuses,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement shared with The Independent.

“The Trump Administration’s results speak for themselves,” he said. “Hardened [Tren de Aragua] gang members are back in Venezuela. American hostages are home. MS-13 gang members are being prosecuted in the U.S. and El Salvador. And Americans are safer as a result of these incredible efforts.”

In his proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act in March, Trump stated that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

But government officials later admitted that “many” of those men did not have criminal records, and many were in the country with legal permission and scheduled to appear in court on their asylum claims.

A top judge in Washington, D.C. had ordered the Trump administration to turn planes around after learning in an emergency lawsuit that officials were flying the men to El Salvador. The administration resisted, provoking an extraordinary legal battle in which Trump himself demanded the judge’s impeachment.

According to The Washington Post, the White House feared that exact scenario if Venezuelans weren’t deported quickly enough.

Trump repeatedly called Rubio about the deal while the secretary was on a multiday trip to Saudi Arabia and Canada earlier this year, the newspaper reported.

Trump was reportedly eager to ink a deal with Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele to quickly deported Venezuelans to his CECOT prison before a judge could intervene (AFP via Getty Images)
While Trump sought a foreign country to facilitate his mass deportation scheme, Bukele needed support from the Justice Department to legitimize his leadership against global criticism for his threats to civil liberties, The Post noted.

Bukele appears to have held up his end of the bargain, effectively acting as a brutal pass-through for Venezuelan deportees. But only one of the nine men Bukele demanded were sent to El Salvador.


It is unclear whether they can keep up with legal battles to prevent their deportation.

But former Justice Department officials appear frustrated that the Trump administration would effectively be blowing up cases involving alleged gang members that law enforcement spent years investigating to try to win over as cooperators.

“It would be very disheartening if I worked my butt off for a year to collect that evidence … to get him into custody, to bring him to justice, just for the Department of Justice or the State Department to turn around and say, ‘OK we’re going to drop all charges,’” Daniel Brunner, a former FBI agent who worked on a joint task force investigating MS-13.

“It would gut me as a case agent,” he told The Washington Post.

More than 250 Venezuelans deported to CECOT in March were returned to their home country as part of a prison swap that saw Americans returned to the United States (Getty Images)
After they were flown from immigration detention centers in the middle of the night to CECOT, roughly 250 Venezuelan men were shackled and gang-walked into the brutal maximum-security prison, where their heads were shaved, and then stuffed into jail cells where they lived for more than five months.


They were not allowed to speak with families or lawyers. They never stepped foot outside.

For months, government attorneys and administration officials claimed that the United States did not have jurisdiction over deportees that were locked up in El Salvador. But court filings revealed that authorities in that country told the United Nations that the “legal responsibility for these people lie exclusively” with the U.S. government.

Despite the administration’s claims that those deportees were no longer the responsibility of the United States, officials appeared to be using them as a bargaining chip in a prisoner exchange.

On July 18, following trilateral negotiations with the U.S., Salvadoran and Venezuelan governments, more than 250 Venezuelans jailed inside the facility were returned to their home country, and several Americans were returned from Venezuela’s custody to the United States.


In lawsuits and interviews following their release, the men revealed the “physical, verbal and psychological abuse” they endured, including routine beatings from guards using their fists and batons.

 

[mandrill]

savaya_mark_insta.jpg© Instagram - Mark Savaya
Donald Trump awarded another government post to a supporter of his 2024 presidential campaign with the announcement that a Detroit pot shop magnate would be his administration’s new special envoy to Iraq.

The appointment of Mark Savaya, a Michigan-based businessman and Instagram influencer who has been photographed with the president numerous times, was announced on the president’s Truth Social page.

“I’m pleased to announce Mark Savaya will serve as Special Envoy to the Republic of Iraq,” Trump wrote Sunday. “Mark’s deep understanding of the Iraq-U.S. relationship, and his connections in the region, will help advance the interests of the American people.”

Trump added of Savaya: “Mark was a key player in my campaign in Michigan, where he, and others, helped secure a record vote with Muslim Americans. Congratulations, Mark!”

