Altruistic World Online Library

BREAKING: Trump Admin Sent INNOCENT People to El Salvador Prison
by Tim Miller
The Bulwark
Mar 20, 2025 Bulwark Takes

Tim Miller takes on shocking new revelations about Trump’s immigration policies: innocent Venezuelan refugees—including a pro soccer player—were secretly deported to a prison camp in El Salvador. Tim demands accountability, challenges both Republicans and Democrats to act, and exposes the cruelty at the heart of Trump’s ICE. Seriously, you don’t want to miss this one.



Transcript

Hey guys, it's Tim Miller from the Bulwark.
We have breaking news regarding these
illegal flights that the Trump
Administration put Venezuelan refugees
on to the El Salvador prison camp that
I've Been Losing My Mind Over on
several videos and podcasts of late.
And this one I think Ben Wht said I
had steam blowing out of my ears
yesterday. For this one I'm a goddamn red
fire hydrant, and there's just water
blowing up out of every orifice. I am
I'm enraged; I'm on fire about the
reported news about what we did to a
young man who was
fleeing oppression, fleeing communism,
trying to come to this country, trying to
do so legally as so many had done since
1776, since before 1776.

Anyway, let me let
me read you the details here. This is
from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick.
We did we did an interview with him,
Bill Kristol did last weekend -- I'll put
the link in this feed, who is a very good
immigration analyst. I'd recommend you
watch it. He writes this sworn
declaration filed last night that confirms
the Trump Administration sent innocent
people to rot in prison in El Salvador,
including a professional soccer player
tortured by the Maduro regime, who
entered this country legally to seek
asylum, and has no criminal record in
either country. How did this happen? How
did a Venezuelan fleeing
communism get put on a plane to El
Salvador to go to that goddamn dystopian
torture camp? Why, how did that happen?
How did we do that? Well, I'm about to tell you how. And
let me tell you, before I tell you how,
here's what I really think this is
the nuts of this. The people that
are responsible for this, in a just world,
would go to prison themselves,
and Stephen Miller should be fearing
prison for himself for doing
this. Like the idea that this man was
sent to El Salvador against a judge's
order, despite the fact that he committed
no crime, and was here
legally, let me tell you why. ICE policy
says a person can be deemed a gang
member if any ICE officer notes two gang
membership identification
criteria. In the case of Mr Jerce Reyes Barrios,
here with a tattoo modeled off the Real
Madrid logo. Remember this guy is a professional
soccer player tortured by the Maduro
regime. It's so shocking he had a
soccer tattoo. And No. 2, a picture of
social media of him throwing the horns.
Is Ted Cruz going to prison now?
Can we send Ted Cruz to El Salvador? Can
we? I don't know how many other
Republicans graduated from Texas horns
down in my view, but I don't know how
many other Texans I'm sure Greg Abbott's
thrown the horns before, can we
send him to El Salvador, to a prison
camp? that is it a real Madrid tattoo and
a picture hook him horn
that's how that's why we sent him to
that torture hellscape.

We learned
something else from these
filings but the timing for this the uh
president did the Declaration of the
alien enemies Act of 1796 or whatever it
is
1798 that resulted in the expulsion of
these young men they did it at 3:53
p.m. uh last week the first flight to El
Salvador then left at 5:26 p.m. so there
were 90 minutes essentially between when
the alien enemies Act was signed and
when we put people with no due
process on a flight to one of the most
horrific prisons I've ever seen in a
foreign
country, had their
hair
buzzed, put into
shackles, put down by this evil
RoboCop looking man, their head down --
that's stuff we saw. That's stuff they're
showing us.

You know, there's a CNN report
on this, that when when the mother of
this man saw the picture of him with the
shaved head, she started
wailing and screaming, rightfully. How
could they do this? This person fled
torture to come to freedom, now here we
are torturing
him. We're no different than
Venezuela. What our government is doing
is the same as what Maduro
did. This is
not acceptable. This is not
acceptable. There should be justice for
this man. Where are the politicians on
this?

I'll start with the Republicans.
there's a tweet I posted
earlier from Jason Miller, one of Trump's
top advisers, and Marco Rubio, from
2019, where they were calling for
temporary protected status for
Venezuelans fleeing
communism. And here they are now, these
same people five years later, taking the
Venezuelans fleeing communism and
sending them off to El Salvador without
giving them a chance to even defend
themselves, smearing them,
calling them "gang members." Where are you Marco Rubio? You
should be indicted over this,
right, over the
attack on the rights of this young man.
Like, where are you Jason Miller? Where
are you any of the Republicans on
the hill? Lindsey Graham used to be for
immigration reform. Everybody's silent.

And the Democrats, there have been
Democrats that have criticized us, but
you know, you've seen several Democrats
talk about how they got to choose their
battles, and and you know defending gang
members isn't the best battle, and
immigration isn't the best place to
fight. And Trump has a mandate on
immigration. And blah blah blah blah
blah. Show some spine!
Fight for the values of this country.
Fight for that man and his
mother. Draw attention to this.
Figure out a way to get that man out of
that camp and repatriate
him. Like this is what America is
fundamentally about. And
I'm sure that there have been some
Democrats that have spoken out on this. I
I don't want to just paint with a broad
brush. But let me tell you, I watch all
the news about as closely as anybody,
okay? I'm chained to the
chair here, all right? So I watch the news;
I get the press releases; I see the
tweets. It's been lukewarm at best the
advocacy on this from
Democrats. And where is the hair on
fire? Do you really think you're going to lose some
election two years from now
because you spoke too clearly about the
rights of somebody who was here fleeing
torture, fleeing communism, who just
wanted to live free, who has no criminal
record? You think defending that person
and defending and protecting them from the
torturous hellscape that he's
been sent to, you think that's going to
cost you an election in two years? I
don't think so. I don't think so. I
don't think you should be triggered that
Donald Trump ran some ads about illegal
sex changes in prison to some effect, and
now you can't talk about illegal
immigration at
all. Like in this case, you know,
again, let's put this caveat in here,
the government could provide more
information. Maybe there's something that
the lawyer doesn't know. Maybe they had
some cause beyond the tattoo and the one
picture of him throwing hook
horns. Maybe there's something out there.
But in the meantime, based on what we
know, we are torturing this person who
did nothing, who broke no laws, who came
here legally. Speak out! Do something! Show some
spine! Rattle their
cages. It worked in the first Trump
Administration. They had to back off
their worst immigration policies.
It worked in the case where the Bulwark wrote about the
guy that was fired from FEMA unlawfully.
He got his job back four
hours later. It worked in the case
of the nuclear staffers down at Los
Alamos who were fired wrongly by Elon Musk,
and then they got their jobs
back. Shake the
tree! Fight for this man's rights! This is
unamerican! It is wrong. It is illegal
what this Administration is
doing! And there is no justice if
nobody rots in prison for this. There's no justice in this world.

So I don't really expect that, but in the
meantime the least we can do is draw
attention to it. So share this video with
some friends. Call your Congressperson.
Tell them to speak out. Tell them
not to be afraid of being smeared by
Republicans who say they're defending
gang members. America cannot be a country
where we just willy-nilly pull people
off the street, because they have a real
Madrid tattoo, and we send them to the
worst conditions imaginable in another
country, with no
recourse. We cannot be that country! We
must fight it! We must stop it! So
please draw some attention to this. I
appreciate it. We'll see you.

*******************************

ICE Deported Professional Soccer Player After 'I Love You' Sign Language Symbol Was Interpreted as Gang Sign: Affidavit. The asylum seeker entered the US legally after he was tortured for protesting Venezuela's authoritarian regime.
by Morgan Music
Updated Mar 24 2025, 12:48 PM EDT
https://www.latintimes.com/ice-deported ... ted-578912



A professional soccer player seeking asylum in the US was deported to El Salvador under the Aliens Enemy Act.

Immigration officials accused Jerce Reyes Barrios of gang membership—based on a tattoo and a hand gesture he made in a photo on social media.



A former professional player and youth soccer coach, Reyes Barrios was detained by ICE in September 2024 after legally presenting himself at the border through the CBP One app. He had fled Venezuela after he was imprisoned and tortured for his participation in a protest against the authoritarian Maduro regime.

Despite having no criminal record and providing evidence supporting his asylum claim, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleged Reyes Barrios was a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. In early March, he was abruptly moved to a detainment facility in Texas, then deported to El Salvador on March 15.

According to court documents filed Wednesday, ICE officials had flagged a social media photo of Reyes Barrios making a gesture they believed was a gang symbol. However, his attorney, Linette Tobin, noted the gesture translates to "I love you," in sign language, and also closely resembles the gesture for "rock n' roll."


Various celebrities are seen making the same hand gesture. [Top left to right] ASL Barbie, Dee Snider, Miley Cyrus, Miles Brown, Pink [Bottom left to right] Tanner Fox, Jerce Reyes Brown, Bam Margera, former President Joe Biden Getty Images

DHS also cited his tattoo as evidence of gang membership. Reyes Barrios' tattoo is of a soccer ball with a crown, rosary and the word "Dios" (Spanish for God). A signed declaration from the tattoo artist states Reyes Barrios chose the image for its resemblance to the Real Madrid soccer team logo.

The case comes amidst Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite deportations of noncitizens suspected of Tren de Aragua affiliation.









Photos provided by the Salvadoran government show inmates on March 16, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. The prisoners were deported from the US after President Donald Trump's administration allegedly linked each individual to criminal organizations. Complete information on the detainees has not been made publicly available. Salvadoran Government via Getty Images

US District Judge James Boasberg blocked the act's use on Saturday and ordered two already-departed flights turned around, but officials did not respond to the order. Department of Justice attorneys have stated that Boasberg's subsequent request for more information is under consideration, but may be denied under state secrets privilege.

Since his deportation, Tobin and family member have lost all contact with Reyes Barrios and have no information on his condition, according to court documents.

© 2025 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
soon.

Law Firm Trump Retaliated Against Gives In Rather Than Fighting Back
by Glenn Kirschner
Mar 21, 2025

The New York Times just reported that, "Law Firm (Paul, Weiss) Bends in Face of Trump Demands."

After Trump retaliated against the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison by issuing an executive order against the firm that, per the NYT is "likely illegal", instead of fighting the executive order in court, the head of the firm, Brad Karp, made that pilgrimage to the Oval Office and offered Trump $40 million in legal services to help Trump with his political priorities. In return, Trump withdrew the executive order.

Other law firms that were victimized by silimat retaliatory executive orders chose to stand up to Trump and fight the matter in court. But Paul, Weiss caved.



Transcript

well friends in the face of Donald Trump
retribution one big law firm Paul Weiss
refuses to fight and instead caves to
Donald Trump to the tune of $40
million let's talk about that because
justice matters
[Music]
hey all Glen Kirschner here okay friends
let's set this new reporting up with the
shortest team justice law school class
ever extortion
it is a criminal offense under the laws
of Washington DC to obtain something of
value or to compel another to act
through threats or coercion let me say
that again and boil it down even further
it's a crime in DC to obtain something
of value through threats or
coercion that's extortion
there is a kissing cousin crime to
extortion called bribery bribery and
extortion are used interchangeably and
they're very similar crimes but
basically extortion is obtaining
something of value through threats or
coercion coercion against that
backdrop let's turn to the new reporting
this from the New York Times headline
law firm bends in face of Trump
demands paul Weiss one of three law
firms targeted by President Trump as
part of his retribution
campaign said it resolved the conflict
by agreeing to a range of commitments
and that article begins "President Trump
and the head of the law firm Paul Weiss
Rifken Wharton and Garrison LLP have
reached a deal under which Trump will
drop the executive order he leveled
against the firm," Mr trump said on
Thursday in the deal Trump said the firm
agreed to a series of commitments
including to represent clients no matter
their political affiliation and
contribute $40 million in legal services
to causes Trump has championed including
the president's task force to combat
anti-semitism and other mutually agreed
projects
it's unclear how the money will be used
to help the task force the firm Trump
said also agreed to conduct an audit to
ensure its hiring practices are
merit-based and will not adopt use or
pursue any DEI diversity equity or
inclusion policies the deal materialized
after the head of the firm Brad Karp
went to the White House this week and
had a face-to-face meeting with
Trump there's no reporting about whether
Brad Karp went on bended knee or
not my editorial
edition had a face-to-face meeting with
Trump to discuss a resolution members of
the legal profession said in interviews
that they were surprised by the deal as
it appears as if the firm which is
dominated by Democrats and has long
prided itself in being at the forefront
of the fight against the government for
civil rights was capitulating to Trump
over an executive order that is likely
illegal obtaining a thing of value
through threats or coercion that's
extortion what do we have
here we have Donald Trump punishing a
law firm for doing something you know of
which Donald Trump disapproves and as
the New York Times accurately reports it
was an executive order that was likely
illegal and Paul Weiss the law firm the
head of that firm goes to the Oval
Office and says "Wait a minute wait a
minute we'll give you $40
million in legal services to help your
political priorities." And Donald Trump
then says "Well then I'm no longer
punishing your law
firm obtaining a thing of value through
threats or coercion." It feels a little
extortion-y doesn't
it you know other law firms are on the
receiving end of these likely illegal
executive orders a firm called Perkins
Kuey for example they went into court
and they're fighting it and they will
very likely
win but not Paul
Weiss they buckled they
caved they
capitulated for reasons that you know
maybe someday we will know if it is
something as ugly as a costbenefit
analysis or a profit
margin that's
shameful let me turn my attention to one
other aspect of this story um I turned
on cable news this morning i I don't
spend that much time these days watching
mainstream media corporate media legacy
media but I watched some of the
reporting about this deal that was
struck and I heard mainstream media
referring to this
as unconventional
negotiating by a president this was just
an
unconventional negotiation
you know friends that would be like
saying if Donald Trump went out on the
White House lawn and shot and killed
people mainstream media reporting that
as well you know this is just an
unconventional form of population
control no it would be
murder it would be a
crime and corporate media legacy media
dumbing this stuff down when Donald
Trump does
it is doing real damage to the prospect
of us keeping our republic saving our
democracy you can't give in to the
aspiring
dictator you have to stand up to it you
know you can't just roll over play dead
give him $40 million so he will lift his
likely illegal executive order that is
us just slouching toward
autocracy and you know if this qualifies
as extortion and it sure seems to
fulfill the legal elements of the crime
of
extortion you know Paul Weiss could have
asserted itself as the victim could have
brought a legal challenge to this likely
un unlawful executive order as did
another big law firm as I mentioned
Perkins Kuey and they could have fought
it out in court and they very likely
would have won
but rather than assert themselves as the
potential victims here they just rolled
over you know there are times when law
enforcement has to stand up for victims
when victims won't stand up for
themselves or can't stand up for
themselves you know I thought about a
parallel from my days as a career
prosecutor i prosecuted domestic
violence cases including domestic
violence murder cases and let me tell
you friends domestic violence is a
vicious cycle and there are times when
the victim of domestic violence can't or
won't stand up for
themselves they tell the police and the
prosecutors "I I can't I can't cooperate
against the perpetrator my abuser
because things will only get worse for
me." And in those instances it was our
responsibility as prosecutors to step in
and try to protect victims who were
unwilling or unable to protect
themselves we had to try to protect them
we had to try to hold the perpetrator
accountable we had to try to protect the
community from that perpetrator even
beyond the domestic violence
the problem is if the victim this law
firm Paul Weiss won't assert its own
rights won't fight this in court we sure
know that the Department of Justice the
FBI and the federal prosecutors who are
under Donald Trump's thumb courtesy of
Attorney General Pam Bondi and
characters like Emile Boove and Todd
Blanch we know they're not going to do
anything to protect victims against
Donald Trump's suspected illegal
conduct so where does that leave
us you know it leaves our government and
our
democracy hanging in the balance and
friends you have to wonder if this was a
profitdriven decision by Paul Weiss if
it was a costbenefit analysis
um you have to wonder if folks who are
considering using the legal services of
that law firm that capitulated to Trump
versus a law firm like Perkins Kuey that
is standing up to Trump in essence
standing up to you know the the creeping
dictatorship and autocracy the abuse of
governmental power and authority and the
office of the presidency that Donald
Trump is engaged in by trying to punish
law firms like this you have to wonder
you know if those clients have to choose
between law firms that take those two
approaches to the rule of law and to
governmental abuse overreach and
corruption you know which of those two
law firms and I know there are lots of
others out there but if it was a choice
between those
two which firm would clients gravitate
toward gravitate toward feel more
comfortable being represented by i am
not here to say let's boycott this law
firm for making a decision or that law
firm for not making a decision um but I
think if it's a profitdriven decision by
that law firm in the long run they may
have done themselves more harm than good
you know because you would think for a
law firm that traditionally was involved
in pushing back against government abuse
and overreach in you know asserting the
civil rights of all people a law firm
like that you would think that to the
Paul Weisses of the
world justice matters
maybe
not friends as always please stay safe
please stay tuned and I look forward to
talking with you all again tomorrow
[Music]

