update - Trump admin prosecution of "sandwich thrower" doesn't cut the mustard!

[mandrill]

Excessive force allegations against immigration agents are the focus of a Chicago court hearing


CHICAGO (AP) — Witnesses in a Chicago courtroom described Wednesday being hit with tear gas and claims by others that they were struck with rubber bullets and other objects as part of excessive force by authorities on protesters during demonstrations over the detainment of immigrants and federal immigration policies.



A demonstrator holds a sign reading "STOP BEATING PEOPLE" near a line of law enforcement as protesters gather outside an ICE processing facility in the Chicago suburb of Broadview, Ill., Saturday, Nov. 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)© The Associated Press
A federal judge is hearing testimony during a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit filed by news outlets and protesters.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs played a clip of senior Border Patrol official Greg Bovino grabbing and tackling a man to the ground during one demonstration outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, a suburb of Chicago.

Oak Park Township Trustee Juan Munoz said he was standing beside the man and was also knocked down and pinned by Bovino during the chaos. Munoz said Bovino also smacked his phone from his hands.



Law enforcement officers line up as protesters gather outside an ICE processing facility in the Chicago suburb of Broadview, Ill., Saturday, Nov. 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)© The Associated Press
Munoz said he was arrested and detained in the Broadview facility for eight hours. He has not returned to the facility to protest, Munoz added.

“I change how I operate in the world,” he testified. “I carry my passport. I’m afraid for my safety and my loved ones’ safety.”

Excessive force claims dog ICE agents

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis has already ordered agents to wear badges and banned them from using certain riot-control techniques, such as tear gas, against peaceful protesters and journalists. After repeatedly chastising federal officials for not following her previous orders, she added a requirement for body cameras.

Ellis will weigh how to respond to allegations that federal immigration agents in the Chicago area have used excessive force, following a surge of recent court filings detailing tense encounters between agents and local residents.

Craig Futterman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, noted recent examples of agents using tear gas on Chicago-area residents, including at a Halloween parade and outside a grocery store. He said Bovino, himself, has been filmed throwing tear gas canisters at protesters. A video of Bovino throwing a canister was played during Wednesday's hearing.

Justice Department lawyer Sarmad Khojasteh accused many protesters of threatening to kill law enforcement officers, impeding their duties and throwing rocks and other objects at agents.

“Such conduct must be rejected,” he said. “To what extent does the freedom of speech protect individuals in obstructing and/or threatening conduct — throwing rocks, bottles, fireworks, surrounding and pinning down law enforcement officials?”

But witnesses say the actions by agents have been unprovoked.

Witnesses say ICE actions not called for

Leslie Cortez, a youth organizer, said she was recording and explaining rights in Spanish to day laborers being arrested by ICE agents outside a Home Depot when one agent pointed a gun at her.

“I could see inside the barrel,” Cortez testified. “My heart accelerated. I was nervous they were going to shoot.”

Brendan Curran, a priest and co-founder of Priests for Justice for Immigrants, described being teargassed outside the Broadview facility.

“I observed federal agents launching projectiles from the corner of the roof at the people who were not armed and not violent in any way,” Curran said.

Chicago Newspaper Guild Executive Director Emily Steelhammer also took the stand, recounting how members of the union said they were hit with rubber bullets, pepper balls and chemical weapons, including tear gas. The incidents mostly occurred in Broadview, but also took place at other Chicago-area demonstrations, she said.

“Our journalists have been very careful about identifying themselves as press,” Steelhammer testified.

Actions by ICE's Bovino part of allegations

Wednesday's hearing follows Ellis’s questioning of Bovino at a public hearing last week, where she took the rare step of ordering him to brief her each evening on the federal immigration crackdown in Chicago. That move was swiftly blocked by an appeals court.


On Tuesday, Bovino appeared in court yet again for a deposition — a private interview — with lawyers from both sides. Parts of the videotaped deposition will be played in court Wednesday, according to court filings.

Court filings released late Monday night shed light on a previous deposition by Bovino in which he acknowledged tossing tear gas and being hit by a rock in the predominantly Mexican American Chicago neighborhood of Little Village last month. Bovino also testified that he has “instructed his officers to arrest protesters who make hyperbolic comments in the heat of political demonstrations," court records show.

Meanwhile, a federal judge is expected to rule Wednesday afternoon after a group of detainees filed a class-action lawsuit against federal authorities, alleging “inhuman” conditions at a Chicago-area immigration facility.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman called the alleged conditions “unnecessarily cruel” after hearing people held at the facility detail overflowing toilets, crowded cells, no beds and water that “tasted like sewer.” He called for the hearing to reconvene at 4:15 p.m. local time Wednesday so that he can issue a temporary restraining order to address the conditions.