Savaya, according to his LinkedIn page, has no government experience at the local, state or federal level. He’s a business owner in the area around Detroit, where he founded a chain of marijuana dispensaries called Leaf and Bud, known locally for an aggressive billboard marketing campaign along the city’s iconic 8 Mile Road that led city leaders to pass an ordinance restricting such ads.
Trump shares footage of missile strike on 'drug submarine'
According to a Reddit thread, two of Savaya’s Leaf and Bud locations have closed since January and the company’s website now lists just three brick-and-mortar locations remaining

The site also appears to have been updated to remove references to Savaya, including “The Mark Savaya Collection” — a hand-picked selection of THC products curated by the founder himself. Reviews mentioning Savaya were still visible on the site as of Sunday, including one noting that a picture of Savaya shaking Rudy Giuliani’s hand was present in one store location.

The Independent reached out to Leaf and Bud on Sunday afternoon to confirm Savaya’s current role with the company. He was previously identified as a “visionary” behind the dispensary chain on the business’s website.

“I am deeply humbled, honored and grateful to President Donald J. Trump for appointing me as Special Envoy to the Republic of Iraq,” Savaya wrote on Instagram Sunday afternoon.

“I am committed to strengthening the U.S.–Iraq partnership under President Trump’s leadership and guidance. Thank you, Mr. President,” he wrote.

According to one local news site, Savaya’s company previously funded billboards along 8 Mile Road that read: “Come get it. Free weed.”

Trump, by comparison, is known to be personally opposed to drug use, but has softened his stance in recent years. He supported Florida’s ballot measure to legalize recreational use of marijuana in 2024. At the same time, he was calling for executions of drug traffickers on the campaign trail; in 2019, he praised China for using capital punishment in some severe drug-related cases.

Since returning to office in January, the president has also launched a series of military strikes targeting vessels it claims are ferrying drugs to the United States in the Caribbean. A wide range of critics across the political spectrum have decried the strikes as illegal under U.S. and international law.


Trump names his new special envoy to Iraq — a MAGA influencer who ran a chain of marijuana dispensaries

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Trump calls Colombian president a ‘drug leader’ and threatens US will ‘close up’ country’s ‘killing fields’: ‘It won’t be done nicely’


Donald Trump issued a threat to Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, on Sunday morning after the South American leader spoke out against the deadly U.S. attacks against vessels in the Caribbean the Trump administration has accused of ferrying drugs.

In a Truth Social posting the U.S. president seemed to suggest that Petro’s country could play host to a U.S. invasion or military campaign of some kind as he vowed that his administration would use force to “close” the so-called “killing fields” in Colombia if the Petro government did not take action first.

His remarks refer to areas where cartel violence against civilians and others is rampant, particularly in rural, forested areas where paramilitary groups like the National Liberation Army (ELN) are present. Colombia’s government has struggled against those groups in armed conflicts dating back decades.

“President Gustavo Petro, of Columbia, is an illegal drug leader strongly encouraging the massive production of drugs, in big and small fields, all over Columbia. It has become the biggest business in Columbia, by far, and Petro does nothing to stop it, despite large scale payments and subsidies from the USA that are nothing more than a long term rip off of America,” the U.S. president wrote on Truth Social on Sunday morning.

He declared that U.S. subsidies to Colombia would end immediately, and warned: “Petro, a low rated and very unpopular leader, with a fresh mouth toward America, better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.”



Donald Trump warned on Truth Social that Gustavo Petro must stop so-called ‘killing fields’ in Colombia (AP)
Trump’s statement came just hours after Petro denounced an escalating campaign of U.S. military strikes against vessels in the Caribbean Sea, which the White House have accused of ferrying drugs bound for the United States. That campaign continues, with the most recent strike being reported on October 16. Two survivors were captured by the U.S. military in the wake of the Oct 16 attack, and were repatriated to Ecuador and Colombia.

Petro, in a statement, wrote that one U.S. strike in September targeted a civilian boat in distress — not a drug-smuggling vessel, as U.S. officials claimed. The Colombian president accused Trump of “murder” over the attack, which killed one person on board.