The MOST DISGRACEFUL Action By A Law Firm EVER (w/ George Conway)
by Tim Miller & George Conway
The Bulwark
Mar 21, 2025

George Conway joins Tim Miller to discuss the law firm Paul Weiss bending to Donald Trump in order to have an executive order rescinded, with the exchange of pro bono lawyer support towards the administration.



Transcript

hey everybody it's Tim Miller from the
bull look who I got it's George Conway
uh we're doing a little bonus segment uh
of George Conway explains it all he's
going to explain to me and and this is
the impetus for this is that I was
watching his blue sky SKS I call them
SKS nobody else does but I'm I'm going
to and um he we need to call him
something yeah SK I like SKS people
don't like it because uh in in rap
culture in like the 90s SKS had a had a
term that you shouldn't Google if you
don't like sexy talk but I I I think
that you know that to me that just kind
of makes it a little bit more exciting
um anyway uh a Google that I can't help
myself okay well I'll tell you offline
uh the um George wrote this the Paul
Weiss capitulation is the most
disgraceful action by a major law firm
in my lifetime so appalling that I
couldn't believe it at first Paul Weiss
to be clear for people like me who are
not lawyers is not a person but is a
firm it's Paul Kama Weiss uh that has
done a lot of work in in DC related
cases and they essentially just graveled
and capitulated and were extorted by the
president of the United States George
why don't you explain what happened and
why it's so
outrageous yeah uh Paul Weiss Rifkin
Wharton and
Garrison is one of the preeminent law
firms in the city of New
York um it is a law
firm that it's one of these firms that
kind of form because way back in the
day um you had your wasps and they
didn't M care much for Jews and and so
the Jews formed their own law firm and
this became one of the prominent law
firms to this
day um and the full name of the firm is
Paul Weiss Rifkin Wharton and Garrison
and rifkin is a man who became who who
who became lionized in the bar not only
because he was a very very talented
lawyer but he later became a judge and a
very very well-respected
judge and the firm I mean it look it's a
stellar Law Firm it is it is one of the
top four or five law firms to my mind in
the city of New York it is considered to
be one of the two or three best
litigating firms in New York I think by
many people um I've worked with them in
the past I've had many good
relationships with people at that firm I
think in more recent years it's become
as a lot of law firms have become
they've become much more
mercenary and much more oriented toward
the bottom line not that these firms in
New York never made a lot of money but
they make oodles and oodles of money I
work for one right across the street
from Paul Weiss Rifkin Wharton and
Garrison and you know I mean one of the
reasons why I can shoot my mouth off
today is I made a lot of money there and
everybody can you know I have no FS to
give anymore um and and I and
here what happened was Paul Weiss had a
former partner a retired
partner um named Mark Pomerantz
decided because he was a patriot and
because he reached the same conclusion
that I and a lot of people
did um early on in the Trump
Administration um that Donald Trump was
a recidivist
criminal and you know there were a lot
of suspicions about the Shady real
estate deals he engaged in and whether
or not he paid taxes and in particular
whether or not he for example overstated
valuations for the purposes of
valuations of his real estate properties
for the purposes
of getting bank loans and for the
purposes of making insurance claims
while the same time understating it for
tax purposes and just BL you know having
double sets of book and doing all sorts
of bad
things and pomerance and another very
prominent lawyer a former partner
partner at another one of the Stellar
law firms in New York Davis poing
wardwell a guy named Carrie Dunn who at
one point was president of the
association of the bar of City New York
one of the most prominent local bar
organizations in the country if not the
planet they joined as Special Assistant
District Attorneys the office of
district attorney then district attorney
of Manhattan
sance and they proceeded to investigate
Trump and that resulted in some
litigation fast forward to the present
Donald Trump is settling scores now that
he is president of the United States
again and he set is settling scores in
particular with law firms and
conducting you know a campaign against
law firms and has said that he is going
to get all the bad lawyers basically the
ones he feels did bad things to him and
there was the Perkins koi executive
order which um I'm sure you've discussed
on other podcasts I've discussed we've
discussed it on my podcast um there was
an order against the law firm in
Covington and Burling and then they
issued an order against Paul Weiss and
the order was basically based upon the
fact that Paul Weiss had an association
with this longtime partner former
partner Pomerantz who then retired and
then went on to the DA's office and
prosecuted um Donald Trump even though
his actions in working
for
the district attorney of the city of of
of Manhattan County of New York County
had nothing to do with his work of Paul
Weiss it just happens to be that he you
Paul Weiss is on his resume right and
the
President issued an executive order
saying that Paul Weiss was some kind of
a danger to the nation and all terrible
and needed to be punished and
placing
contal yeah I mean all sorts of stuff
and it's like the dude the guy's not
even there anymore and he didn't do any
of this stuff of which you were probably
guilty at least from a civil burden of
proof um while he was at Paul Weiss and
Paul Weiss you know I mean lots of
people Paul Weiss go in and out of
government mostly mostly it's a
democratic firm which makes what
happened all the more shocking I mean
yeah one of the partners there is Jay
Johnson former head of what
DHS Obama in the I think was it the
Obama Administration very very smart and
capable guy Damien Williams the uh
former United States Attorney for the
southern district of New York who was
the United States one of the United
States attorneys most recently um um he
was in during the Biden Administration
who indirectly oversaw the prosecution
of mayor Adams um and they they
basically they punish this this fall
firm for basically nothing I mean first
of all everything pomarance did was
legal he was conducting a little
legitimate investigation the facts of
which ultimately resulted in civil
sanctions against right Trump and the
only thing you could criticize pomerance
for is really no business of Trump's it
was the fact that he later wrote a book
about the investigation and his
experience about the investigation and
people have raised questions about
whether that was ethical and proper but
that really is a question of his you
know ethical obligations to the office
of the district attorney but so anyway
what happens is this this happens and
everybody thinks well Paul Weiss is gon
to fight because this is completely
ridiculous it's unconstitutional it is a
violation of the First Amendment it is
an
abuse of the public power of the
presidency as was the Covington and the
perins kui memos and all these other
memos and all these other executive
orders for all sorts of reasons the the
abolishment of the Department of
Education for different reasons because
he doesn't have the power to overturn
the statute of congress with an
executive order but this one was
particularly outrageous everybody just
assumed Paul Weiss was going to give
Donald Trump the finger yeah and because
it's a you know it's
known as an aggressive litigation fir
that is their bread and butter they
fight okay they're they're you know
they're tough guys they fight defending
Banks and defending you know defending
their corporate clients which you know I
I I I would be perfectly happy if I were
the general counsel of City Bank which
has been a big client of theirs over the
years to to to have them on my roster of
people who defended um my company from
claims and yet what happened was
the managing partner um who I dealt with
in the past I know him um he's a very
kind of slick guy and a very a very
smart guy and a very able guy and he's
kind of remate help he's kind of remade
that firm in a lot of ways some good
some bad in my
opinion you know the news was he's
coming down to the White House to talk
to the president and everybody was like
what what's there to talk about and then
last night there was this settlement
announced by Donald Trump where Paul
Weiss agrees to conduct $40 million
worth of if I have this right I mean I
saw it in the middle of the night I have
it right here I'll just I'll just read
it to you you can read it yeah read it
Paul Weiss will yeah Paul Weiss will
dedicate the equivalent of 40 million in
pro bono legal Source legal Services
over the course of Trump's term to
support the administration's initiatives
including fairness in the justice system
we know what that means for these guys
and the president's taxk Force to combat
anti-Semitism it also said that paules
will not adopt to use or pursue any Dei
policies Paul Weiss will take on a range
of pro bono matters that represent the
full spectrum of political viewpoints of
our
society especially he doesn't say
especially uh including including
conservative quote so there you go no I
mean you know look I have no problem
with pro bono conservative work I've
done some myself over the years demanded
to by the president of the United States
as part of an extortion schem abely not
and and also the definition of
conservatism under the Trump
Administration to my mind isn't
conservative it's fascistic and
authoritarian and it's you know I mean
this is this is stuff that would make
you know that make Ronald Reagan go you
know roll his grave and certainly stuff
that would make the founders of Paul
Weiss such as judge riffkin roll over in
Gray they were believed in the public
interest they didn't believe in the use
of government Authority in a
narcissistic and self-serving fashion by
a man who not only fails
to conduct himself in accordance with
his oath to Faithfully execute the laws
in the Constitution of the United States
but outright abcat it and seeks to
destroy the laws and undermine the laws
in the Constitution of the United States
and that's my you know and that's why I
just found this so appalling there's no
lawyer of any degree of
intelligence um who can't who shouldn't
be who could misunderstand the fact that
Donald Trump is
engaging in a
mass accretion of power belonging trying
to belong to the other branches he's
he's engaging in the overturning of
legislation by executive order
essentially usurping the article one
powers of congress and he's continually
undermining the courts his people are
misleading the courts they are they are
conducting um they are attacking the
courts they're attacking judges who rule
against them they are essentially trying
they you know in
a rather
not in a rather obvious way but not in
an open declaration sort of way
disobeying court orders I mean this is
the we are down the path to
authoritarianism and that's what causes
that's what caused this
capitulation
and it is just the it is just an
astounding
astounding
display of moral
cowardice by people who have to know
better people who here I mean you take
you raise your hand to become a lawyer I
mean you you you are an officer of the
Court you're bound to support the law
and the Constitution of the United
States you have a moral obligation as a
laal to because you you have def you
have dedicated yourself to joining a
profession
that is based upon the rule of law you
make money off the rule of law you have
it's it's a very special profession I
know everybody says let's shoot all the
lawyers like Shakespeare did but it's
not like I don't know I I pick some
other profession um although other
professions have different ethical
obligations and commitments we you make
fun of Lobby the down the H the same
firm okay yeah you've written about that
and
um it is it
is I just I don't think this would have
happened in some other age I think these
law firms have
become
so obsessed with the money that they
make um which only makes it worse to my
mind I'm not against anybody making
money I am Greatful for 30 years I spent
at a big New York law firm where I made
more money than I probably had any right
to make
but that
should that should be the reason a
reason why you should be able to stand
up to these people yes right and it
should come with obligation how many
houses in the Hamptons do you need I I I
don't I don't
understand and to me George two so
they're two related things with this one
is the because I want to come back to
their individual choices because I think
you're calling for some people to qu but
before we get to that just really quick
the bigger picture like this cowardice
is will have real
ramifications like across the country in
in how PRI the private sector and law
firms do their work what they're willing
to do and not willing to do like if you
B like this you're saying this would to
happen in another age but it is
happening right now in Hungary where
companies are just folding like people
are just folding institutions are just
folding they're saying look if I get any
pressure from the autocrat then I'll let
them dictate my hiring policies we won't
take on cases that will make him mad and
once once people start making those
concessions like the ramifications are
very re real and and it allow it gives
power to this to authoritarian style
power to this President without even
making him fight for it they're they're
just submitting to it they're just
handing it over to it I I couldn't agree
more Tim and I I think there are two
levels upon which you can look at it
first off
is one of the things that authoritarians
do is they divide divide and conquer you
think you're alone you don't want to be
single out so you capitulate and that
sets an example for the next one that's
the general level and that applies to
corporations media entities for example
uh like ABC when it settled that
absolutely
nonsensical
lawsuit uh about
George
Stephanopoulos calling Trump an
adjudicate essentially an adjudicated
rapist when the judge had said three
times that what Trump had been found to
have done by the jury while not
technically rape under New York law was
in any ordinary colloquial sense rape
because you know I mean there's no real
moral difference to my mind
between violently inserting one's penis
into a woman a unconsenting woman vagina
and inserting your finger in there but
some for some reason that that Trump
decided that was a big moral difference
to him and he filed a lawsuit and then
ABC shamefully threw Stephanopoulos
under the bus and settled it but this is
the second point to go back to the
second one is the one is the sort
of you you you divide and conquer and
everybody feels like they're standing
out there alone and they can't do
anything and they just don't want him to
to come after me and and and you know it
there's sort of a domino effect but the
second is who is Paul
wise this is a law firm these are the
people you hire to defend yourself when
you have been
wronged these are the people who you
would hire to defend yourself against
wrongful action by the government
against your
business and if they
capitulate
like wormy cowards the way they
have what is that that's the message
that that in particular sense that a an
aggressive litigating Law
Firm
acts like like
just I I don't even there there's got to
be a better word than just
Shameless slimy coward that I can't you
know I need we need
the problem with the Trump ER is we need
we need an extended thesis to come up
with more negative descriptions of of
people and
things we need to think about I need
send incredible message why should any
other law firm fight why should any of
when should any Corporation
fight and and or by the way if you're if
you're an individual who wants to fight
you're losing the like people that you
would go to to potentially defend you
right like so if if if Perkins Koy can't
do it because they're under executive
you know they're getting attacked by by
the president uh you can't trust Paul
Weiss like you're running out of
qualified people to do it yeah and and
and as the judge pointed out in the
Perkins koui hearing that I attend I had
a good fortune of sitting in and
watching last
week they could go after Perkins Ko's
lawyers now Williams and Connelly which
showed an incredible degree of courage
and I admire them even more now because
they they are their willingness to step
up is such a sharp contrast to Paul
Weiss and a lot of other
firms you know there's no end to it
because these orders these executive
orders are premised on the notion that
Donald Trump can just def
declare anyone he doesn't like to be a
threat to the I guess National Security
of the United States and he's arrogating
to himself he believes that if he makes
that determination in his sole
judgment that somebody is a threat to
the United
States then he can do whatever he wants
to them and have to use every
mechanism available to him to punish
that entity and What What In fact is
going on is these people aren't threats
to the United States of America the
biggest
threat the biggest security threat to
the United States of America is the
president of the United States but let's
leave that
aside um he's just using the
government
as a proxy he's just using it as an
extension of his own personal interest
as a way to con you know these people
did me wrong while I was not
president therefore now that I am
president I'm going to use the arms of
the the mechanisms of government to
destroy these people or at least bring
them to heal and make them
grv yeah and that that is just straight
out authoritarianism that is we are
there this is a last thing I'll let you
go the um you wrote also that uh any
lawyers at the firm Partners or
Associates who don't promptly resign
will defile their moral and professional
reputations Beyond repair you've had a
chance to sleep on that you still you
still think that yeah I I you
know I believe that to be true I hope
that to be true if it is not it is only
because if if it if that is not true if
that turns out to be true this country
is
lost okay because if the people who are
standing by Paul Weiss and staying there
and allowing this to happen you know are
not morally
shunned then
we're
done we're done because that means that
people are willing to put their own
personal interest their own fears their
own pocketbooks and
whatnot um ahead of the Constitution and
the laws of the United States the system
that made it possible for these people
to achieve the success
that they have achieved yep and I I I
cannot believe that there aren't going
to be loyers who are just going to be
sick about this and who who aren't who
are going to leave and I think the
associates ought to be I mean I I I I
think I
hope
that this backfires and if it doesn't
we've got a big problem people need to
start doing the right thing because it's
the right thing people need to look
themselves in the mirror and
say do I care about my country and I'm
going out there and I'm I'm saying this
I I I I attacked Brad karp the chairman
of Paul Weiss the other day who I know
and and also an old friend of mine who I
think had something to do with
organizing this have you heard of
although I think it was done more than
more by um some guys in Washington
but you know I no return phone call from
him yet
I I don't think he'd want to call me
basically like you know I I only give
more of it to him and it hurts me it
pains me to have to do that I mean I you
know I
I we and you have this had this
experience too I know given you came
through you know the political road yeah
um to where you are today and I came
through kind of the legal Thicket to
where I am today but you know I get
people capitulate and do the wrong thing
I've done the wrong thing in the past
you've done the wrong thing in the past
wrote a whole book about
it and but there's a certain point where
you have to look your in the mirror and
say how did we get
here
and it has been so distressing to me to
see how many
people who know better who should know
better basically out of
Moral Moral apathy moral cardice and
moral corruption some combination of
those three
um basically exceed to or join in on
things that they know to be wrong that's
the thing I will never get over I mean I
can understand there's going to be some
of it
but I I can't get over the degree to it
and the Paul Weiss thing to me was
just
absolutely floring I did not believe the
news at first when I first saw a couple
of tweets about it because I thought oh
maybe some reporters just getting fed
some [ __ ] from the White House and
then I saw Trump statement I was like
well Trump's full of [ __ ] although gee
it looks to be some carefully worked out
text and then I saw you know the time
story and it was true and I called some
friends and they said yep karp did this
Paul Weiss did this
and to finish it
off
I I I lost my train of thought here but
I I I really I here's what the point I
wanted make and want to maybe this is a
good way to finish okay I am more upset
this
morning about what happened with Paul
Weiss that I was the morning after the
election and because you held them in
higher regard you you'd expected more
from them I held them in higher regard I
guess than than the average voter the
average voter I guess but I think it's
more I I guess that's true um but I
think it's more that I was
psychologically
prepared for a trump Victory after
seven years eight years of watching this
[ __ ]
show um that we have that will
someday histo that someday historians
will reflect as just a black mark on the
history of the United States if it ever
if it survives
frankly I was prepared
psychologically for Trump's win I mean
that's why I spent so much effort trying
to defeat him even though I had
convinced myself by the end that I
thought K was going to squeak by and
pull it
off I woke up that morning I said okay
well it happened and I did my best you
know with a lot of other people to try
to make sure it didn't happen I was
psychologically prepared for it I knew
that it was a possibility I that I put
anywhere from 20 to 40% sometimes 50%
depending on how things were going you
know I knew it could
happen but last night it was something I
couldn't ever I couldn't imagine it I
couldn't imagine working at that firm I
couldn't
imagine you know cons just capitulating
in such a shameful and weak and cowardly
fashion and and in the same way I can't
imagine going to if I were Paul Weiss
going to work today without cleaning out
my [ __ ] desk
[Music]
and I I hope I mean I I I hope this
turns around somehow but it really this
has is is just a very very disheartening
moment that is a good place to leave it
thank you George Conway for explaining
what uh what was happening to me and uh
we'll be uh we'll be talking to you soon
brother hang in there all right yeah see
everybody subscribe to the feed hey
YouTube fam if you want to support the
bull workk the best way to do it is by
becoming a Youtube Bull workk plus
member the bull workk is truly
independent we have no corporate
overlords we're not settling any dumb
lawsuits with Trump by joining you help
support our work and you can get a bunch
of perks right here on this platform add
free content bonus videos live streams
and some emojis of me which I guess some
people want so come join come hang out
become a bulwark YouTube plus member
and I'll be seeing you in the comments
so behave