Christine Fernando, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Judge in Comey case scolds prosecutors as he orders them to produce records from probe


ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered prosecutors in the criminal case of former FBI Director James Comey to produce to defense lawyers a trove of materials from the investigation, saying he was concerned the Justice Department’s position had been to “indict first" and investigate second.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick instructed prosecutors to produce by the end of the day on Thursday grand jury materials and other evidence that investigators seized during the investigation. The order followed arguments in which Comey’s attorneys said they were at a disadvantage because they had not been able to yet review information that was collected years ago as part of an investigation into FBI media leaks.



FILE - Former FBI Director James Comey speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill Washington, Dec. 17, 2018. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)© The Associated Press
Comey, who attended the hearing but did not speak, is charged with lying to Congress in 2020 in a case filed days after President Donald Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute the former FBI director and other perceived political enemies. Comey has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers have argued that it's a vindictive prosecution brought at the direction of the Republican president and must be dismissed.


Fitzpatrick raised his own concerns, telling lawyers on Wednesday, “The procedural posture of this case is highly unusual.” He said it appeared to him that the Justice Department had decided to “indict first” and investigate later.

Comey's defense lawyers had already asked for a transcript of grand jury proceedings, citing irregularities in the process and potential legal and factual errors that they said could result in the dismissal of the case.

The judge granted that request and ordered prosecutors to produce to defense lawyers evidence seized through search warrants in 2019 and 2020 from Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and close friend of Comey.

Richman factors into the case because prosecutors say that Comey had encouraged him to engage with reporters about matters related to the FBI and that Comey therefore lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he denied five years ago having authorized media leaks. But Comey’s lawyers say he was explicitly responding to a question about whether he had authorized former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to serve as an anonymous source.

Comey’s lawyers told the judge they had not reviewed the materials taken from Richman, who had earlier served as a lawyer for Comey, and thus could not know what information was privileged and may have been improperly used as evidence.

“We’re going to fix that, and we’re going to fix that today,” the judge said.

Comey's indictment came days after Trump in a social media post called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against Comey and other longtime foes of the president. The indictment was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide and Trump lawyer who was installed as U.S. attorney after the longtime prosecutor who had been overseeing the investigation resigned under administration pressure to indict Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The Justice Department in court papers earlier this week defended the president's social media post, contending it reflects “legitimate prosecutorial motive” and is no basis to dismiss the indictment.

Eric Tucker, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Judge deals another loss to Trump for 'lawless' order on transportation funds


A federal judge dealt President Donald Trump's administration another loss after barring it from withholding transportation funds to states that fail to comply with federal immigration priorities.

U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. imposed a permanent injunction Tuesday against the U.S. Department of Transportation after finding the administration had “blatantly overstepped” its authority by placing immigration-related conditions on federal funding, reported Rhode Island Current.



"None of the statutes cited by DOT expressly afford it the kind of sweeping authority it claims," McConnell wrote, "and those statutes governing specific transportation grant programs that contain lists of defined terms and conditions followed by catch-all provisions affording DOT latitude to determine additional terms and conditions cannot be reasonably read as conferring on DOT the power to make those additional terms and conditions utterly unrelated to either the preceding terms or the goals of the specific transportation grant program at issue."

“The Constitution demands the court set aside this lawless behavior,” McConnell added.



A group of 20 states, led by California, filed a lawsuit in Providence in May challenging Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's directive laying out the administration's requirements for receiving congressionally approved funds.

“Federal grants come with a clear obligation to adhere to federal laws,” Duffy said when the directive was issued in April. “It shouldn’t be controversial — enforce our immigration rules, end anti-American DEI policies, and protect free speech.”

DOT attorneys argued the statute governing the agency allows it to impose conditions on grant agreements, but McConnell found the conditions were not related to transportation issues.

“Had Congress wished to try to make federal transportation funding contingent on cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement, it could certainly have attempted to do so,” wrote McConnell, a Barack Obama appointee. "Absent any clear indication of such an attempt, the Court declines to find that DOT was vested with the sweeping power it asserts in setting a condition that is so obviously unrelated to the grant programs it administers."

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, a Democrat who has served since 2019, praised McConnell's ruling as a blow against the president.

“It should go without saying that the ability of Rhode Islanders to travel on safe roads and bridges cannot hang on the political whims of one man,” Neronha said in a statement.

McConnell's ruling was the second loss he delivered against the Trump administration in recent days after ordering the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Friday to tap into contingency funds to prevent a lapse in benefits to households who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The USDA promised Monday it would provide partial payments to beneficiaries, and plaintiffs in the case have asked McConnell to issue a temporary restraining order to ensure the agency follows through after Trump posted on social media that funding would not resume until the government reopens.

 

[bver_hunter]

Trump is a liar, and that is why he is set to lose yet another of his false allegations in Court!!