"The Colombian boat was adrift and had its distress signal up due to an engine failure," said Petro. He added: "We await explanations from the US government."

"Fisherman Alejandro Carranza had no ties to the drug trade and his daily activity was fishing,” said the Colombian president.

Trump’s “explanation” appears to have been an overt threat to engage the U.S. military in an attempt to occupy sovereign Colombian territory. At the same time, the Trump White House is reportedly moving towards a goal of orchestrating regime change in neighboring Venezuela, where like in Colombia the ruling government’s head Nicolas Maduro is accused by Trump officials of operating a state-sponsored drug cartel.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth separately said on Sunday that U.S. forces, striking two days earlier, destroyed a vessel being operated by the ELN, a left-wing paramilitary group which is estimated to be in command of several thousand members and is active in the drug trade.

“The vessel was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was traveling along a known narco-trafficking route, and was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics. There were three male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel during the strike—which was conducted in international waters. All three terrorists were killed and no U.S. forces were harmed in this strike,” Hegseth wrote on X.

Confirming that the secretary was speaking about the same incident, Petro responded in his own tweet.

“The fisherman's boat from Santa Marta was not from the ELN; it belonged to a humble family, lovers of the sea, from which they drew their food. What do you say to that family? Explain to me why you helped assassinate a humble fisherman from Santa Marta, the land where Bolívar died, and which they say is the heart of the world. What do you say to the family of the fisherman Alejandro Carranza? He was a humble human being,” wrote the president.

Gustavo Petro wrote on X that a man killed by a U.S. airstrike on a Colombian vessel in September had no ties to the international drug trade (AP)
In a third post, Petro delivered a lengthier condemnation of the Trump administration’s foreign policy in the Americas: “A U.S. missile has killed a humble fisherman from Colombia in Santa Marta. The USA destroyed a family of fishermen in the city that will host the summit of Latin America and Europe. The USA has invaded national territory with a missile fired to kill a humble fisherman, has destroyed his family, his children. This is the homeland of Bolívar and they are murdering his children with bombs. The USA offended the national territory of Colombia and killed an honest, hardworking Colombian. Let the sword of Bolívar be raised!”


In Venezuela, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, Trump officials aim to bully top Maduro officials, including possibly the president himself, into resigning or fleeing the country. Opposition figures told the outlet that the White House is implicitly threatening to assasinate Maduro or other government figures if the president does not let go of power.

Meanwhile, the head of the U.S. Southern Command overseeing the strikes and escalation of U.S. military might near Venezuelan territory, just stepped down after expressing concern with the attacks according to a new report.

U.S. officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations have argued that the 2024 elections in Venezuela were fraudulent, and tainted by acts of political repression and other factors. The Trump administration ramped up rhetoric earlier this year when it accused Maduro of direct involvement in drug smuggling operations, though the Justice Department also made that accusation initially in 2020 during the first Trump administration.


According to the DOJ and White House, Maduro runs “Cartel de los Soles”, a drug-smuggling organization linked to the sun emblems on the uniforms of top Venezuelan military brass. It also charged him with running elements of the FARC militant group in Colombia, which largely disbanded three years prior but still maintains some presence.

“In his role as a leader of the Cártel de Los Soles, Maduro Moros negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed that the Cártel de Los Soles provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated foreign affairs with Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cártel de Los Soles,” Attorney General Bill Barr said in a statement in 2020.

 

[mandrill]

GOP lawmaker punts on repaying donors after Trump gives him second chance


Disgraced former Republican lawmaker George Santos would not commit to repaying donors he stole money from during an interview on CNN on Sunday.

Santos was convicted in August 2025 of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from his campaign donors by taking their credit card information and using it for personal expenses like rent and OnlyFans subscriptions, according to the Department of Justice. He was just three months into a more-than-seven-year prison sentence when President Donald Trump commuted his sentence.


"At least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!" Trump wrote on Truth Social, announcing Santos' commutation. "Good luck George, have a great life!"

Santos discussed his commutation on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday. When asked whether he would repay the nearly $600,000 in restitution to the donors he stole from, Santos seemed noncommittal.