*************************

Trump Cheap ATTACK BACKFIRES as Law Firms FIGHT BACK
Legal AF
Mar 23, 2025 The Intersection with Popok

In galling irony, the President who had dozens of his lawyers disbarred or sanctioned for filing bad faith litigation, is now attacking lawyers and law firms and threatening them with retaliation in the form of public shaming, pulling security clearances, exiling the firms and their clients from government contracts, and law firms are banding together to fight back to save our system of justice at the heart of our constitutional republic and democracy. Popok stands up and fights back.



Transcript


law firms and lawyers that work for them
are the lifeblood of our constitutional
republic and our justice system civil
and criminal and they are now under
attack by the president of the United
States Donald Trump he just issued a new
memo putting the crosshairs on my
profession and and I'm going to start
this off with a quote from Venita Gupta
who used to be in the Department of
Justice this moment calls for courage
and collective action not compliance
among lawyers and law firms it is time
to fight back not to bend the knee to
Donald Trump or all hope is lost i'm
Michael Popach you're on Legal AF let's
talk about the new memo and the various
ways there are now calls for action and
why it's important judges are under
attack by Donald Trump have been since
he was a criminal defendant judges are
still under attack right now with
renewed assault by Donald Trump trying
to rip away the foundations of our
democracy it is the court system the
final firewall of defense of our
liberties and rights and who are the
advocates that bring these cases to the
courts it's the lawyers and the law
firms many of them big law firms that
have sections devoted to representing
people for free or pro bono donald Trump
hates that he hates what he sees as some
sort of liberal bias in the law firms or
at least a bias against him because most
or if not all of the major law firms in
this country you know the ones that are
a couple of thousand lawyers sized would
not take any of Donald Trump's cases and
now he's paying them back in an outright
retaliation naming names including in
his last two or three different
proclamations executive orders trying to
send a chill down the spine of lawyers
and get them to back off from going
after him or his administration it is
not going to work i know my profession
well i know the lawyers in my profession
well this is what one particular law
firm that does a lot of work in front of
the uh or against the Trump
administration including in the area of
immigrant uh immigrant rights and
constitutional rights they had this to
say "Our liberties depend on lawyers
willingness to represent unpopular
people and causes including in matters
adverse to the federal government our
profession owes every client zealous
legal representation without fear of
retribution regardless of their
political affiliation uh that is that
needs to be the response by my
profession paul Weiss needs to be the
exception it was it was operative term
there is past tense a leader of the bar
could have been on the Mount Rushmore of
ethical uh zealous law firms in America
transactional and litigation but that
reputation lies in tatters because it
has bent the knee of Donald Trump and
paid him a $40 million extorted bribe in
the form of free legal service in order
to get themselves off a blacklist they
sacrificed they sacrificed their
professional reputation and ethics and
role in our society for their for their
own law firm profits and greed there's
no other way to put it this was a firm
that you would you would have held up
until this week as a shining example a
paragon of values ethics and and
representing our highest ideals as a
profession and now it's all gone it's
all gone and other firms now seeing the
the Paul Weiss response and capitulation
are now banding together there's a
national call for law firms to file an
amicus brief a friend of the court brief
to support Perkins Koi a firm out of
Washington that Mark Elias used to be a
partner at who has a history had a
history at least of representing
Democratic causes and going after the
prior Trump administration and this
Trump
administration and Donald Trump doesn't
like them tried to sue them in court
federally a number of years ago he got
sanctioned as a result that's why it's
so ironic to hear Donald Trump issue a
new memorandum a new proclamation on
preventing I I almost can't get this out
without choking donald Trump sending out
a proclamation and a policy of
preventing abuses of the legal system
and the federal court who knows better
than the person who is the chief abuser
of the federal court and of our legal
system for Donald Trump to say he's now
in charge of preventing abuses of our
legal system it should start at home
with him and and him saying by name Mark
Elias is a bad person is effectively
what he's just said and even though
there's already rules on the books let
me explain this my profession is self-p
policing and also has a number of ways
if things uh if misconduct results from
a lawyer's conduct and behavior in court
or otherwise there's a number of
different ways to police that and have
been ways to police that over the last
150 to 200 years first of all every
lawyer not only takes an oath to defend
the Constitution but also to be ethical
and follow the rules of professional
responsibility in their in their
jurisdiction every state has some sort
of either bar association or bar or a
court uh a court system or a a set of
judges that are responsible for
regulating lawyers in that district so
I'm a member of Florida Bar and the uh
I'm a member of what effectively is the
New York Bar but there's no New York bar
it is it is regulated by each individual
um uh department within New York with
with judges either way it's the same
thing it's regulated by either a bar
association or bar or it's regulated by
judges that's one too and when you file
things in court whether state or federal
you need to certify and sign them and
then you attest that what you're filing
is merit has merit it's either a good
faith argument under the law or a good
faith extension of the law new law that
you're trying to make that often happens
or under the facts and if not you can be
sanctioned and penalized your other
party can file a motion for sanctions
the judge has his has their own inherent
authority federal and state to sanction
meritless vexacious
uh filings and litigation practice
before them so you've got this rule 11
under the federal rules of civil
procedure you've got the other inherent
authority of the judges if you as a
person on the other side or otherwise
want to file a bar complaint you can
file a bar complaint wherever that
lawyer has his license or his
jurisdiction they will investigate it
and pull a ticket we have a proper
ethical self-p policing this is not
about that this is about Donald Trump
going after by name law firms because
he's trying to bring them under his heel
and some law firms hopefully will not
follow the Paul Weiss hopefully that
will be the outlier
aberrational and they'll fight like
Perkins Koi is fighting perkins Koi
already got a temporary restraining
order from chief former chief judge Barl
Howell in the DC district court because
putting them on a blacklist she found
was the equivalent of violating the
first amendment and violating their due
process rights taking away their and
their clients rights to do business
before the government taking away their
top secret security clearance so they
can't work trying to put out on the
street 2,000 people or so that work for
these firms thousands of people work for
these firms just so you know the top the
top law firms in America and I've worked
for a couple of them myself are anywhere
between 1,000 and almost 3,000 lawyers
and then triple that for support
staff and there's f let's say 500 top
law firms and then 10,000 or more other
law
firms this is the time to fight this is
not the time to concede and it's
important because if we don't draw the
line here and we capitulate to the
preventing abuses of legal system and
federal court proclamation and we let
Donald Trump pull the legs out from
under our bedrock legal principles and
take the lawyers with them and try to
flush them down the drain then all hope
is lost because the average person is
not ex it's not expected or trained to
litigate for themselves in a process say
way before federal courts or state
courts with the briefing and the
procedure and the filing and the
discovery process and all the rules
right we're not all my cousin Vinnie
we're not going to learn this over a
weekend with our girlfriend this is this
is serious stuff and lawyers and lawyer
and law firms take it seriously and the
big law firms sure they have their
corporate clients and they give them
billions of dollars a year each law firm
each major law firm but they also do a
fair amount of proono work for free and
Donald Trump calls that out by name too
let's be clear all Donald Trump wants to
do is put law firms that that rejected
him right they didn't pick him for their
team on the schoolyard and now it's time
for Donald Trump to pay him back what am
I watching is this Carrie the movie or
the musical where Donald Trump comes
with pig's blood and starts and start
and start starts a fire and kills
everybody that's what it's starting to
look like except it's real life here's
the
memo lawyers and law firms this is
whoever wrote this for Donald Trump
lawyers and law firms that engage in
actions that violate the laws of the
United States or rules governing
attorney conduct must be efficiently and
effectively held accountable
accountability is especially important
when misconduct by lawyers and law firms
threatens our national security homeland
security public safety or election
integrity recent examples of gross
unethical misconduct this is now
defamatory towards a bar member Mark
Elias from the Elias Law Group used to
be with Perkins Koi who's now also the
subject of being blacklisted were was
deeply he was deeply involved according
to Trump in a creation of a false
dossier by a foreign national designed
to provide a fraudulent basis by federal
law enforcement to investigate a
presidential candidate in order to alter
the outcome of the presidential election
all right the steel dossier was created
by a guy in London and ended up being
delivered through the Perkins Koi firm
and Mark Elias was there this was all c
against Donald Trump this was all
criminally prosecuted and investigated
by Donald Trump's special prosecutor and
nobody was convicted of this uh what
what Donald Trump's talking about now
zero this is completely defamatory
against Mark Elias to try to undermine
him mark Elias already fired back and
said "I will not be be bullied nor uh
will it stop me from doing what's right
for our client base." That's the right
response paul Weiss wrong response
uh then he goes off on the im after he
takes a a shot at Mark Elias Trump then
goes and says "Oh it's the immigration
system where lawyers including those
that work in big law pro bono practices
that's that free service I talked about
where they frequently accord with no
evidence." He says the following they
frequently coach clients to conceal
their past or lie about their
circumstances when asserting their
asylum
claims all in attempt to circumvent
immigration policies and then he then
he's got a list the ghosts of Lake and
Riley Jocelyn Nur and Rachel Morren to
say "See all these asylum seekers killed
them because they lied with their
lawyers." That's not how those people
died they were undocumented they were
not here on asylum applications and
there's no evidence that lawyers coach
their clients to lie and we have an
adversarial system for that there's a
lawyer on the other side there's
cross-examination in court there's
judges with inherent authority and if
anybody thought that was really going on
then you'd make a report to the bar a
referral to the bar association or to
judges who are responsible for that
person's license and they would
investigate and maybe pull their license
you know who got a lot of their licenses
pulled you know who got a lot of
disbarment donald Trump's lawyers for
talk that's why this is so um perverse
donald Trump's own lawyers lost their
bar licenses rudy Giuliani no bar
licenses you know um all the people that
that were prosecuted in Georgia most of
them lost their bar license or were
severely sanctioned or just missed
losing their bar licenses there's up to
a dozen lawyers that lost their bar
license that did work for Donald Trump
filing false statements now he's now
he's the one that's policing that that's
beyond the wolf inside the chicken coop
now Donald Trump then says "Well I
understand there's federal rule of
federal rule of civil procedure 11 about
meritless filings but unfortunately far
too many attorneys and law firms have
ignored these requirements in litigating
against the federal government so he's
directing the attorney general and
Homeland Security and whoever else if
they see or suspect a violation of
ethical or professional conduct rules
there to file appropriate um actions
with the courts and then report back to
me as the president as to whether I
should revoke security clearances and uh
the right to do business and work before
the federal government for these law
firms now there's a list of up to 14 law
firms that are on the hit list for
Donald Trump this is the this is this
precages that we'll be seeing that next
what do we need to do as a profession we
need to do what we went to law school to
do and now we need to do it for
ourselves but for the greater good we
need to fight we need to fight back we
need to collectively join together we
need to circle the wagons around Perkins
Koi and Covington and Burling and all
the other firms and Mark Elias and all
the other firms that Donald Trump has
gone after and will go after because if
we don't do it now right he's now gotten
a taste for it trump he's now he he he
smells blood and he's going for it and
so we've got to fight back or we'll
never we'll never have an appropriately
functioning justice system civil and
criminal in this country again there's
no other way to put it i'm going to
continue to fight right here with you on
Legal AF spotlighting these issues take
a moment hit the free subscribe button
it's that important till my next
reporting I'm Michael Pop i'm Michael
Popac and I got some big news for our
audience most of you know me as the
co-founder of Midas Touches Legal AF and
the Legal AF YouTube channel or as a
35-year national trial lawyer now
building on what we started together on
Legal AF I've launched a new law firm
the Pope Firm dedicated to obtaining
justice through compassionate and
zealous legal representation at the Pope
Firm we are focused on obtaining justice
for those who have been injured or
damaged by a lifealtering event by
securing the highest dollar recoveries
i've been tirelessly fighting for
justice for the last 35 years so my own
law firm organically building on my
legal AF work just feels right and I've
handpicked a team of top tier trial
fighters and settlement experts