'Utterly defies reality': Trump can't simply demand court 'ignore' existence of Jeffrey Epstein birthday letter Congress revealed, WSJ tells judge

Attorneys for the Wall Street Journal doubled down on demands to throw out Donald Trump's billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, casting it as absurd the president won't acknowledge that a 50th birthday letterwhich infamous sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein's estate handed to Congress matches the "bawdy" letter referenced in the Rupert Murdoch newspaper's reporting.

In further support of arguments seeking dismissal with prejudice, so the case can't be filed again, the Journal said Wednesday that there's no basis for U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles to heed Trump's "demands" to "ignore" the House Oversight Committee's document dump, since it "confirms the accuracy" of the very article the president alleges to be defamatory.

"President Trump will never be able to establish that the Article is materially false because Congress has released the Birthday Book, which contains a letter bearing President Trump's name, identical in appearance and content to the Article's description," court documents said. "In response, President Trump implores the Court to pay no attention to the Committee's publication of the Birthday Book because it is 'outside the "four corners" of the Complaint' (which pleads it is 'fake' and 'nonexistent')."

"This argument is meritless," the Journal continued, also throwing cold water on Trump's reliance on former Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz's defamation lawsuit against CNN.

That case, the filing said, "recognized" that a federal judge can take notice of the existence of a "government publication," which the Epstein birthday book and the letters therein are by virtue of Congress' release of them.

Trump's attorney Alejandro Brito weeks ago vehemently resisted any conclusion that the letter referenced in the report and the letter released by Congress are the same.

"At most, the document shows that a letter was appended or referred to in a legislative press release—but nothing within any of the documents for which Defendant seeks judicial notice establishes that Exhibit 5 is the same letter referenced in the Article," Brito wrote.

The Jeffrey Epstein birthday book letter, signed by 'Donald' (House Oversight Committee via Epstein's estate)
In July, the newspaper reported that the "bawdy" letter included a drawing of a "sketch" of a naked woman's body with "Donald" signed "below her waist" seemingly "mimicking pubic hair." The letter also contained a "typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person," which included the line: "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret."

Trump threatened to sue the WSJ prior to the publication, then immediately sued the next day in federal court, claiming that "no authentic letter or drawing exists."

After Congress released the Epstein estate documents in September, the White House shifted to say Trump did not sign the letter or draw it.

The original theory of the Trump lawsuit was that the letter was "nonexistent" and made up by the Journal's reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo with actual malice, harming the president's reputation to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Crucially, the WSJ now answers that it "utterly defies reality" for Trump to claim that the letter referenced in the report and the letter released by Congress aren't the "same," because the quotes match up.

"[E]ven if the letter that Defendants reviewed is not the same letter produced by the Epstein estate and released by the House Oversight Committee—a proposition that utterly defies reality given that the Article directly quotes the letter released by the Oversight Committee—the Article is nonetheless true because it accurately describes the letter," the filing went on.

Trump's legal team, on the other hand, did not accurately quote the article when attempting to defeat the motion to dismiss, the defendants needled the plaintiff.

"President Trump simply misquotes the Article, asserting that it describes a letter about a 'common secret' that he had with Epstein," the reply noted. "But the Article never says this. It reports on a letter bearing the President's signature that includes the line, 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' This vague phrase has no readily discernible meaning, and it certainly does not say that the President and Epstein share a 'common secret.'"

The newspaper asked Gayles, a Barack Obama appointee, to take judicial notice of several exhibits, including the entire Epstein birthday book and the letter at issue, so the jurist can "consider them" when deciding the motion to dismiss.

The Journal argued that Trump "does not and cannot dispute" that the documents released to Congress pursuant to a subpoena are "authentic" insofar as they are "actual documents from the Epstein estate produced to Congress and subsequently released by Congress to the public."

"Defendants ask the Court to consider these documents to establish that there was, in fact, a book of letters compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday, one of those letters bore President Trump's name and signature, and that letter contained a fictional conversation between President Trump and Epstein as well as a doodle of a naked woman," the filing explained. "They are not asking this Court to determine what was or was not seen by Wall Street Journal reporters."

Again defending the article as "true," the Journal said its report made no claim that Trump wrote the letter but merely stated a letter existed which "bore President Trump's name and signature" and that the letter was included among many other submissions for Epstein's 50th birthday book. In addition, the newspaper said, the report noted the president denied he authored the letter.

Trump can't credibly tell judge to 'ignore' existence of Epstein letter Congress released: WSJ

WSJ said there's no basis for the court to "ignore" the House Oversight Committee's document dump, since it "confirms the accuracy of the Article" Trump alleges to be defamatory.

lawandcrime.com

 

[mandrill]

Supreme Court lets Trump block transgender and nonbinary people from choosing passport sex markers


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to enforce a policy blocking transgender and nonbinary people from choosing passport sex markers that align with their gender identity.