"I can do my best to do whatever the law requires of me," Santos said. "So I don't know what that is."

He also thanked Trump for giving him a "second chance."

"I understand people want to make this into 'He's getting away with it.' I'm not getting away with it, I was the first person to ever go to federal prison for a civil violation," Santos said.

"I don't want to focus on trying to rehash the past and want to take the experience and do good and move on with the future," he added. "Repentance is an understatement. I have been dealt a second chance."

 

[wigglee]

LOL! This is FIFA's "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus" moment!

I guess insufferable arrogance and corruption is ok, as long as it is in opposition to Trump, right?

In summary, FIFA and the World Cup are not more significant than public order, sovereignty, or the right to to police and maintain national security. Soccer, as much as I enjoy it, is just entertainment.

So... you're buying Trump's bullshit justifications for militarizing Democratic cities? Gullible much? Trump's the only one jeopardizing national security with his insane fascism. How's that Israeli ceasefire going, by the way? Oh well, it made for a nice ego strokin', back slappin' press conference at least. A week later Netanyahoo starts bombing again. His bombing of boats in the Caribbean are a violation of the Constitution ( but not his first). He's supposed to consult Congress before acts of war, but Congress can't sit because then the Epstein files will be released and the Pedo-in-chief doesn't want that.

 

[mandrill]

New Jersey U.S. Attorney Alina Habba is in court Monday to appeal a lower-court decision that she she's in the position illegitimately as she has never been confirmed by the Senate.

Politico reported last month that there are a number of examples of U.S. attorneys who have not been confirmed, besides Habba.


The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard her appeal Monday morning.

National security reporter David Rohde warned that what happens in the Habba case will have a direct impact on whether Lindsey Halligan is considered a legitimate U.S. Attorney. Like Habba, Halligan has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Allowing those appointments despite a lack of Senate confirmation concedes further congressional power to President Donald Trump, he argued.


Habba, who had been Trump's personal criminal lawyer, was appointed by him to take over the New Jersey role.

Rohde and Michigan Law School Professor Barbara McQuade noted that the outcome of the Habba hearing would have a major impact on the cases involving former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of whom were indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia under the direction of Halligan.

"It means that every one of those cases that has been indicted since she took office over at that office is null and void," McQuade said of Habba's cases, if she loses her position. "It's the same thing we saw in Florida when Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case against Donald Trump, finding that the special counsel had been inappropriately appointed contrary to regulations and law and the Constitution."

She said that if the person in the post is not considered valid by the court, "then every defendant is going to have their case dismissed."

"Now, it probably includes drug dealers, corrupt public officials, all kinds of cases. Now, they could appoint a new U.S. attorney there to remedy that problem and refile some of those cases. But it could mean a mad scramble for people who are working there," she noted.

Alina Habba ruling threatens to dismiss multiple criminal cases

 

[mandrill]

Trump's DOJ makes 'light on details' move to strip Comey of lawyer: report


In a late Sunday filing, described by Politico as “light on details,” federal prosecutors pursuing former FBI Director James Comey are attempting to boot his lead lawyer off the case.

The two DOJ attorneys, brought into the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. attorney’s office by newly appointed former insurance lawyer Lindsey Halligan to make the case that Comey is guilty of making false statements and obstructing a federal proceeding, want the defendant’s lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, to be barred for alleged actions they believe represent a conflict of interest.

Also Read: Dems have a golden chance to take down a key GOP senator. Here's how they'll blow it

The filing makes the claim that Fitzgerald was involved “in disclosures to the media shortly after President Donald Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017,” which they believe presents an “insurmountable” issue.

Politico reported that government prosecutors Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Diaz are asking U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff to step in with great “urgency” to “approve a proposal for a ‘filter team’ of lawyers to sift through evidence in Comey’s criminal case that could clarify Fitzgerald’s role in the eight-year-old disclosures — without breaching Comey’s attorney-client privilege.”


The prosecutors wrote, “Based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information. This fact raises a question of conflict and disqualification for current lead defense counsel.”