throughout all 50 states known as Big
Auto injury attorneys who have the
knowhow to beat heartless insurance
companies corporations government
entities and their attorneys big Autos
attorneys working with my firm are rock
stars in their respective states and
collectively responsible for billions of
dollars in recoveries so if you or a
loved one have been on the wrong side of
a catastrophic auto motor vehicle ride
share or truck accident suffered a
personal injury or been the victim of
medical malpractice employment
harassment or discrimination or suffered
a violation of your civil and
constitutional rights then contact the
Pope Firm today at 1877 pop af or by
visiting my website at
www.thepopfirm.com and fill out a free
case evaluation form and if we determine
that you have a case and you sign with
us we don't get paid unless you do the
Pope firm fighting for your justice
every step of the

BREAKING: Judge EXPLODES at Trump official IN COURT
by Brian Tyler Cohen
Mar 22, 2025 The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner

Legal Breakdown episode 491: ‪@GlennKirschner2‬ discusses a judge losing her patience in court over Trump officials lying.



Transcript

you're watching the legal breakdown
Glenn I think it's fair to say that
these federal judges are finally losing
their patience with Trump a federal
judge just exploded at a trump
Administration official in court can you
explain what just happened yeah Brian
this one involves Donald Trump's you
know really horrific attempt to ban
transgender people from serving in the
military they've been serving honorably
uh since
20201 and the Trump Administration you
know just kind of cruy and arbitrarily
wants to put a stop to them being able
to serve our country in the military and
a federal court judge in Washington DC
judge Anna Reyes just exploded at
Trump's dirty doj lawyers who are going
in and arguing garbage basically to the
court and she exploded in two ways or on
two fronts both on the form of this
litigation and on the substance of the
litigation and what I want to do we
often don't like to you know read
extended segments of court rulings but I
want to read just a couple of sentences
of what judge Anna Rees said to these
doj lawyers because it really drives
home just how horrific and cruel and
Lawless the Trump Administration is
being so District Judge Anna Reyes found
that Trump's transgender ban from
military service is soaked in animus
and it violates the equal protection
Clause because it discriminates
based on transgender status and sex
quote it's the bands language is
unabashedly demeaning its policy
stigmatizes transgender persons as
inherently unfit and its conclusions
bear no relation to fact but the judge
didn't stop there quote transgender
persons have served openly since 2021
but defendants meaning Trump and his doj
and his Department of Defense including
uh defense secretary Pete heg Seth
defendants have not analyzed the service
of transgender service members that is
unfortunate plaintiffs meaning the
transgender military service members
plaintiff service records alone are
exhibit a for the proposition that
transgender persons can have the warrior
ethos physic IAL and mental health
selflessness honor integrity and
discipline to ensure military Excellence
I mean what she's doing there is on the
substance of this litigation we have
transgender military service members who
have been serving honorably and they
have excelled in their work as members
of the military since 2021 and the Trump
Administration walks into court without
any evidence to support their attempt to
just completely ban all transgender folk
from serving in the military but there's
a mountain of evidence undercutting this
you know ugly transgender ban that Trump
is trying to implement and that's why
she exploded on the substance of this
litigation because these doj lawyers
don't have a damn leg to stand on Glenn
I want to read you another quote from
Judge Reyes and I want your reaction to
this quote I am not going to abide by
government officials saying one thing to
the public saying what they really mean
to the public and coming in here to the
court and telling me something different
like I'm an idiot your reaction to that
my reaction to that is those kind of
observations by a judge and those kind
of let's call them shortcomings in
litigation by doj lawyers is fatal they
can be fatal to litigation and Brian let
me tell our viewers exactly what it was
Judge Reyes was talking about there
because uh Pete hegseth Secretary of
Defense you know people say he's a DUI
hire he said that quote transgender
troops are disqualified from service
without an exemption period just a
blanket statement transgender folk are
disqualified and yet Brian here is what
these doj lawyers went in and argued to
judge Reyes they said that oh oh judge
we're only looking to disqualify ify
people with the medical condition called
gender dysphoria which is not what the
proposed transgender ban says and that
is what prompted her to explode you've
got the Secretary of Defense saying one
thing publicly which obviously is the
true goal of the Trump Administration
discriminate against all J transgender
folk and then you have these doj lawyers
coming in and contradicting that arguing
something completely different frankly
something that's not even supported by
the language of the proposed ban do you
think I'm an idiot well guess what I'm
not an idiot and I think we can see the
trajectory that this litigation is on
Brian but Glenn this has been a
recurring theme where we've watched
Donald Trump say one thing in public and
say another thing in court and really
what matters at the end of the day is
what said in court and so why doesn't
this Administration just have the
freedom to lie in public if they're
going to if what they're saying in court
is really the only thing that should
matter well because the plaintiffs in
the case will introduce into evidence
what the Trump Administration officials
are saying and doing publicly and that
becomes evidence that undercuts what you
know this is not just judges reading
newspaper articles or watching cable
news and taking that as information and
evidence in the case it will be properly
admitted and the statements of people
like the Secretary of Defense Donald
Trump and other high government
officials are absolutely Fair
evidentiary game in this kind of
litigation and so what does it do to The
credibility of the Trump Administration
when when the judge really feels like
they're being jerked around like what
what is this what historically what has
this kind of thing done what it does is
once you lose your credibility as a
lawyer whether you are a doj prosecutor
whether you're a civil defense attorney
a criminal defense attorney once you
lose your credibility once the judge can
no longer count on your word as being
truthful and accurate which by the way
we as what are called officers of the
Court every attorney is considered an
officer of the court and has an ethical
obligation to be truthful accurate and
candid with the court once you have
proved to the judge's satisfaction that
your word cannot be trusted um you're
all but done you will have very little
chance of one rehabilitating your
credibility before that judge and two
winning the litigation that you're
involved in so you know these doj
attorneys who are debasing themselves
demeaning themselves insulting our
democracy and insulting the judges in
the process are doing themselves real
harm these are people who I predict will
end up being referred to Bar counsel may
be sanctioned could be disbarred at the
end of the day as other Trump aligned
lawyers have been and here's the good
news we're always looking for a point of
light to give our viewers right
um I think the doj is going to run out
of dirty lawyers who are willing to go
in and debase themselves like this ins
service to Dear leader and what we're
seeing Brian the people who are going
into court first of all I can tell you
they're not the best and the brightest
at the Department of Justice because the
best and the brightest are honest
honorable ethical attorneys and
hardworking public servants who remain
loyal to the Constitution and you see
these kind of high doj officials who are
Trump flunkies going in and arguing
cases where I can promise you you never
see for example the deputy attorney
general the number two at the Department
of Justice going into court and arguing
anything they're bureaucrats right
usually it's three or four levels below
them in the org chart where you see
lawyers go in and arguing cases in court
they're going to run out of unethical
lawyers to do Donald Trump's dirty
bidding in court and that's why I keep
saying as bad as it looks as Bleak as it
is right now I don't think any of this
this is sustainable in the long run and
I think it will all end up imploding now
what form that implosion takes how long
before it happens and how much damage
can can Donald Trump do to our democracy
and the American people before it
implodes you know that that's anybody's
guess unfortunately well I I want to dig
into the the personal liability that
some of these lawyers might shoulder by
virtue of going into court and really
jerking the judges around or lying in
court or or having the or
misrepresenting what the Trump
administration's true position is in
terms of whether they're able to keep
their law licenses for example um do you
think that the bar has taken an
aggressive enough posture against folks
in the recent past who have been part of
you know the stolen election Saga that
Trump raised in 2020 uh when it comes to
really trying to preserve the Integrity
of this entire profession yeah it's a
great question and when we use a term
like the bar what people need to know
there are 50 bars each state has its own
bar has its own Bar Council and has its
own mechanism its own procedures for
investigating allegedly unethical um
practices by the lawyers who hold you
know a law license from that state let
me give you an example when you are for
example a federal prosecutor you have to
be a member of One State Bar I was a
member of the State Bar of New Jersey
and then you can practice federally in
federal court in all 50 states in all 13
Federal jurisdictions so the people who
are going in and when a judge says
something that calls into question the
credit credibility and the cander and
the truthfulness of an attorney I can
promise you the first thing that happens
Brian is that attorney will be referred
to their State Bar Council for a
possible investigation and people may
not know this every single Court opinion
that is authored goes into a database
and State Bar Council have these
programs these computer programs that
will review kind of you know just as a
matter of course will review every Court
opinion to see if a judge criticize the
ethics of an attorney who's a member of
that State Bar so these things will
inevitably be discovered and hopefully
the attorneys who are going in and
arguing unethical positions or
misrepresenting things to the court
ultimately they will be held to account
and their State Bar will give them a
look to see if they should be sanctioned
and and finally Glenn you had mentioned
that you don't believe that there's
going to be enough lawyers to sustain
what the Trump Administration is doing
enough prosecutors enough folks in the
legal profession to be able to sustain
this corrupt Behavior that's being
presented by by the Trump White House
when we see something like you know you
and I had spoken in our previous episode
about Paul Weiss this Law Firm that
opted to bend the knee to the Trump
Administration offer legal services that
that would be more um palatable for for
for conservatives and when we're seeing
things kind of go in the wrong direction
especially among folks who should know
better like the lawyers at Paul Weiss uh
just to name one firm does that give you
worry because on one hand yes it it
lends itself to reason that there should
eventually come a point where we're
going to run out of Bargain Basement
lawyers who are willing to do the
corrupt bidding of Donald Trump but at
the same time we actually are seeing
things move in the wrong direction as as
it relates to these lawyers um who are
in increasingly willing to allow
themselves to be cowed by Trump yeah it
gives me grave concern when I see doj
lawyers going in and you know misleading
the court saying one thing when they
know full well that the secretary of
defense is saying and intending
something very different when it comes
to Trump's transgender ban for military
service um it gives me grave concern
when I see law firms otherwise
respectable law firms like Paul Weiss go
into the Oval Office and bend the knee
because Donald Trump attempted to
retaliate against them and instead of
standing up in court against that
Lawless retaliation indeed the New York
Times reported that these executive
orders that Donald Trump is signing
trying to punish and retaliate against
law firms that displease him are quote
likely unlawful and I have a feeling
that's the way you'll see judges rule so
you have law firms like Perkins Koy that
is going in and fighting this
lawlessness of Donald Trump and then law
firms like Paul Weiss who are
capitulating and saying I'll tell you
what we'll give you $40 million in legal
services if you'll just stop punishing
us you know what Paul Weiss did Brian
makes all of our jobs fighting for the
health and viability of American
democracy significantly harder but
here's what I'm heartened by I have been
watching very closely all of the push
back from lawyers from law firms in the
wake of the reporting about how Paul
Weiss bent the knee that law firm bent
the knee to Donald Trump and I am seeing
the the legal Community coalescing
around the rule of law and the
Constitution and the honor of our
practice in federal courts and elsewhere
and I do think all of this will end up
being a trump miscalculation I think the
more people and entities and
organizations Donald Trump alienates
with his Lawless executive orders for
example the more that will help hasten
his ultimate political demise which I
still think is coming maybe not tomorrow
maybe not next year but I do think it's
coming so I'm actually heartened by the
response of the legal Community overall
to what we are seeing you know from
those select law firms that are bending
the knee to Trump well look all of this
underscores the importance that the
courts are having right now they are
really serving as the most effective buw
workk against the worst excesses of this
Administration we're seeing it by virtue
of the fact that judges like the one
that we spoke about in this very video
judge Reyes losing their patience with
these folks at the Trump Administration
who are lying in the same way that Trump
has has been lying for so long so we'll
continue to stay on top of this for
those who are watching if you want to
support our work and stay on top of the
news as it continues to Blake to break
please make sure to subscribe the links
to both of our channels are right here
on the screen I'm Brian Tyler Cohen
and I'm Glenn kersner you're watching
the legal breakdown
[Music]