The decision by the conservative-majority court is Trump’s latest win on the high court’s emergency docket, and it means his administration can enforce the policy while a lawsuit over it plays out. It halts a lower-court order requiring the government to keep letting people choose male, female or X on their passport to line up with their gender identity on new or renewed passports. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.

In a brief, unsigned order, the court said the policy doesn't appear to discriminate against transgender people. “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” it said. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."

The court’s three liberal justices disagreed, saying in a dissent that passports listing only a gender at birth make transgender people vulnerable to “increased violence, harassment, and discrimination.”

“This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, saying the policy stemmed directly from Trump’s executive order that described transgender identity as “false” and “corrosive.”

The State Department changed its passport rules after Trump, a Republican, handed down an executive order in January declaring the United States would “recognize two sexes, male and female,” based on birth certificates and “biological classification.”

Transgender actor Hunter Schafer, for example, said in February that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker, even though she’s marked female on her driver’s license and passport for years.

The plaintiffs argue that passports limited to the sex listed on a birth certificate can spark harassment or even violence for transgender people.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely,” attorneys wrote in court documents.

Sex markers began appearing on passports in the mid-1970s and the federal government started allowing them to be changed with medical documentation in the early 1990s, the plaintiffs said in court documents. A 2021 change under President Joe Biden, a Democrat, removed documentation requirements and allowed nonbinary people to choose an X gender marker after years of litigation.

A judge blocked the Trump administration policy in June after a lawsuit from nonbinary and transgender people, some of whom said they were afraid to submit applications. An appeals court left the judge’s order in place.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer then turned to the Supreme Court, pointing to its recent ruling upholding a ban on transition-related health care for transgender minors. He also argued Congress gave the president control over passports, which overlap with his authority over foreign affairs.


“It is hard to imagine a system less conducive to accurate identification than one in which anyone can refuse to identify his or her sex and withhold relevant identifying information for any reason, or can rely on a mutable sense of self-identification,” Sauer wrote in court documents.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Chicago judge says Border Patrol official lied about threats before restricting agents' use force


CHICAGO (AP) — A federal judge in Chicago will issue an extensive injunction restricting federal agents' use of force, saying Thursday that a top Border Patrol official leading an immigration crackdown repeatedly lied about threats posed by protesters and reporters.

The preliminary injunction detailed in court Thursday came in response to a lawsuit filed by news outlets and protesters who allege federal agents have used excessive force during the operation that has netted more than 3,000 arrests and led to heated clashes across the nation’s third-largest city and its many suburbs.

Hundreds of community members, parents, and elected officials attend a rally at Northcenter Town Square, in support of "Ms. Diana" an educator who was detained by federal law enforcement officers at Rayito de Sol Spanish Immersion Early Learning Center this morning, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Chicago. (Tyler Pasciak LaRiviere/Chicago Sun-Times via AP)© The Associated Press
“I see little reason for the use of force that the federal agents are currently using,” said U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis. “I don’t find defendants’ version of events credible."

Ellis said her order will prevent the “chilling of First Amendment rights” from excessive force, and among other things, will require agents to give two warnings before using riot control weapons. A written order is expected to follow.

The Chicago area crackdown, part of the Trump administration's growing federal intervention in Democratic strongholds, has triggered a litany of court action, including forcing improvements at a federal immigration facility activists say is a de facto detention center and blocking a National Guard deployment.

Maria Guzman and other parents of young children speak outside of Rayito de Sol Spanish Immersion Early Learning Center after an employee of the preschool was arrested by federal immigration agents, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Erin Hooley)© The Associated Press
Thursday's ruling, which is expected to be appealed by President Donald Trump’s administration, refines an earlier temporary order that required agents to wear badges and banned them from using certain riot-control techniques, such as tear gas, against peaceful protesters and journalists. After repeatedly chastising federal officials for not following her previous orders, she added a requirement for body cameras.

Maria Guzman, a parent of young children, is emotional after speaking outside of Rayito de Sol Spanish Immersion Early Learning Center after an employee of the preschool was arrested by federal immigration agents, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Erin Hooley)© The Associated Press
In delivering the injunction, Ellis quoted former late presidents including George Washington and a famous poem about Chicago by Carl Sandburg. She described protesters and advocates facing tear gas, having guns pointed at them and being thrown to the ground, saying “that would cause a reasonable person to think twice about exercising their fundamental rights.”

A day earlier, attorneys for both sides repeatedly clashed in court over accounts of several tense incidents since the immigration crackdown began in September. Several involved Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol commander who has led the crackdown, including an incident where he threw a cannister of gas a crowd after alleging he was hit by a rock.

Ellis said Bovino walked back the claim about the rock after video evidence didn't show it to be true.

“Bovino admitted that he lied,” she said.

She also noted that Bovino denied using force on a man he was filmed “obviously tackling” to the ground.