While not getting into details, the filing cites “a Justice Department Office of Inspector General report from 2019 that found Fitzgerald acted as a middleman when Comey sought to get information to the media about what he viewed as improper efforts by Trump to get him to pledge loyalty in the days before his firing.”

“The inspector general report found that some of the information Comey shared with his attorneys was classified and faulted him for sharing sensitive investigative information with outsiders and the media,” Politico reported. It "also found no evidence ‘that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media.”

The report goes on to point out that during Trump’s first administration the DOJ “declined to prosecute Comey or anyone else over the handling or disclosure of Comey’s memos about his conversations with Trump.”

 

[mandrill]

'Gross overreach': Trump admin accused of 'playing dirty pool' with new Comey move


Late Sunday night, October 19, Politico reported that federal prosectors "may seek to boot" Patrick Fitzerald — former FBI Director James Comey's main defense lawyer in the indictment against him — from the case because of "alleged involvement in disclosures to the media shortly after President Donald Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017."

"In a submission Sunday evening," according to Politico reporters Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney, "prosecutors suggested to U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff that Fitzgerald, Comey's lawyer and close friend, could have an insurmountable conflict of interest as a result of the disclosures. Fitzgerald is representing Comey in a criminal case ordered up by Trump and brought last month in Virginia, where Comey faces two felony charges for making a false statement and obstructing a federal proceeding."

Politico's reporting is generating a lot of comments on X, formerly Twitter.

Self-described "lifelong Democrat" Thomas Reich tweeted, "They'll probably prosecute Fitzpatrick as well. Meanwhile, most of the Jan 6th Insurrectionists walk free. Prosecutors may move to oust James Comey’s defense lawyer."

Referring to Lindsey Halligan — the Trump loyalist who is prosecuting the cases against Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James — physician Sue Jones commented, "A beauty pageant is saying her opinion on lawyers. Prosecutors may move to oust James Comey's defense lawyer."


Another X user, Adam E. Moreira, argued, "The motion against Halligan must be decided first. If she's ineligible to be the prosecutor, and because she participated in the grand jury phase, the indictment is void and the case is essentially over."

Read the full Politico article at this link.

 

[mandrill]

“Anna, Lindsey Halligan Here.”

My Signal exchange with the interim U.S. attorney about the Letitia James grand jury.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[mandrill]

Legal analysts say former FBI Director James Comey's new filing exposed what could be a fatal flaw in the Justice Department's case against him after his new filing turned the tables on the government, accusing President Donald Trump’s administration of weaponizing the law to punish a political enemy.

Comey submitted a court filing alleging selective or vindictive prosecution after he was indicted for lying to Congress in the Eastern District of Virginia. In the 93-page filing, Comey walks through that not only has he been personally targeted by the administration, but they are charging him for a statement that he never made.



Legal experts and political analysts sifted through the specifics to point out not only the misquoting of Comey in the indictment but also a key document that analysts think the Justice Department was trying to hide.

"The indictment misstates the exchange between Sen [Ted] Cruz (R-TX) and Mr. Comey," the filing says, as national security expert Marcy Wheeler pointed out. "Senator Cruz asked Mr. Comey to affirm or deny prior testimony that he authorized 'someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about . . . the Clinton Administration.' But Hillary Clinton was not elected, and Senator Grassley's original questioning in 2017 related to the 'Clinton investigation.'"


Wheeler also pointed out a paragraph which she says "key to how Comey tries to get beyond the high bar on vindictive: the way Halligan was installed to prosecute him."

The filing cites the "'government has followed unusual discretionary procedures in deciding to prosecute,' those aberrant procedures provide strong evidence that the prosecution was brought for an imroper reason. ... Here, President Trump's 'enforcement procedure' — the eleventh-hour appointment of a political ally for the express purpose of prosecuting a longtime critic, accompanied by a social media post pushing the DOJ to indict—is decisive evidence that the government would not have prosecuted Mr. Comey but for his 'expression of ideas' that President Trump disliked."

Lawyer P. Andrew Torrez, who co-hosts the "Law and Chaos" podcast, referred to U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan as well, but specifically noted that Comey's filing includes the "appointment order." It's a document, he notes, "that the government has been trying to hide for weeks. I think it means Halligan is not long for this job and the Comey Tish [Letitia] James indictments not long for this world."