Why a DOJ prosecutor resigned, telling coworkers and bosses 'you serve no man'
by Tom Dreisbach
Heard on All Things Considered
March 20, 2025 4:00 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-53 ... tion-jan-6

A prosecutor with years of experience at the U.S. Department of Justice has resigned amid major changes from the Trump administration, telling NPR, "It just was not a Department of Justice that I any longer wanted to associate with."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -redacted/
 
U.S. Department of Justice
W. Stephen Muldrow
United States Attorney
District of Puerto Rico
Torre Chardón, Suite 1201
350 Carlos Chardón Street
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918
787-766-5656

March 14, 2025

The Honorable Muldrow,

With humility and gratitude, effective the end of the day today, I am suspending indefinitely my time with the United States Department of Justice. I recall during my interview for the position, the former U.S. Attorney asked me if I had ever been to Puerto Rico. I replied that I had not. I will be forever grateful that [DELETE], [DELETE], and the rest of the hiring committee nonetheless put their trust in me and offered me the opportunity to serve the people of Puerto Rico as an Assistant United States Attorney. My first trip to Puerto Rico in November 2021 was with a one-way ticket.

As anyone who has ever tried to do so knows, there is no easy answer to the question, how do you measure a year, or in my case, 2,298 days? Luckily, we now know the most meaningful way to account for our time. No, silly reader. The answer lieth not in paper straws, a.k.a., the devil’s soggy suck tube. (Quick aside: I have recently seen some folks printing out resignation letters, rolling them up into tight little tubes, and using them as paper straws in clear contravention of a recent memo and the norms of morality. Such acts of insuckordination can only be classified as a grave national injustice. I have reported you to the relevant authorities, the Department for Integration of Commissary Kits. Accordingly, I ask that if you feel inclined to print out this letter, please consider using plastic sheets.)1 [1 Yes, I did just dedicate a full paragraph of my resignation letter to a bit about paper straws.]

Without further ado, I give you the one true way by which one can meaningfully assess my personal and professional worth, to wit, five bullet points:

• I was a founding and terminating member of short-lived but proud group of AUSAs that made up F.U., the Firearms Unit. I am grateful for being able to work with the strong men and women of the Police of Puerto Rico to get guns and drugs out of the hands of criminals and off the streets. Thank you, [DELETE].

• I partnered with our various federal law enforcement agencies in OCDETF to identify, disrupt, and dismantle major drug trafficking operations in Puerto Rico and throughout the Caribbean. Thank you, [DELETE].

• I joined forces with the tremendous AUSAs and support staff at USAO-DC and nationwide USAOs and with amazing SAs and TFOs at FBI field offices and RAs around the country. Together we addressed the grave national injustice (methinks this be a better use of the phrase) that occurred on January 6, 2021, at the seat of our nation’s government, the U.S. Capitol. Thank you, [DELETE], [DELETE],[DELETE], and countless others.

• I coordinated the efforts of the Capitol Siege Section to identify and hold accountable each person that assaulted a police officer as those officers bravely and selflessly stood between a violent mob and members of Congress as those same members of Congress attempted to carry out a Constitutionally ordained function. Thank you, brave women and men of the U.S. Capitol Police, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, and other agencies that responded to the call for assistance. To my small but mighty crew, I am forever in your debt.

• The Appeals section welcomed me with open arms, and I appeared twice before the First Circuit to argue on behalf of the United States that bad actors should remain incarcerated and subject to their duly imposed sentences. Thank you, [DELETE]. To all my developing friendships in that section, I am sorry that our professional association ends so soon and that I did not do more to lift the heavy load that is currently on your shoulders.

Through each of these experiences and in all my time in public service (BXDAforLife), I have come to know that the measure of justice is not in the outcome. We cannot ever permit ourselves to devalue our present and ongoing work and efforts through the lens of a subsequent, uncontrollable occurrence. Justice is showing up to the fight when the fight is before us.

“The words thank you are not sufficient to express my gratitude to [DELETE], [DELETE], and all the present and former support staff, attorneys, and leadership at the USAO-PR. As I step away, I am proud of the work I did at each step of my career, and grateful for the support and kindness [ received from each of you. I consider it my honor to have served alongside the many of you that are receiving this email and the many more that are not. Please keep in touch.

May you each continue strong in service for as long as you desire to or are able to remain.

May you renew daily your dedication to justice, and always seek to end each day secure in the knowledge that you showed up and sought justice for your one and only client, the people oft he United States of America. You serve no man.

Stuawfully yours,

Sean P. Murphy

In a sharp resignation letter shared with NPR, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Murphy warned of the erosion of the Justice Department's independence from the president, writing to his coworkers, "you serve no man."

In response to NPR's request for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice said in a statement, "This Department of Justice is acutely focused on Making America Safe Again and ensuring one tier of justice for all Americans after historic political weaponization under the previous administration."

Murphy is a veteran prosecutor who previously worked for the Bronx District Attorney in New York. In 2018, during Trump's first term, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office in Puerto Rico and worked on drug trafficking and illegal gun prosecutions. Most recently, he served in the Department of Justice's Capitol Siege Section, which prosecuted more than 1,500 people for crimes stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

When Trump took office, he immediately granted clemency to all of the Jan. 6 defendants — even the most violent offenders and those with lengthy criminal records — and his administration fired and demoted many prosecutors who worked on those cases.

As a result, Murphy said, he simultaneously faced threats and harassment from Jan. 6 defendants, who were emboldened by their presidential pardons, while also having to fear retaliation from the administration.

"There are some posts on social media saying that prosecutors 'need to fry,' that prosecutors need to 'get the rope,'" Murphy said, "comments naming prosecutors directly, saying, 'now it's your turn.'"

Murphy said he did not feel that federal law enforcement under Trump's leadership would protect Jan. 6 prosecutors. In addition to the pardons, Trump has praised the Capitol riot defendants as "patriots" and described the prosecutions as a "grave national injustice."

"I don't think the safety of those that caused that 'injustice' is a priority for the current administration," Murphy said.

Murphy has three children, all of whom are still in school. He said getting fired would cause serious consequences for his family's financial situation.

Still, over the course of the last two months, Murphy told NPR that he questioned whether he could remain in the Department of Justice given its new direction under Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump loyalist. The recently installed FBI Deputy Director, a former Secret Service agent turned podcaster named Dan Bongino, has also repeatedly called for prosecuting Trump's political opponents.


Sean Murphy resigned from the Department of Justice this month, after agonizing over his decision.

Seven federal prosecutors resigned from the Justice Department last month over ethical concerns about the administration's decision to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Another veteran prosecutor in Washington, D.C. resigned after refusing to follow an order she believed was unsupported by the law.

Most concerning to Murphy has been the erosion of the Justice Department's independence from the president. After the Watergate scandal during Richard Nixon's presidency, subsequent administrations put more distance between the president and federal law enforcement to prevent politicization and abuses of power. The new administration has rejected that independence, all while arguing that the Biden administration "weaponized" law enforcement.

"We all work for the greatest president in the history of our country," Bondi said in a speech to the Justice Department last week. "We are so proud to work at the directive of Donald Trump."

After Bondi spoke, Trump gave a speech where he described himself as the "chief law enforcement officer in our country," and railed against his political opponents and other perceived enemies.

"To maintain credibility, there has to be some separation between the President and the Department of Justice, some measure of independence," Murphy told NPR. "And that's nearly gone."

He also pointed to a statement posted on social media from Ed Martin, interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and an activist for Jan. 6 defendants.

"The interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia repeatedly referred to his office and himself as 'the president's lawyers.' And that we are not," Murphy said. "An Assistant United States Attorney's only client is the people of the United States of America. None of us are 'the president's lawyers.'"

Trump has nominated Martin to take that position full-time, but he has not yet been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Another message from Bondi also got under Murphy's skin — not because of its importance, but its insignificance.

Earlier this month, the department issued a three-paragraph memo announcing a ban on paper straws.

"I mean, it was just so crazy to me that the attorney general of the United States would be writing a memo about the dangers of paper straws," Murphy said.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/ ... er-straws/

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ends the Procurement and Forced Use of Paper Straws
by The White House
February 10, 2025

ENDING THE FORCED USE OF PAPER STRAWS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to end the procurement and forced use of paper straws.

• The Federal government is directed to stop purchasing paper straws and ensure they are no longer provided within Federal buildings.

• The Order requires the development of a National Strategy to End the Use of Paper Straws within 45 days to alleviate the forced use of paper straws nationwide.

BRINGING BACK COMMON SENSE: The irrational campaign against plastic straws has forced Americans to use nonfunctional paper straws. This ends under President Trump.

• Cities and states across America have banned plastic straws, caving to pressure from woke activists who prioritize symbolism over science.

• Paper straws use chemicals that may carry risks to human health – including “forever chemical” PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) which are known to be highly water soluble and can bleed from the straw into a drink.

• A study found that while PFAS were found in paper straws, no measurable PFAS were found in plastic straws.

• Paper straws are more expensive than plastic straws, and often force users to use multiple straws.

• Paper straws are not the eco-friendly alternative they claim to be – studies have shown that producing paper straws can have a larger carbon footprint and require more water than plastic straws.

• Paper straws often come individually wrapped in plastic, undermining the environmental argument for their use.

PROMOTING A CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT: President Trump has made it a top priority to promote a clean and healthy environment for the American people.

• President Trump’s policies are promoting economic growth, while still maintaining standards that allow Americans to have among the cleanest air and water in the world.

• This marks a sharp contrast from the previous Administration, which wasted American taxpayer dollars on virtue signaling instead of implementing effective solutions.

• For instance, the Biden Administration spent billions on electric vehicle charging stations, yet only eight were completed.