Bovino, who led a similar operation in Los Angeles, has been forced to sit for hours of closed-door depositions related to growing legal challenges stemming from “Operation Midway Blitz.” Clips of the private interviews, where Bovino is dressed in his green Border Patrol uniform and at times evasive, were played in court, along with body camera footage.

Hundreds of community members, parents, and elected officials attend a rally at Northcenter Town Square, in support of "Ms. Diana" an educator who was detained by federal law enforcement officers at Rayito de Sol Spanish Immersion Early Learning Center this morning, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Chicago. (Tyler Pasciak LaRiviere/Chicago Sun-Times via AP)© The Associated Press
Bovino —head of a Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California — has repeatedly defended agents' use of force, while also dodging questions about Border Patrol agents tactics. He oversees nearly 230 agents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection that have been in the Chicago area.

In court Thursday, an attorney representing the federal government said Bovino has a body-worn camera after Ellis required him to get one and completed the training for using it at a previous hearing.

A message left Thursday for the Department of Homeland Security wasn’t immediately returned.

During Wednesday's eight-hour hearing, witnesses gave emotional testimony when describing experiencing tear gas, being shot in the head with pepper balls while praying, and having guns pointed at them when recording agents in residential streets.

Ellis questioned witnesses about how these experiences impacted them and if they prevented them from protesting again. One after another, witnesses described their anxiety about returning to protests or advocacy work.

“I get really nervous because it just feels like I'm not safe,” Leslie Cortez, a youth organizer in the Chicago suburb of Cicero, told Ellis. “And I question my safety when I go out.”

Christine Fernando And Sophia Tareen, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Judge must reconsider Trump push to move felony conviction to federal court: appeals panel


A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled Friday that it “cannot be confident” a lower judge adequately considered President Donald Trump’s arguments as he sought to move his hush money criminal conviction case to federal court, The Hill reports.

Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York in connection with a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. He was sentenced to an unconditional discharge (no prison time or probation), and his legal team has formally appealed the conviction.

Trump wants to move the case out of New York state court, The Hill reports, "so he can try to convince a federal judge that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling compels tossing the jury’s 34-count guilty verdict."

The trio of appeals court judges have seemingly opened the door to this consideration, writing, "The court bypassed what we consider to be important issues bearing on the ultimate issue of good cause."

While the panel offered no opinion on "whether Trump’s strategy should ultimately succeed," they write, they did say that "the lower judge needs to reconsider his prior ruling."

“We leave it to the able and experienced District Judge to decide whether to solicit further briefing from the parties or hold a hearing to help it resolve these issues,” the panel wrote.

 

[mandrill]

Federal judge 'sharply rebukes' Trump admin for defying his order: report


A federal judge issued a "sharp rebuke" of President Donald Trump's repeated attempts to prevent food assistance money from being distributed to people in need, according to a new report.

On Thursday, Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney reported on comments U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island made during a hearing over the Trump administration's efforts to rescind congressionally approved funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.




McConnell had previously ordered the administration to begin disbursing the funds on November 5. On Thursday, the administration admitted it had only approved a partial disbursement of benefits. Cheney reported that McConnellwasn't happy with the administration's response.

The judge went on to say that Trump's Truth Social post was essentially anadmission of his "intent to defy the court order when he said 'SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens,'" Cheney wrote. As a result, "people will go hungry, food pantries will be burdened and … suffering will occur."




"It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here," McConnell continued.

The judge also said that the president and his allies have admitted publicly to withholding SNAP benefits for "political reasons" rather than to preserve child nutrition programs, which the judge said was a pretext."

McConnell ordered that the Department of Agriculture, which runs SNAP, must now make the full payments by tomorrow.

See the full thread from Cheney here.

 

[mandrill]

Senate Republicans vote down legislation to limit Trump’s ability to attack Venezuela


WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans voted to reject legislation Thursday that would have put a check on President Donald Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela, as Democrats pressed Congress to take a stronger role in Trump’s high-stakes campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.



Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., speaks with reporters about President Donald Trump's foreign policy intentions, with Venezuela in particular, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 6, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)© The Associated Press
Lawmakers, including top Republicans, have demanded that the Trump administration provide them with more information on the U.S. military strikes against alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. But Thursday’s vote, on legislation that would essentially forestall an attack on Venezuelan soil without congressional authorization, suggested Republicans are willing to give Trump leeway to continue his buildup of naval forces in the region.



Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., leaves a meeting room where he and other Senate Democrats at the Capitol are looking for a solution to the spending impasse, in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 6, 2025, day 37 of the government shutdown. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)© The Associated Press
“President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” said Sen. Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Still, the vote allowed Democrats to press their GOP colleagues on Trump’s threats against Venezuela. The legislation failed to advance 49-51, with Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska the only Republicans voting in favor.