"Halligan was appointed pursuant to 28 USC 546, which authorizes the appointment of an 'Interim' US Attorney for 120 days," Torrez added. "Once those 120 days are up, the 'interim' lawyer is out & only the judges in the district can appoint someone to stay on the job."

This was the same problem that Trump had with Alina Habba in New Jersey. She appealed and was in court on Monday to argue that case.

He thinks that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is about to rule against Habba. "If that's the case, the 120 days in the Eastern District of Virginia have LONG since expired. Erik Siebert was appointed as interim US Attorney on January 20, and his 120 days expired on May 21. The EDVa judges then invoked 546(d) to keep Siebert on the job. If Halligan wasn't validly appointed, then everything she's done has been ultra vires and void ab initio. That means the stuff she's done gets unwound."


‪The Atlantic's legal columnist Quinta Jurecic‬ ‪agreed with Torrez, "This strikes me as a potentially serious problem for the government!"

"Is [Attorney General Pam] Bondi that dumb?" asked national security lawyer Bradly P. Moss. "Did no one explain this to her when she signed the memo? The First Assistant was supposed to take over. Not Halligan."

Politico's Josh Gerstein referred to footnote seven that "Person 1 refers to Hillary Clinton and Person 3 refers to Daniel Richman." It was a conversation among legal analysts about who those individuals were in the grand jury indictment.


Legal experts in awe as Jim Comey hits back at Trump DOJ in new filing

 

[mandrill]

Supreme Court urged to leave ruling in place preventing Trump from deploying National Guard in Illinois

Lawyers representing the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago urged the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon to leave in place a ruling by a federal judge that prohibits […]

www.scotusblog.com

Lawyers representing the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago urged the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon to leave in place a ruling by a federal judge that prohibits the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Illinois. Illinois Solicitor General Jane Notz told the justices that “the unnecessary deployment of military troops, untrained for local policing, will escalate tensions and undermine the ordinary law enforcement activities of state and local entities, which would need to divert resources to maintain safety and order.”


The dispute is one of several over the Trump administration’s efforts to deploy National Guard troops, who are normally controlled by the states, to major cities. The Trump administration has cited the need to fight crime in those cities and to protect federal officials enforcing immigration laws to justify such deployments, although state and local government officials have pushed back against the Trump administration’s characterization of the conditions on the ground.


Trump authorized the deployment of 300 members of the National Guard to Chicago earlier this month. He relied on a federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard for federal service when there is an invasion or a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or when he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”


U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 9 that blocked the federal government “from ordering the federalization and deployment of the National Guard of the United States within Illinois” for two weeks. Perry explained in an opinion on Oct. 10 accompanying her order that although she did “not doubt that there have been acts of vandalism, civil disobedience, and even assaults on federal agents,” she did not regard declarations by federal officials to support the government’s contentions as “reliable.”


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit last week upheld the portion of Perry’s order that barred the government from deploying the National Guard in Illinois. In an unsigned order, the court of appeals concluded that “[t]he spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority.” Moreover, the court added, “there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws.”


U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer came to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking the justices to intervene. Sauer contended that Perry’s order “cause irreparable harm to the Executive Branch by countermanding the President’s authority as Commander in Chief, jeopardizing the lives and safety of DHS officers, and preventing the President and the Secretary of War from taking reasonable and lawful measures to protect federal personnel from the violent resistance that has persisted in the Chicago area for several months.”


Shortly after receiving the Trump administration’s filing on Friday afternoon, the court directed Illinois and Chicago to file their responses by Monday at 5 p.m. EDT – a quick turnaround time. The court did not act on Sauer’s request for an administrative stay, which would allow the government to deploy troops while it considered the Trump administration’s request to pause Perry’s order.


Once the Trump administration has submitted its reply to Monday’s filings, the Supreme Court could act at any time.