• Meanwhile, President Trump’s commonsense approach to environmental conservation has demonstrated his true commitment to preserving America’s natural resources.

• President Trump has championed improved forest management in order to prevent forest fires that are devastating communities and ecosystems across the country.

• By pausing the expansion of windmills, President Trump recognized their detrimental environmental impact, particularly on wildlife, often outweighs their benefits.

• President Trump signed the Save Our Seas Act to preserve and protect our beautiful waters and oceans from being littered with garbage.

• President Trump is committed to securing American energy independence, recognizing that America’s domestic supply of clean coal and natural gas not only strengthens national security but also provides some of the cleanest energy in the world.

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Eventually, Murphy accepted an offer to work at a private practice in Puerto Rico, so his family would not have to uproot if he were to be reassigned by the Justice Department, or if he was fired. All of the changes at the Justice Department, he said, had, in a way, made his decision for him.

"It became for me the question of how high do you let the water rise before you get in the boat?" Murphy said. "And if it was just me, the calculus would have been different. But I have to think of my family. And I made a choice."

Murphy resigned on Friday, March 14. In his resignation letter he mocked the memo on paper straws, took time to praise the work of his fellow Jan. 6 prosecutors and rebuked Trump's criticism that they had committed a "national injustice."

"Together we addressed the grave national injustice (methinks this be a better use of the phrase) that occurred on January 6, 2021, at the seat of our nation's government, the U.S. Capitol," Murphy wrote, and went on to commend the police officers who protected the Capitol that day.

He ended his letter with an entreaty to his now-former coworkers and bosses.

"May you renew daily your dedication to justice, and always seek to end each day secure in the knowledge that you showed up and sought justice for your one and only client, the people of the United States of America," he wrote. "You serve no man."

‘Hypocritical,’ ‘lawless,’ ‘a provocation’: Laurence Tribe slams Trump’s attacks on judges
by Ali Velshi & Laurence Tribe
MSNBC
Mar 22, 2025 #msnbc #trump #politics

As concerns grow that Donald Trump is leading America into a constitutional crisis, Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe says that’s the wrong way to frame it. He tells Ali Velshi, “For years, we have allowed the body politic to be hollowed out by a virus – a virus that attacks the very foundations of the rule of law on which the government really rests.” Meanwhile, attacks on the courts are escalating, and the president has called for the Supreme Court to rein in federal judges and “stop nationwide injunctions.” “It is hypocritical, it is lawless, and it is a provocation.”



Transcript

TAKING THE COUNTRY DOWN A
DANGEROUS PATH THAT'S ULTIMATELY
GOING TO COST US ALL. BUT LET'S
BEGIN THIS MORNING WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES
INCREASINGLY CONTENTIOUS
RHETORIC TOWARD THE AMERICAN
JUDICIARY. THERE ARE GROWING
CONCERNS THAT WE ARE RAMPING UP
TO AN HISTORIC CLASH BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND THE COURTS THAT
COULD HAVE DIRE CONSEQUENCES FOR
OUR DEMOCRACY. AND BY ALL
APPEARANCES, THE PRESIDENT IS
ACTIVELY PURSUING THIS COLLISION
COURSE WITH THE ONE CO-EQUAL
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT'S
CURRENTLY ACTING AS THE BEST AND
MOST ACTIVE CHECK ON HIS
AUTHORITY. HE RECENTLY TOOK TO
TRUTH SOCIAL TO CALL ON THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT TO REIN IN FEDERAL JUDGES
WHO ARE RULING AGAINST HIS
POLICIES, QUOTE, STOP NATIONWIDE
INJUNCTIONS NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO
LATE. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF COURT
CASES THAT COULD BE THE CATALYST
THAT SETS OFF A TRUE CRISIS
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE
JUDICIARY, BUT THE MOST LIKELY
ONE AT THE MOMENT APPEARS TO BE
TRUMP'S INVOCATION LAST WEEK OF
THE ALIEN ENEMIES ACT OF 1798,
AND THE ENSUING CONFUSION
REGARDING THE AIRPLANES THAT
CARRIED THOSE DEPORTEES OUT OF
AMERICA. FOR THE PAST WEEK, THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS EVADED
DIRECTLY ANSWERING A FEDERAL
JUDGE'S FIVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE DEPORTATION OF A
GROUP OF 137 MIGRANTS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT DEEMED TO BE ENEMY
ALIENS. NOW, DURING A HEARING
YESTERDAY THAT JUDGE THIS MAN,
JAMES BOASBERG, THE CHIEF JUDGE
OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
REMARKED THAT THE RAMIFICATIONS
OF THIS POLICY ARE, QUOTE,
INCREDIBLY TROUBLESOME AND
PROBLEMATIC AND CONCERNING. END
QUOTE. CRUCIALLY, JUDGE BOASBERG
IS TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE WHITE HOUSE DEFIED HIS
INITIAL ORDER DIRECTING THE
GOVERNMENT TO DO WHATEVER IT HAD
TO DO TO HALT THE DEPORTATIONS,
EVEN IF THAT MEANT ORDERING THE
PLANES CARRYING THE DEPORTEES TO
TURN AROUND, AS HE SPECIFICALLY
ORDERED. THEY DO. THOSE PLANES
DID NOT RETURN TO THE UNITED
STATES. JUDGE BOASBERG
EXASPERATION OVER THE
ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE TO
DIRECTLY ANSWER WHETHER THAT WAS
IN DEFIANCE OF HIS ORDER HAS
BEEN EVIDENT THROUGHOUT THE
WEEK. ON THURSDAY, BOASBERG SAID
THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S VAGUE
ANSWERS TO HIS QUESTIONS WERE,
QUOTE, WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT.
YESTERDAY, HE REBUKED THE
GOVERNMENT AGAIN FOR FILING
MOTIONS USING, QUOTE,
INTEMPERATE AND DISRESPECTFUL
LANGUAGE THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER
SEEING FROM THE UNITED STATES.
END QUOTE. THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIONS HAVE
BEEN HIGHLY SCRUTINIZED OVER THE
PAST WEEK, ESPECIALLY BY
LAWMAKERS AND LEGAL EXPERTS
WHO'VE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT HOW
THIS COULD LEAD TO THE BREAKDOWN
OF THE RULE OF LAW. WHEN ASKED
BY NBC'S KRISTEN WELKER IF THE
UNITED STATES IS EXPERIENCING A
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, THE
SENATE MAJORITY MINORITY LEADER,
CHUCK SCHUMER, SAID, QUOTE, YES,
I DO. HE ADDED, QUOTE, DEMOCRACY
IS AT RISK. DONALD TRUMP IS A
LAWLESS, ANGRY MAN. HE THINKS HE
SHOULD BE KING. HE THINKS HE
SHOULD DO WHATEVER HE WANTS,
REGARDLESS OF THE LAW. AND HE
THINKS JUDGES SHOULD JUST LISTEN
TO HIM, END QUOTE, EVEN TY COBB,
THIS MAN, AN ATTORNEY WHO SERVED
IN THE WHITE HOUSE DURING THE
FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION,
REMARKED, QUOTE, THIS IS A
TOTALLY LAWLESS ADMINISTRATION
WITH NO RESPECT FOR THE COURTS
OR THE RULE OF LAW. END QUOTE.
FOR MORE ON THIS, I'M JOINED BY
LAURENCE TRIBE. HE'S A PROFESSOR
EMERITUS AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.
HE'S THE AUTHOR OF NUMEROUS
BOOKS, INCLUDING AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND TO END A
PRESIDENCY THE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT. PROFESSOR TRIBE, IT
IS GREAT TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU
FOR BEING WITH US. IT'S NOT
GREAT TO SEE YOU ON THESE UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER,
BECAUSE WE'RE ALL BANDYING
AROUND THIS TERM CONSTITUTIONAL
CRISIS. IT'S A TERM THAT'S BEEN
USED A LOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
INVOCATION OF THE ALIEN ENEMIES
ACT AND THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
THAT'S BREWING OVER HOW THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTERED IT. SOME HAVE SAID
TO ME THE TERM DOESN'T MATTER,
BUT THERE IS DEFINITELY
SOMETHING BREWING RIGHT NOW THAT
SHOULD BE OF CONCERN TO ALL
AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE IN THE
RULE OF LAW.
>> WELL, I AGREE, BUT I DO THINK
THAT.
>> LOOKING FOR AN.
>> EXPLOSION.
>> A KIND.
>> OF. MOMENT OF CRISIS, WHAT.
>> PHYSICISTS LIKE.
>> TO CALL.
>> A SINGULARITY.
>> IN IN.
>> A KIND OF UNIQUE. EPISODE OF.
PRESIDENTIAL DEFIANCE OF A
COURT.
>> ORDER THAT'S MISLEADING.
>> IT FRAMES.
>> WHAT WE.
>> ARE EXPERIENCING.
>> IN THE.
>> WRONG WAY.
>> I'M REMINDED.
>> REALLY. OF THE GREAT POEM
THE. HOLLOW MEN BY T.S. ELIOT,
WRITTEN.
>> 100 YEARS.
>> AGO THIS YEAR. HE FAMOUSLY.
>> WROTE. THIS IS THE.
>> WAY THE WORLD ENDS.
>> THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD
ENDS. NOT WITH A BANG.
>> BUT A WHIMPER.
>> FOR YEARS. FOR YEARS WE.
>> HAVE ALLOWED THE BODY POLITIC
TO.
>> BE HOLLOWED.
>> OUT BY A VIRUS.
>> A VIRUS THAT. ATTACKS THE
VERY FOUNDATIONS OF THE RULE OF
LAW IN WHICH THE.
>> GOVERNMENT REALLY RESTS. IT'S
A VIRUS. WE HAVE TO FIGHT WITH
ALL.
>> OUR ENERGY. WITHOUT WAITING
FOR JUST.
>> THE RIGHT MOMENT.
>> YOU KNOW, IT'S A.
>> DISEASE.
>> IF YOU THINK ABOUT.
>> IT, ALI, THAT REACHED.
>> FEVER PITCH AROUND THE
JANUARY.
>> 6TH INSURRECTION.
>> IT WAS. OUR IMMUNE SYSTEM,
FAILURE TO. RESPOND TO IT. WHEN
THE SENATE LET.
>> DONALD TRUMP.
>> THE INSURRECTIONIST.
>> IN CHIEF, OFF.
>> THE HOOK. BY VOTING.
>> TO ACQUIT HIM ON.
>> THE.
>> LEGALLY BOGUS GROUNDS.
>> THAT IT HAD.
>> LOST JURISDICTION.
>> SINCE THE TRIAL STARTED TOO
LATE.
>> AND THEN.
>> THAT LED TO THE SUPREME
COURT'S. REFUSAL TO.
>> ENFORCE SECTION.
>> THREE OF THE 14TH.
>> AMENDMENT TO DISQUALIFY.
>> DONALD TRUMP.
>> AND THEN, WHEN.
>> THE SUPREME.
>> COURT DELAYED THE.
>> SPECIAL COUNSEL'S
PROSECUTION.
>> USING IT IN THE MEANTIME TO
CREATE.
>> A TOTALLY.
>> NEW AND SWEEPING PRESIDENTIAL
IMMUNITY.
>> WHICH IN TURN MADE IT EASY
FOR DONALD TRUMP TO PARDON ALL.
>> THE INSURRECTIONISTS.
>> GIVING THEM THE. IMPLICIT
MESSAGE THAT IF THEY GO OUT AND
CRIME.
>> AGAIN IN.
>> HIS SUPPORT.
>> HE'LL PARDON THEM. AND THE.
DISEASE NOW. IS PROGRESSING TO
THE.
>> POINT WHERE.
>> REALLY A.
>> VIRTUAL CO-PRESIDENCY.
>> WHICH IS.
>> COMPLETELY ALIEN TO. OUR
DEMOCRACIES DESIGN.
>> IS USING POWERS THAT.
>> THE FRAMERS.
>> GAVE TO CONGRESS TO CREATE.
>> AND DESTROY AGENCIES, TO FUND
AND. DEFUND ACTIVITIES. ACROSS
THE BOARD.
>> AND DOING.
>> IT SO FAST, BREAKING THINGS.
>> SO QUICKLY THAT NOT EVEN.
GENUINELY INDEPENDENT.
>> FEDERAL COURTS LIKE JUDGE
BOASBERG CAN FULLY.
>> KEEP PACE WITH THE MAYHEM. SO
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FACING
CALLING, YOU KNOW, LOOKING.
>> FOR THE MOMENT OF CRISIS. IS
LIKE LOOKING FOR THE SHINY.
OBJECT AND TAKING OUR EYES OFF.
THE DISEASE THAT IS. SPREADING
AND THAT WE REALLY.
>> HAVE.
>> TO FIGHT THE VIRUS WE NEED TO
FIGHT. LET'S, LET'S I WANT TO
ASK YOU ABOUT THIS THING THAT
DONALD TRUMP TO DIRECTED AT
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS. THEY
STOPPED THE NATIONWIDE
INJUNCTIONS. NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO
LATE. NOW, THE TWO PARTS OF THAT
MOST OF THESE INJUNCTIONS ARE
NATIONWIDE BECAUSE IF YOU SAID
YOU YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW A PROCESS
IN ORDER TO DEPORT MIGRANTS,
THAT CAN'T BE A DC SPECIFIC
MATTER, BECAUSE THEN YOU JUST
MOVE THE MIGRANTS TO TEXAS AND
DEPORT THEM. SO THERE'S THAT
PART. BUT THE MORE OMINOUS PART
IS THE SECOND PART WHERE HE
SAYS, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE,
WHICH IS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
MEAN. WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS
THAT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> WELL.
>> IT'S OMINOUS. HE'S TRYING.
>> TO SCARE.
>> EVERYBODY.
>> SAYING, YOU BETTER.
>> FOLLOW MY. ORDERS OR WE'LL.
>> NEVER.
>> KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> AND THEN.
>> JUDGES FEAR.
>> BEING SHOT. ALL KINDS.
>> OF TERRIBLE THINGS.
>> ARE GOING ON.
>> BUT TAKE THE PARTICULAR
EXAMPLE. NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.
TRUMP HIMSELF AND THE MAGA
MOVEMENT LOVED THOSE NATIONWIDE
INJUNCTIONS WHEN. BIDEN WAS IN
POWER, AND THEY.
>> WERE TRYING.
>> TO MAKE SURE THAT JUDGES
WOULD DISMANTLE HIS STUDENT LOAN
PROGRAM, OR.
>> THAT EVEN IN.
>> CASES THAT VARIED.
>> STATE BY.
>> STATE.
>> UNLIKE WHAT YOU'RE.
>> DESCRIBING, LIKE.
>> ABORTION.
>> THEY LOVED.
>> THE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.
>> ENTERED BY VERY.
>> FAR RIGHT JUDGES. BUT THERE
IS.
>> NO ALTERNATIVE.
>> WHEN THE.
>> ACTION THAT IS IN.
>> VIOLATION OF THE. LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION. LIKE THE. JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT'S INVOCATION OF THE
ALIEN ENEMIES ACT, THAT WAS
REALLY.
>> MOST RECENTLY.
>> USED FOR THE JAPANESE
INTERNMENT CASE, KOREMATSU.
>> WHEN THE. ADMINISTRATION
INVOKES.
>> THAT ACT, WHEN IT. DOESN'T
APPLY. TO PEOPLE.
>> WHO HAVEN'T EVEN.
>> BEEN DETERMINED TO BE WITHIN
THE GROUP THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY
ELIGIBLE FOR DEPORTATION.
>> YOU EITHER FLY.
>> THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND
PUT THEM BEYOND REACH, OR YOU
DON'T. SO BOASBERG EITHER HAD TO
THROW HIS HANDS UP AND SAY, I
CAN'T ENFORCE THE LAW, OR HE.
>> HAD TO.
>> SAY, TURN THOSE PLANES
AROUND. THAT'S WHAT HE DID. AND
NOW WE'RE TOLD BY TRUMP, OH NO,
THESE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS ARE
TERRIBLE.
>> IT IS HYPOCRITICAL. IT IS.
>> LAWLESS, AND IT IS A
PROVOCATION WHEN THE. CHIEF
JUSTICE RIGHTLY SAYS, YOU CAN
CRITICIZE JUDGES ALL YOU WANT.
>> BUT DON'T THREATEN.
>> TO IMPEACH THEM.
>> AND PUT A.
>> TARGET ON.
>> THEIR.
>> BACKS FOR DOING THEIR JOB.
YEAH, AND IT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC
TARGET. HE'S REFERRED TO JUDGE
BOASBERG AS A RADICAL LEFT
LUNATIC. THIS IS A JUDGE WHO WAS
APPOINTED FIRST TO THE BENCH BY
GEORGE W BUSH, AND THEN AND THEN
TO HIS CURRENT ROLE BY BARACK
OBAMA. IN ALL MY READING OF HIM,
I DON'T KNOW WHERE ONE WOULD
FIND EITHER RADICAL OR LEFT OR
LUNATIC.
>> NO WAY. I MEAN, HE IS A
UNIVERSALLY RESPECTED JUDGE.
>> HE WAS PUT BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE ON THE. FISA COURT.
>> WITH OTHER CONSERVATIVE
JUDGES. HE'S NOT.
>> LEFT WING IN.
>> ANY SENSE.
>> AND WHEN TRUMP SAYS, I DON'T
KNOW WHO THE JUDGE IS, BUT I
KNOW HE'S GOT TO BE RADICAL LEFT
WING.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
>> I MEAN.
>> IT'S SELF-CONTRADICTION.
>> AS IS SO MUCH OF WHAT THE
CURRENT PRESIDENT SAYS. TALK TO
ME ABOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT THING
WHERE IT'S SPREADING THE IDEA OF
IMPEACHING JUDGES. IT IS A VERY,
VERY CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD MATTER.
YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED IT,
JUDGE LUTTIG, AND I AND YOU AND
I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS IDEA THAT
YOU CAN BE VERY, VERY UPSET WITH
A WITH A COURT RULING. AND MANY
PEOPLE IN AMERICA, ACROSS THE
POLITICAL SPECTRUM ARE UPSET,
UPSET WITH MANY COURT RULINGS,
INCLUDING SOME COMING FROM THE
SUPREME COURT. BUT IMPEACHMENT
IS ABOUT MISCONDUCT OR SOMETHING
THAT HAS GONE WRONG, NOT A
DISAGREEMENT OVER A LEGAL
DECISION.
>> EXACTLY.
>> IT'S ABOUT ABUSE. OF POWER.
>> IT IS ABOUT HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
>> THE LAST.
>> TIME PEOPLE.
>> ACROSS THE COUNTRY STARTED
MISUSING.
>> THE. IMPEACHMENT CONCEPT.
>> FOR A JUDGE WAS WHEN WE HAD.
>> BILLBOARDS ALL.
>> OVER THE COUNTRY SAYING,
IMPEACH EARL WARREN OVER THE
DECISION IN BROWN V BOARD OF
EDUCATION. WELL, THERE WERE SOME
PEOPLE WHO DISAGREED WITH THE
DECISION.
>> BUT YOU ONCE YOU START
THREATENING.
>> TO REMOVE.
>> JUDGES BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY
GOT.
>> IT WRONG IN A.
>> PARTICULAR CASE, HOWEVER
IMPORTANT, THE.
>> WHOLE.
>> IDEA OF AN. INDEPENDENT
JUDICIARY CRUMBLES. ONE OF THE
PILLARS OF THE RULE OF LAW THAT
PREVENTS US FROM BECOMING A
COMPLETE.
>> DICTATORSHIP.
>> OR AN OLIGARCHY, OR.
>> AN AUTOCRACY.
>> OF SOME OTHER KIND.
>> IS THE IDEA.
>> THAT THE JUDICIARY IS
INDEPENDENT. IT DOESN'T ALWAYS
HAVE THE LAST WORD. YOU CAN
AMEND THE.
>> CONSTITUTION IF YOU.
>> DON'T AGREE WITH.
>> IT, AS I THINK WE SHOULD
AMEND IT TO GET RID OF THAT.
>> ABSOLUTE AND.
>> SWEEPING IMMUNITY.
>> THAT WAS GIVEN.
>> TO.
>> PRESIDENTS FOR COMMITTING.
>> CRIMES IN OFFICE.
>> BUT YOU DON'T THREATEN TO
REMOVE THE JUDGE. AND WHEN YOU
DO, AND COUPLE IT WITH THE KIND
OF PROVOCATIVE.
>> VIOLENT RHETORIC.
>> THAT WE ARE HEARING NOW.
>> YOU HAVE THINGS LIKE JUDGE.
>> SALAS SON BEING. KILLED BY.
SOMEONE WHO WAS.
>> TRYING TO SHOOT HER.
>> BECAUSE HE.
>> DIDN'T AGREE WITH.
>> HER DECISION.
>> THAT'S NOT.
>> HOW A.
>> COUNTRY THAT IS.
>> BASED ON LAW AND.
>> ORDER AND SELF-GOVERNMENT.
>> CAN EVER SURVIVE.
>> AND THAT'S.
>> WHY I THINK THE VIRUS.
>> THAT HAS BEEN.
>> SPREADING EVER SINCE THE
JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTION HAS GOT
TO BE COMBATED. WITH ALL THE
TOOLS AT OUR DISPOSAL. EVERYONE
HAS. TO STAND UP AND NOT SIMPLY
CAVE IN.
>> AND OBEY. AND ADVANCE THE
WAY, THE WAY SOME.
>> ARE.
>> DOING TO. DONALD TRUMP'S
THREATS.
>> PROFESSOR, IT'S ALWAYS AN
HONOR TO HAVE YOU ON THE SHOW.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS
MORNING. PROFESSOR LAWRENCE
TRIBE IS A PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. HE'S THE
AUTHOR OF SEVERAL IMPORTANT
BOOKS THAT LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS
IN THIS