The U.S. is assembling an unusually large force, including its most advanced aircraft carrier, in the Caribbean Sea, leading many to conclude that Trump intends to go beyond just intercepting cocaine-running boats. The campaign so far has killed at least 66 people in 16 known strikes.

“It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change,” said Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who pushed the resolution. “If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking — involvement in a war — then Congress needs to be heard on this.”

Some Republicans are uneasy with Caribbean campaign

Republican leadership pressed Thursday to make sure the legislation failed, but several senators still carefully considered their vote.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, another Republican who voted against the resolution, said that he still has doubts about the campaign. He pointed out that it was expensive to change the deployment location for an aircraft carrier and questioned whether those funds could be better used at the U.S.-Mexico border to stop fentanyl trafficking.

Tillis said that if the campaign continues for several months more, “then we have to have a real discussion about whether or not we’re engaging in some sort of hybrid war.”

Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, said in a statement that he voted against the legislation because he didn’t believe it was “necessary or appropriate at this time.”

But he added that he was “troubled by many aspects and assumptions of this operation and believe it is at odds with the majority of Americans who want the U.S. military less entangled in international conflicts.”

The push for congressional oversight

As the Trump administration has reconfigured U.S. priorities overseas, there has been a growing sense of frustration among lawmakers, including some Republicans, who are concerned about recent moves made by the Pentagon.

At a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier Thursday, Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chair, said that many senators have “serious concerns about the Pentagon’s policy office” and that Congress was not being consulted on recent actions like putting a pause on Ukraine security assistance, reducing the number of U.S. troops in Romania and the formulation of the National Defense Strategy.

GOP senators have directed their ire at the Department of Defense's policy office, which is led by Elbridge Colby, an official who has advocated for the U.S. to step down its involvement in international alliances.

“It just seems like there’s this pigpen-like mess coming out of the policy shop,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, during another Armed Services hearing earlier this week.

As pushback has mounted on Capitol Hill, the Trump administration has stepped up its outreach to lawmakers. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a classified briefing for congressional leaders Wednesday. The officials gave details on the intelligence that is used to target the boats and allowed senators to review the legal rationale for the attacks, but did not discuss whether they would launch an attack directly against Venezuela, according to lawmakers in the meeting.


Still, Democrats have tested the unease among Republicans by forcing the vote on the potential for an attack on Venezuela under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was intended to reassert congressional power over the declaration of war. A previous war powers vote pertaining to the strikes against boats in international waters also failed last month on a 48-51 vote, but Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who pushed the legislation, said he still plans to force more votes.

“We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress. The lives of our troops are at stake,” Kaine said in a floor speech.

Democrats also argued that the Trump administration was using a flimsy legal defense for an expansive military campaign that is putting U.S. troops and the nation’s reputation at risk. Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services panel, charged that Trump is engaging in “violence without a strategic objective” while failing to take actions that would actually address fentanyl smuggling.

“You cannot bomb your way out of a drug crisis,” he said.

Stephen Groves, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Trump has options if the Supreme Court blocks him from imposing 'emergency' tariffs


WASHINGTON — Countries around the world — Canada included — are waiting anxiously as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether President Donald Trump has the authority to continue using his favoured tariff tool.

No matter which way the court jumps, however, the Trump administration is expected to maintain some level of tariffs on the United States' trade partners.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday it would be "devastating" for the country if the top court rules against him, "but I also think we will have to develop a game two plan."

The conservative-led U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday related to two separate legal challenges of Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for tariffs.

Trump used the national security statute, better known as IEEPA, to impose his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs and fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico and China.

Trump's top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, faced pointed questions when he appeared before the court Wednesday. Several justices voiced skepticism about the president's use of IEEPA when the statute itself does not include the word "tariff" or any of its synonyms.

The justices closely examined the language in the act — particularly the wording about the president's power to "regulate" imports — to determine whether that allows for Trump's wide-ranging tariffs.




Sauer argued that Trump is using IEEPA to regulate foreign commerce rather than raise money — despite Trump's repeated public claims that the duties are making America rich.

The U.S. Constitution reserves power over taxation and tariffs for Congress. The justices wrestled with the broader implications of handing wide-ranging tariff powers to the president.

Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that once that power was given to a president, it would be next to impossible for Congress to get it back.

"It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives," Gorsuch said.

The lawyers arguing against Trump's tariffs were also challenged by the justices on the broad language in IEEPA, said King & Spalding partner Ryan Majerus, a former assistant general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative during the first Trump administration.

The conservative majority justices on the Supreme Court have been hesitant to rein in the unprecedented expansion of executive power during Trump's second term.

But during Wednesday's hearing, Supreme Court conservatives Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett all hinted they were reluctant to endorse the Trump administration's sweeping interpretation of the president's tariff powers — suggesting they could join the three liberal justices in limiting those powers.