The state and city offered several different arguments to support their contention that the justices should stay out of the dispute right now. First, they suggested, the Supreme Court is ultimately “highly unlikely” to weigh in on the merits of the dispute – an important factor in determining whether to award temporary relief – because Perry’s order will expire in just three days, and because both the 7th Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, addressing a challenge to the deployment of the National Guard in California earlier this year, have applied the same legal analysis in addressing “the legal questions implicated by the federalization and deployment of the National Guard,” so there is no conflict among the lower courts requiring the court’s intervention.


Illinois and Chicago added that the Trump administration had not shown that it is likely to win on the merits of the dispute, another key factor in deciding whether to grant relief. According to them, the lower court was correct when it rejected the federal government’s contention that courts can never review the president’s decision to deploy the National Guard.


The federal government is also unlikely to prevail on its contention that it can deploy the National Guard because there is either a “rebellion” or an “inability to execute federal law,” Chicago and Illinois argued. Although the lower courts gave “a great level of deference” to Trump’s determination, they wrote, Perry concluded that “[t]he unrest” that the federal government “complain of has consisted entirely of opposition (indeed, sometimes violent) to a particular federal agency and the laws it is charged with enforcing. That is not opposition to the authority of the government as a whole.”


Illinois and Chicago also emphasized that the 7th Circuit’s order helped to guard against “any intrusion on ‘federal interests’ imposed by the 14-day TRO.” “That order,” they said, “which permitted the National Guard to remain federalized but temporarily prohibits the deployment of National Guard members in Chicago, acknowledges the federal interests in this space while imposing a temporary freeze of the status quo while this fast-moving and complex litigation proceeds.”


Separately, in a lengthy ruling on Monday afternoon, a divided 9th Circuit panel temporarily paused an order by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut that blocked the Trump administration from federalizing 200 members of the Oregon National Guard for 60 days. The majority concluded that “it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” allowing “the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’ The evidence the President relied on reflects a ‘colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’’”



Posted in Court News, Emergency appeals and applications, Featured



Cases: Trump v. Illinois

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An appeals court on Monday put on hold a lower-court ruling that kept President Donald Trump from taking command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. However, Trump is still barred from actually deploying those troops, at least for now.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued two temporary restraining orders early this month — one that prohibited Trump from calling up the troops so he could send them to Portland, and another that prohibited him from sending any National Guard members to Oregon at all, after the president tried to evade the first order by deploying California troops instead.



People wearing costumes protest outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, at right, on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)© The Associated Press
The Justice Department appealed the first order, and in a 2-1 ruling Monday, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the administration. The majority said the president was likely to succeed on his claim that he had the authority to federalize the troops based on a determination he was unable to enforce the laws without them.



Law enforcement officers walk back to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as people protest on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)© The Associated Press
However, Immergut’s second order remains in effect, so no troops may immediately be deployed.

The administration has said that because the legal reasoning underpinning both temporary restraining orders was the same, the second one was also invalid, and the majority opinion also said the two TROs “rise or fall together.”

Soon after the ruling Monday, the Justice Department asked Immergut to immediately dissolve her second order, which would allow Trump to deploy troops to Portland. The Justice Department argued that it is not the role of the courts to second-guess the president’s determination about when to deploy troops.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision staying the first TRO is a significant change in law that plainly warrants dissolution of this Court’s second TRO,” the administration's lawyers wrote.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, said he would ask for a broader panel of the appeals to reconsider the decision.

“Today’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification," Rayfield said. “We are on a dangerous path in America.”

The Justice Department did not return an email seeking comment.

Trump's efforts to deploy National Guard troops in Democratic-led cities have been mired in legal challenges. A judge in California ruled that his deployment of thousands of National Guard troops in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a longstanding law that generally prohibits the use of the military for civilian policing, and the administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area,

Mostly small nightly protests, limited to a single block, have been occurring since June outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland. Larger crowds, including counterprotesters and live-streamers, have shown up at times, and federal agents have used tear gas to disperse the demonstrators.



Law enforcement officers watch from a ledge on the a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, at right, as people in costumes protest on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)© The Associated Press
The administration has said the troops are needed to protect federal property from protesters, and that having to send extra Department of Homeland Security agents to help guard the property meant they were not enforcing immigration laws elsewhere.