Questions swirl after Trump says he didn’t sign Aliens Enemies Act - so who did? Questions around the signature led some to speculate the president may have used an autopen – a device he has criticized
by Ariana Baio in New York
ukIndependent
Saturday 22 March 2025 21:35 GMT
https://www.the-independent.com/news/wo ... 19935.html

President Donald Trump confused reporters after claiming he “didn’t sign” the presidential proclamation that invoked the controversial Alien and Enemies Act in order to quickly deport migrants the administration says are part of a Venezuelan gang.

When asked by a reporter about signing the proclamation “in the dark” – rather than at the Oval Office desk or in a public capacity as the president has done with other executive actions – the president denied signing it at all.

“I don’t know when it was signed because I didn’t sign it,” the president said.

Instead, Trump appeared to push the blame for invoking the 18th-century wartime law onto “other people” in his administration including Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“Other people handled it,” Trump said. “But Marco Rubio’s done a great job. And he wanted them out, and we go along with that. We want to get criminals out of our country.”

Despite his claim, the president’s digital signature does appear on the version of the proclamation available on the Federal Register website.

The President’s statement immediately raised alarm bells for some.

“If that’s true, if Donald Trump did not actually sign that proclamation, it’s a big problem because the law specifically requires a proclamation by the president,” asked CNN political analyst Elie Honig, according to The Hill.

There were similar questions on social media.

“Trump just said he didn't sign his own EO? This is the guy who claimed Joe Biden's pardons weren't legitimate, because he used an autopen, but he allowed someone else to sign his executive order?” one X user noted.

“If Trump didn't sign the proclamation as he claims then everything that happened after is illegal...lol,” another noted.

The White House later clarified that the president was referring to the original Alien Enemies Act, passed by Congress in 1798 and did sign the recent proclamation that invokes the highly controversial set of laws.

“President Trump was obviously referring to the original Aliens Enemies Act that was signed back in 1798,” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said in a statement.

“The recent Executive Order was personally signed by President Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act that designated Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in order to apprehend and deport these heinous criminals,” Cheung added.

However, the question that prompted Trump’s answer specifically referred to a federal judge’s criticism of the proclamation that was raised earlier in the day during a court hearing.

Judge James Boasberg asked lawyers for the government why the president’s proclamation was “essentially signed in the dark” on the evening of March 14 and then migrants were “rushed onto planes” on the morning of March 15.

The hearing is part of a challenge to Trump’s attempts to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport, without due process, alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. Those challenging the use of the act say it was done hastily to skirt criminal and immigration laws.

The confusion over Trump’s signature on the proclamation raised also questions over whether the president used an autopen– a mechanical device that uses ink to repeat the signature of an individual - that has recently drawn his own ire.

Though past presidents and their administrations have used autopens, Trump has criticized its use – specifically condemning former president Joe Biden for using it on certain documents. Last week, Trump tried to claim Biden’s use of an autopen should “void” certain documents including presidential pardons.

The Justice Department has said the use of an autopen on official documents is legal.

**********************************

Trump's Reading of the Alien Enemies Act Defies the Usual Meaning of Its Terms. To justify the immediate deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members, the president is invoking a rarely used statute that does not seem to apply in this context.
by Jacob Sullum
reason.com
3.21.2025 6:00 PM
https://reason.com/2025/03/21/trumps-re ... its-terms/

James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has caught a lot of flak for temporarily blocking the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). As President Donald Trump tells it, Boasberg is a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator" who is wrongly preventing him from "doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do." According to Trump, Boasberg's intervention was so egregious that he "should be IMPEACHED!!!"

A few hours after that Tuesday-morning Truth Social rant, Rep. Rep. Brandon Gill (R–Texas) followed through on Trump's suggestion, introducing an article of impeachment that charges Boasberg with "high crimes and misdemeanors." Specifically, Gill claims Boasberg "abused the powers of his judicial authority" by "interfering with the President's constitutional prerogatives" and his powers under the AEA, which in Gill's view gives Trump "sole and unreviewable discretion" to decide who qualifies as an "alien enemy" subject to immediate removal from the United States.

As Trump and Gill portray the situation, that understanding of the statute is completely uncontroversial. But if that were true, there would be no case for Boasberg to consider. Far from abusing his judicial authority, Boasberg is doing exactly what he is supposed to do as a federal judge: choosing between dueling interpretations of the law based on arguments and evidence presented in court—an adversarial process that continued at a hearing on Friday afternoon.

The attorneys representing the targets of Trump's AEA deportations argue that he is misapplying key terms in that rarely invoked 1798 statute, which is the last remaining vestige of the notoriously repressive Alien and Sedition Acts. The AEA applies only when "there is a declared war" between the United States and a "foreign nation or government" or when a "foreign nation or government" has "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened" an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." In those circumstances, it authorizes the president to deport "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of that "hostile nation or government."

Until Trump took office in January, the AEA had been invoked only three times in 226 years: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. All of those situations fell into the "declared war" category. The AEA has never previously been invoked in response to a putative "invasion or predatory incursion" outside the context of a declared war. That is the threat Trump cites to justify peremptorily deporting suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

In a proclamation that Trump published last Saturday, he describes Tren de Aragua as "a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States." He says the gang "is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated," the Venezuelan government, "including its military and law enforcement apparatus." He adds that "Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations," including Tren de Aragua.

The result, Trump says, is "a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States." This is the logic by which Trump counterintutively equates Tren de Aragua with a "foreign nation or government." If you buy that, you may also accept his claim that supected members of Tren de Aragua qualify as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government." But you would also have to accept that the gang's "brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking," amount to an "invasion or predatory incursion" under the AEA.