America's top court could have until June to issue a ruling but it's expected to come sooner.

Majerus said he's not convinced the court will go so far as to rule that IEEPA never allows tariffs.

The justices might conclude that IEEPA is broad enough to allow tariffs in certain instances, he said — but they might also set guardrails or require that tariffs be more clearly tethered to the specific emergency cited by the president.

"It seems plausible to think that that will mean a huge chunk, if not all of the tariffs imposed by the president ... didn't meet that test," said Majerus, who is also a former assistant secretary for enforcement and compliance at the U.S. Department of Commerce's international trade administration.

That could fully nullify the 35 per cent economywide tariffs on Canada. Those duties do not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade.

Trump would not say Thursday which tariff options he's considering if the court rules against him — but he does have options.

Congress has passed laws over the past century that allow the president some control over tariffs in certain situations — but they all have more restrictions than IEEPA.

Trump might turn to Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if they're treating imports from other countries more favourably than products from the United States. Section 338 has never been used by a president before.


There's also Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. That law requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious balance-of-payments deficits. Those tariffs can only stay in place for 150 days before they require congressional approval to continue.

Majerus said he thinks the Trump administration would look to Section 122 for an immediate 15 per cent tariff and then launch country-focused Section 301 investigations.

"I think that they'll launch countrywide investigations covering seven or eight of our biggest trading partners," Majerus said. "So I would envision Canada is a possibility."

The Supreme Court’s decision will not affect Trump's expanding use of tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — tariffs that are already hammering Canada's steel, aluminum, automobile, lumber and copper industries.

Trump has indicated he plans to target more industries with these duties.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2025.

— With files from The Associated Press

Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press

 

[mandrill]

US judge rejects government's riot claims, restricts federal agents' use of force in Chicago


CHICAGO (Reuters) -A federal judge in Chicago on Thursday said immigration officials had lied about the nature of local protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the city, and ordered agents to restrict their use of tear gas and other anti-riot weapons in the area.

A man films a federal agent during an immigration in the Little Village neighborhood, after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered increased federal law enforcement presence to assist in crime prevention, in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Jim Vondruska© Thomson Reuters
At a hearing, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said she did not find government witnesses' allegations about violence at the protests in the country’s third-largest city to be credible, and cited several incidents where she said body camera video and other recordings directly contradicted what immigration officials said happened. She granted a request from a group of protesters, journalists and clergy members for a preliminary injunction restricting federal immigration agents’ use of force against them.

A rapid responder films federal agents during an immigration raid in the Little Village neighborhood, after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered increased federal law enforcement presence to assist in crime prevention, in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Jim Vondruska© Thomson Reuters
After having heard hours of testimony on Wednesday about incidents all over the city where agents used tear gas and pepper balls on protesters, journalists and clergy, Ellis agreed that the agents’ actions were chilling the plaintiffs' rights to free speech, free assembly and religious freedom in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Border Patrol commander-at-large Gregory Bovino, who is spearheading the immigration operation in Chicago, admitted during a deposition in the case that he lied about being hit with a rock before he threw tear gas at a crowd protesting in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood in October when he was actually hit afterwards, Ellis said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said agents are faced with violence from "rioters, gangbangers and terrorists."

"Despite these real dangers, our law enforcement shows incredible restraint in exhausting all options before force is escalated," the spokesperson said and noted the government would appeal. "This injunction is an extreme act by an activist judge that risks the lives and livelihoods of law enforcement officers."

Ellis said the Chicago she sees is neighbors looking out for the most vulnerable in their communities.

"The government would have people believe instead that the Chicagoland area is in a visehold of violence, ransacked by rioters, and attacked by agitators," she said. "That simply is untrue."

President Donald Trump, a Republican, has made Chicago a focus of his aggressive immigration enforcement since early September. Under Bovino's leadership in “Operation Midway Blitz,” federal agents have used tear gas in residential areas and forcibly subdued protesters while attempting to arrest people suspected of being in the country illegally, drawing criticism and legal scrutiny.

BODY CAMERAS

In her order, which remains in effect while the case proceeds, Ellis prohibited the use of anti-riot weapons against protesters unless there is a threat of imminent harm and directed immigration officials not to disperse, arrest or threaten journalists. She directed immigration agents to wear body cameras and clear identification. The order follows a similar temporary restraining order she issued last month, which expired today.



Federal agents stage during an immigration raid, after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered increased federal law enforcement presence to assist in crime prevention, in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Jim Vondruska© Thomson Reuters
Ellis had previously raised concerns that federal agents appeared to be violating her earlier order and had summoned Bovino to testify daily before her, but a U.S. appeals court later overturned that directive, ruling she had overstepped her role.

At a lengthy hearing on Wednesday, the plaintiffs spoke about violence they experienced during protests outside an immigration detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, and on residential streets in Chicago. Multiple people testified that agents had aimed guns at their heads after they filmed their activity, and a pastor spoke about being shot in the face with a pepper ball while praying.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Sarmad Khojasteh argued that in every instance, federal agents were justified in using force to respond to violence during the protests, which the government characterized as riots. He told the court that the protesters’ actions did not constitute protected speech, and noted that all the witnesses said they continued to protest despite their experiences.

Ellis pushed back on that argument on Wednesday, saying what mattered was whether they felt fear or apprehension before they went to protest. “The fact that people can be courageous is utterly irrelevant as to whether there was a chilling effect.”

(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Diane Craft)

 

[richaceg]

Trump is the most hardworking POTUS I've ever seen...

 

[Frankfooter]

Trump is the most hardworking POTUS I've ever seen...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986594426949431548

 

[richaceg]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1986594426949431548

Biden can't even write his own signature LMAO

 

[mandrill]

Serbia passes a special bill enabling Trump's son-in-law to build luxury compound despite opposition


BELGRADE, Serbia (AP) — Serbian lawmakers on Friday passed a special law clearing the way for a controversial real estate project that would be financed by an investment company linked to Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner despite widespread public opposition and legal hurdles.

The project seeks to redevelop a landmark military complex in central Belgrade that was partially destroyed in a NATO bombing campaign in 1999, turning it into a luxury compound with a high-rise hotel, offices and shops.

The special bill was approved with a 130-40 vote in the 250-member parliament after days of heated parliamentary debate and street protests by opponents.

Serbia’s government last year stripped the complex of its protected status and signed a 99-year-lease agreement with Kushner-related Affinity Global Development, based in the U.S. But the project stalled after Serbia’s organized crime prosecutors launched an investigation into whether documents used to remove that status were forged.

While the pro-Trump populist government of President Aleksandar Vucic says the project would boost both the economy and ties with the current U.S. administration, the plan has met fierce opposition from experts because of the building’s architectural significance — and because it is seen a symbol of resistance to the U.S.-led NATO bombing, widely viewed in the Balkan country as an unjust “aggression.”



A giant Serbian flag is seen on a building near former Yugoslav army headquarters destroyed in a U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign in 1999, right, in Belgrade, Serbia, Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic)© The Associated Press
The special law, known as Lex Specialis in Latin, allows authorities to push forward work on the site, including demolition of what remains of the two sprawling buildings seen as prime examples of mid-20th century architecture in the former Yugoslavia.



A pigeon flies through former Yugoslav army headquarters destroyed in a U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign in 1999, left, is seen in Belgrade, Serbia, Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic)© The Associated Press
The bill does not mention Kushner’s company or details of any future development projects.

“We are demolishing the ruins in order to build,” populist Serbian Progressive Party lawmaker Milenko Jovanov said in defense of the project during the debate.

Critics say the special bill undermines Serbia’s legal system. Corruption watchdog Transparency Serbia has warned it “represents a combination of the two most dangerous forms of corruption — the legalization of law violations and the tailoring of general rules to fit hidden interests in one specific case.”

Vucic has claimed the ongoing judicial investigation was launched based on demands from abroad to "prevent Serbia from establishing better relations with the Trump administration.”

The $500-million luxury compound project would include a high-rise hotel, a luxury apartment complex, office spaces and shops. Authorities say Kushner’s company has committed to building a memorial complex within the site, dedicated to all victims of the NATO bombing campaign.

As the debate started earlier this week, hundreds of protesters rallied outside the Serbian parliament building with banners reading: “Culture is not for sale, we will not give up the general staff" building.

Opposition lawmaker Aleksandar Jovanovic described the law as a “crime” that would replace a heritage site with “casinos and Jacuzzis.”

Zdravko Ponos, a former Serbian army commander-in-chief who is now an opposition party leader, told lawmakers from the governing party that “you will demolish something that is a symbol for this nation.”

“With the agreement you signed with the most important son-in-law on the planet, you have obliged to tear this down and clear at the cost of Serbia's taxpayers,” Ponos said.

Serbia was bombed in 1999 for 78 days to force then-President Slobodan Milosevic, to end his crackdown on separatist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Anti-NATO sentiments in Serbia remain strong to this day and many feel the U.S. role in revamping the army headquarters is particularly sensitive.

In the past year, Vucic has faced youth-led protests shaking his grip on power. Protesters have accused his government of rampant corruption in state projects. The protests started after a concrete canopy collapsed at a train station in the northern city of Novi Sad after renovation, killing 16 people.

Tens of thousands of people on Nov. 1 marked the tragedy's anniversar y in the city of Novi Sad.

Earlier this year, the government in Albania, another Balkan country, approved a $1.6 billion plan from Kushner’s company for investment off its Adriatic coast that envisages turning a communist-era fortified island into a luxury resort.

Jovana Gec, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]