Immergut previously rejected the administration's arguments, saying the president’s claims about Portland being war-torn are “simply untethered to the facts.” But the appeals court majority — Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, both Trump appointees — said the president's decision was owed more deference.


'The fight is not over' says Oregon governor after US appeals court blocks troops deployment for now
Bade wrote that the facts appeared to support Trump's decision “even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media.”

Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton appointee, dissented. She urged her colleagues on the 9th Circuit to “to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.”

“In the two weeks leading up to the President’s September 27 social media post, there had not been a single incident of protesters’ disrupting the execution of the laws,” Graber wrote. “It is hard to understand how a tiny protest causing no disruptions could possibly satisfy the standard that the President is unable to execute the laws.”

___

Johnson reported from Seattle.

Claire Rush And Gene Johnson, The Associated Press

US appeals court says Trump can take command of Oregon troops though deployment blocked for now

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump reportedly appears to be demanding the U.S. Department of Justice pay him $230 million in compensation after multiple investigations during his presidential campaign.

"The situation has no parallel in American history, as Mr. Trump, a presidential candidate, was pursued by federal law enforcement and eventually won the election, taking over the very government that must now review his claims," The New York Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported.

Noting that President Trump has installed his former personal lawyers at the top of the DOJ, the Times called it "the starkest example yet of potential ethical conflicts."

Trump, according to the Times, in 2023, submitted a claim that "seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the F.B.I. and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter."

READ MORE: Not a ‘Gut-Wrenching’ Problem: Ron Johnson Shrugs Off Millions Losing Subsidies

Another complaint, filed the following year, "accuses the F.B.I. of violating Mr. Trump’s privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents."

Bennett L. Gershman, an ethics professor at Pace University, told the Times it was "a travesty."

“The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don’t need a law professor to explain it,” Gershmann said. "And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him deciding whether he wins or loses. It’s bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe.”

Anger as Trump seeks $230 million payout from the government

 

[mandrill]

Trump presses Republicans to remove last obstacle for aggressive retribution


President Donald Trump has been able to have the Republican-controlled Senate confirm the vast bulk of his nominees — with the lone exception of his appointees for U.S. attorney offices.

Now, Politico is reporting that the president is leaning on his party to bulldoze the last remaining obstacle preventing his handpicked prosecutors from being fully confirmed. Trump told a gathering of Senate Republicans Tuesday that the long-standing "blue slip" procedure — in which senators from a nominee's home state have to submit "blue slips" agreeing to their nomination before it can move forward — was a "problem" that should be scrapped.

"You know, I have 10 U.S. attorneys who are phenomenal," Trump said. "And the problem is, they’re not going to ever be confirmed, I guess. I put them in, they’ll be there for three or four months, whatever it is, and then they have to leave."

The "blue slip" process is done for nominees for U.S. District court judgeships as well as U.S. attorney nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the committee, has so far refused Trump's demands, and promised to continue it indefinitely after the Senate gained a Republican majority after last November's election. The "blue slip" process has affected some of Trump's more controversial nominees, like Alina Habba for the U.S. Attorney's post in the District of New Jersey, with Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) each declining to return a blue slip.

"Anytime you have a Democrat senator, not even two, just one, they’ll say, because of the time we’re in, ‘we’re not approving that person,'" Trump said during the Tuesday lunch with senators.

“Because of blue slip, I have to tell the person after three months, I’m sorry you’ll have to leave and I’ll put someone else in,” he continued. “This is not constitutional. And I really, I hope you can look at that blue slip thing.”

Tuesday is just the latest example of Trump zeroing in on the "blue slip" tradition. In July, he called out Grassley on his Truth Social platform and slammed the "blue slip" procedure as a "hoax" and a "scam." He complained that despite being in the minority, Democrats had exploited the procedure to impose an "ironclad stoppage" on his nominees coming before the Judiciary Committee.

Click here to read Politico's full report.

 

[squeezer]

Yet the donkey MAGA rightie Trump supporters will cheer the conman on as he enriches his family ala Putin.

 

[mandrill]