All of this seems like quite a stretch. Trump does not claim to be at war with Venezuela. Nor does he claim that the Venezuelan government has mounted an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." And a criminal organization, even one that has corrupted or "infiltrated" a foreign government, is not a "hostile nation or government" as those terms are ordinarily understood.

Nor does Trump's understanding of "invasion or predatory incursion" make sense in the context of the AEA. "As the Supreme Court and past presidents have acknowledged, the Alien Enemies Act is a wartime authority enacted and implemented under the war power," Katherine Yon Ebright, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice who specializes in national security issues, explained last fall. "When the Fifth Congress passed the law and the Wilson administration defended it in court during World War I, they did so on the understanding that noncitizens with connections to a foreign belligerent could be 'treated as prisoners of war' under the 'rules of war under the law of nations.' In the Constitution and other late-1700s statutes, the term invasion is used literally, typically to refer to large-scale attacks. The term predatory incursion is also used literally in writings of that period to refer to slightly smaller attacks like the 1781 Raid on Richmond led by American defector Benedict Arnold."

Ebright noted that "some anti-immigration politicians and groups urge a non-literal reading of invasion and predatory incursion so that the Alien Enemies Act can be invoked in response to unlawful migration and cross-border narcotics trafficking." They view the statute as "a turbocharged deportation authority." But that "proposed reading of the law," Ebright argued, "is at odds with centuries of legislative, presidential, and judicial practice, all of which confirm that the Alien Enemies Act is a wartime authority. Invoking it in peacetime to bypass conventional immigration law would be a staggering abuse." That is exactly what Trump is now trying to do.

On the same day that Trump officially invoked the AEA against alleged members of Tren de Aragua, Boasberg, who had already issued a temporary restraining order that blocked deportation of five named plaintiffs, held a hearing to consider extending the TRO to a class consisting of "all noncitizens in U.S. custody" who were covered by Trump's proclamation. The issue was urgent, since the Trump administration was on the verge of flying detainees to El Salvador, which happened that very evening. Boasberg heard from Lee Gelernt, the America Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the plaintiffs, and from Drew Ensign, the Justice Department lawyer representing the Trump administration.

"There is a lot of law about what constitutes a foreign government," Gelernt told Boasberg. "And I don't think the United States recognizes [Tren de Aragua] as a foreign government. They recognize Venezuela as a foreign government. I think that's the historic understanding of the statute."

Gerlent also questioned the government's definition of "invasion or predatory incursion": "We think the Court certainly can review whether immigration constitutes some kind of invasion….We know of no historical precedent that would suggest that straight migration or noncitizens coming and committing crimes constitutes an invasion within the meaning of the statute or the Constitution."

While conceding "there isn't a lot of precedent on this," Ensign cited the Supreme Court's 1948 decision in Ludecke v. Watkins, which allowed the pre-deportation detention of a German citizen after the end of World War II. In that case, he said, the Court "recognized the very broad discretion of the president" in deciding whether the AEA's "declared war" provision still applied.

Boasberg conceded that "the courts can't question the president's power to remove enemy aliens or even his determination that a state of war continues to exist." But he said the Supreme Court in Ludecke "did seem to accept that courts could hear challenges to the construction and validity of the statute." If so, he asked Ensign, "doesn't it leave open the [possibility] that judicial review is available to look at whether certain preconditions have been met for the president to invoke the statute?"

Ensign argued that such an inquiry would involve "political questions" that are not subject to judicial review. He added that the case "cuts to the core of the president's Article II powers" by challenging his authority over immigration and foreign policy.

Gelernt noted that Trump is not "invoking his inherent authority under the Constitution." Rather, he said, Trump is "invoking a specific statutory provision [for which] Congress has laid out very clear guidelines, and I think it would be fundamentally inconsistent with separation of powers for this Court not to be able to review whether those preconditions were met."

After hearing from both sides, Boasberg noted that the case presents "hard questions, close questions, and particularly hard questions on the expedited time frame that we are talking about here." But he said the plaintiffs had "certainly presented a serious question that this is justiciable because it's outside of what Ludecke talked about." He thought they had made a plausible case that "the AEA does not provide a basis for the president's proclamation given that the terms invasion and predatory incursion really relate to hostile acts perpetrated by enemy nations and commensurate to war." The plaintiffs also had plausibly argued that "the terms nation and government do not apply to non-state actors like criminal gangs."

Based on the arguments presented at that point, Boasberg said, "I don't think the AEA provides a basis for removal under this proclamation." But he emphasized the preliminary nature of his order, which was aimed at preventing "irreparable harm" to the plaintiffs while the case was pending. In the meantime, he noted, the plaintiffs would remain in custody, which should be sufficient to address the government's public safety concerns.

Boasberg issued a TRO that applies to "all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025, Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua' and its implementation." He told Ensign what that meant: "Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States….However that's accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane…I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately."

Since then, Boasberg has been trying to figure out whether the Trump administration deliberately defied that order. That question hinges on the exact timing of the flights to El Salvador, where the deportees have been imprisoned. "The government is not being terribly cooperative at this point," Boasberg said at Friday's hearing, "but I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my order and who was responsible."

The flights that concern Boasberg did not include the five named plaintiffs, but they did include other Venezuelans covered by the broader TRO. On Monday, the White House described all of the deportees as "ruthless terrorist gang members," quoting a long list of Republican politicians who likewise welcomed Trump's effort to rid the country of "violent criminals," "rapists," "terrorists," "drug dealers," and "Tren de Aragua savages." But at least four of the named plaintiffs are asylum seekers who insist they are not in fact Tren De Aragua members. Two of them say they were identified as such based on nothing more than their nationality and misunderstood tattoos.

As Reason's Eric Boehm notes, those claims underline the importance of the due process that Trump is trying to avoid by invoking the AEA. At Friday's hearing, The New York Times reports, Boasberg "said he was concerned not only that President Trump has sought to use the [AEA] when there was neither an invasion taking place nor a declared state of war, but also that the people the government has sought to deport have no way of contesting whether they are actually gang members." He noted that "the policy ramifications of this are incredibly troublesome and problematic and concerning."

Those "policy ramifications," Trump argues, are beyond Boasberg's purview. But the central question presented by this case is whether Trump is acting within his authority under the AEA. The answer is far less clear than he and his allies imply.

DOCKET #138

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C 25-01780 WHA

THIRD REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

The Court has read news reports that, in at least one agency, probationary employees are being rehired but then placed on administrative leave en masse. This is not allowed by the preliminary injunction, for it would not restore the services the preliminary injunction intends to restore. Defendants shall state the extent to which any rehired probationary employees are being placed on administrative leave by MARCH 18, 2025, AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2025.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***************************

DOCKET #140

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C 25-01780 WHA

SUPPLEMENT TO THIRD REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.

On March 17, the undersigned requested that defendants “state the extent to which any rehired probationary employees are being placed on administrative leave” (Dkt. No. 138). Defendants’ response reproduces compliance reports produced in a separate action, State of Maryland v. United States Department of Agriculture, without more (Dkt. No. 139).

The Department of Defense, an enjoined relief defendant in this action, is not among the “restrained defendants” in Maryland. Defendants’ reproduction of the Maryland declarations is therefore silent as to DOD. Defendants shall redress that deficiency and provide a declaration from DOD by MARCH 19, 2025, AT NOON. If plaintiffs wish to file a response, they must do so by MARCH 20, 2025, AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Dated: March 18, 2025.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

********************************

DOCKET #139

PATRICK D. ROBBINS (CABN 152288)
Acting United States Attorney
PAMELA T. JOHANN (CABN 145558)
Chief, Civil Division
KELSEY J. HELLAND (CABN 298888)
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
ERIC HAMILTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
DIANE KELEHER
Branch Director
CHRISTOPHER HALL
Assistant Branch Director
JAMES D. TODD, JR.
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, DC 20044

Counsel for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 3:25-cv-01780-WHA

NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S THIRD REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

The Hon. William H. Alsup

Defendants respond to this Court’s March 17, 2025, Third Request for Information (“Request”), ECF No. 138. In that Request, the Court referenced “news reports that, in at least one agency, probationary employees are being rehired but then placed on administrative leave en masse” and stated that “[t]his is not allowed by the preliminary injunction, for it would not restore the services the preliminary injunction intends to restore.” Request. The Court ordered Defendants to “state the extent to which any rehired probationary employees are being placed on administrative leave.” Id.

Defendants note that in a separate proceeding the government filed a status report on March 17, 2025, explaining the actions taken by 21 Executive Branch agencies to comply with a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) requiring the reinstatement of terminated probationary employees. See Status Rep., State of Maryland, et al. v. U. S. Dep’t of Agric., et al., No. 1:25-cv748 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2025), ECF No. 52, (“State of Maryland”), attached as Ex. 1; TRO, State of Maryland, supra, ECF No. 44 (requiring reinstatement of probationary employees terminated on or after January 20, 2025), attached as Ex. 2.

As highlighted in agency declarations attached to that status report, administrative leave is not being used to skirt the requirement of reinstatement but is merely a first part of a series of steps to reinstate probationary employees. For example, a declaration submitted by an official from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”), which is a named defendant in both State of Maryland and in this case, is illustrative. See Decl. of Reesha Trznadel, State of Maryland, supra, ECF No. 52-1 at 5-8, attached as Ex. 3. As Ms. Trznadel explains, “Affected Probationary Employees have been placed in a retroactive Administrative Leave status that will continue until their badging and IT access are restored, at which time they will be converted to an Active Duty status” and “DOE continues working to reinstate employees by working with Agency leadership to arrange for an orderly return to the office (onboarding) while the employees are in an administrative leave status.” Trznadel Decl. ¶ 12, at 7.

The declaration of an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), which is also a defendant in both State of Maryland and in this case, further confirms this. See Decl. of Mary Pletcher Rice, ECF No. 52-1 at 55–58. Ms. Pletcher Rice’s declaration explains that “[a]s part of a phased plan for return-to-duty, upon returning to pay status, the Affected Probationary Employee will initially be placed on paid administrative leave” and that in the meantime “USDA is acting diligently to complete the administrative steps related to notifying the Affected Probationary Employees of their reinstatement, processing the reinstatements for purposes of all relevant USDA record systems, and returning the reinstated employees to duty status.” Pletcher Rice Decl. ¶ 5, at 57. Likewise, the declaration of an agency official with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) explains that the agency “for all intents and purposes, reinstated all Affected Probationary Employees, placing them in an initial administrative leave status with full pay and benefits, effective March 17, 2025,” and was “acting diligently to complete additional administrative processes related to the reinstatement of these employees.” Decl. of Mark Engelbaum ¶ 10, ECF No. 52-1 at 61–62. Additionally, the VA official stated that “Affected Probationary Employees will also receive back pay from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.” Id.

Defendants understand that, without this context, the Court may have had questions about whether the placement of employees on administrative leave was an effort to avoid the injunction but hope this clarification explains that this placement is an administrative, intermediate measure taken by a number of the agencies in order to return probationary employees to full duty status. Defendants propose to file a report with the Court on March 28, 2025, with any further updates about the return of probationary employees to full duty status.

Dated: March 18, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK D. ROBBINS (CABN 152288)
Acting United States Attorney
PAMELA T. JOHANN (CABN 145558)
Chief, Civil Division
KELSEY J. HELLAND (CABN 298888)
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
ERIC HAMILTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
DIANE KELLEHER
Branch Director
CHRISTOPHER HALL
Assistant Branch Director
JAMES D. TODD, JR.
Senior Trial Counsel
s/ Yuri S. Fuchs
YURI S. FUCHS
Trial Attorney
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, DC 20044
Counsel for Defendants

****************************

DOCKET #141

PATRICK D. ROBBINS (CABN 152288)
Acting United States Attorney
PAMELA T. JOHANN (CABN 145558)
Chief, Civil Division
KELSEY J. HELLAND (CABN 298888)
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
ERIC HAMILTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
DIANE KELEHER
Branch Director
CHRISTOPHER HALL
Assistant Branch Director
JAMES D. TODD, JR.
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, DC 20044

Counsel for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 3:25-cv-01780-WHA

Declaration of Timothy D. Dill in Support of Defendants' Notice in Response to the Court's Third Request for Information.

I, Timothy D. Dill, declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, as follows:

I. I am currently the official performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs of the Department of Defense ("Department"), headquartered in Washington, D.C. I have served in this position since January 22, 2025. The information below is based on my personal knowledge and information I have received in my role at the Department.

2. In my role at the Department, I am responsible for personnel policy for the Department of Defense's civilian workforce. That responsibility includes tracking and recording personnel actions, including terminations. I am responsible for ensuring that all personnel actions, including those related to probationary employees, comply with federal law.

3. I am aware of the preliminary injunction issued in this case on March 13, 2025, requiring the Department to offer reinstatement to all probationary employees terminated on or about February 13 and 14, 2025.

4. Department records indicate that since February 13, 2025, the Department separated, or notified of termination, 364 probationary employees in light of recent OPM guidance.

5. The Department has directed DoD Military Departments and Components to offer reinstatement or revoke pending termination notices for these employees. DoD Military Departments and Components have reinstated, or revoked pending termination notices, for approximately 65 employees. The remainder are pending notification, declined to accept the offer of reinstatement, or requested additional time to consider the offer.

6. Employees with pending termination notices will remain on administrative leave until the termination notice is revoked and they are able to be complete Department onboarding procedures. Previously terminated employees who have been reinstated are authorized administrative leave dating from the time of their termination until their completion of onboarding procedures. That placement of former employees on administrative leave is the first in a series of steps to reinstate probationary employees. The onboarding process will include certain training, completing human resources paperwork, obtaining new security badges, and re-enrolling in benefits programs.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Dated: March 19, 2025

Timothy D. Dill
Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs