The Hill: [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi ramps up pressure on 32 ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’: Who’s on the list?

Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi said Thursday she was ramping up pressure on 32 “sanctuary jurisdictions,” urging them to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

“I just sent Sanctuary City letters to 32 mayors around the country and multiple governors saying, you better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she told a Fox News reporter

“And they have, I think, a week to respond to me, so let’s see who responds and how they respond. It starts at the top, and our leaders have to support our law enforcement,” she added. 

The measure comes after an Aug. 5 release from the Justice Department highlighting various states, cities and counties deemed noncompliant with regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.

“For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in the letter to officials across the country. 

“Any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in a post announcing the move. 

She cited a late April executive order from President Trump as legal grounds for the push. 

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for the 32 jurisdictions that received letters from [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi. 

The below jurisdictions received a letter from the Department of Justice on Aug. 5:

States:

  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Illinois
  • Minnesota
  • Nevada
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Washington

Counties:

  • Baltimore County, Md.
  • Cook County, Ill.
  • San Diego County, Calif.
  • San Francisco County, Calif.

Cities:

  • Albuquerque, N.M.
  • Berkeley, Calif.
  • Boston
  • Chicago
  • Denver
  • District of Columbia
  • East Lansing, Mich.
  • Hoboken, N.J.
  • Jersey City, N.J.
  • Los Angeles
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • Newark, N.J.
  • Paterson, N.J.
  • Philadelphia
  • Portland, Ore.
  • Rochester, N.Y.
  • Seattle
  • San Francisco City

Pam Bimbo #3 Bondi is one of the stupidest women on Earth. Despite already losing a couple such cases on well-established Tenth Amendment grounds, she is now threatening to replicate her failures in 12 states, 4 counties, and 19 cities. When God passed out brains, Pam Bimbo #3 Bondi must have been hanging out near the manure spreader.

The bottom line is that the federal government can’t compel state and local governments to do its bidding. If the state and local governments don’t wish to comply or assist, the federal government must do its own dirty work.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5454204-bondi-immigration-enforcement-urge

The State: Child with stage 4 cancer deported by ICE despite being US citizen, lawsuit says

A 4-year-old boy’s ongoing care for stage 4 kidney cancer was interrupted when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers illegally deported him, his sister and mother “without even a semblance of due process,” attorneys for the family say.

Though they are U.S. citizens and were born Louisiana, the boy and his 7-year-old sister were deported to Honduras along with their 25-year-old mother, who is a Honduran citizen, on April 25, according to a federal lawsuit filed in the Middle District of Louisiana on July 31. The filing uses pseudonyms for the family, referring to the brother and sister as Romeo and Ruby and their mother as Rosario.

Before their deportations, Romeo, now 5, was receiving “life-saving” treatment at a New Orleans children’s hospital for his “rare and aggressive form” of cancer, following his diagnosis at age 2, a complaint says.

“As a direct consequence of ICE’s unlawful conduct, Romeo was deprived of much-needed continuity in his treatment, and he has faced substantial health risks due to his inability to access emergency specialized care and the routine critical oncological care that was available to him in the United States,” his family’s attorneys wrote in the complaint.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Romeo and his family, as well as a second family also wrongly deported by ICE under similar circumstances on April 25, according to the National Immigration Project, Gibson Dunn, Most & Associates, and Ware Immigration, groups representing the case.

The second family includes Julia, 30, a mother from Honduras. She has two daughters, Jade, 2, a U.S. citizen born in Baton Rouge, and Janelle, 11, also a Honduran citizen. Those names are also pseudonyms.

The same week of both families’ deportations, Rosario and Julia separately went to what they thought were supposed to be “regularly scheduled check-ins” with an ICE contractor.

However, officers with ICE apprehended both women and their children “in hotel rooms” in secret, the National Immigration Project said in a July 31 news release.

ICE “denied them the opportunity to speak to family and make decisions about or arrangements for their minor children, denied them access to counsel, and deported them within less than a day in one case and just over 2 days in the other,” the advocacy organization said.

According to the lawsuit, ICE did not let Rosario or Julia decide whether they wanted their children to come with them to Honduras or to make arrangements for them to stay in the U.S. with other loved ones.

“Given Romeo’s cancer and specialized medical needs, Rosario wanted both of her U.S. citizen children to remain in the United States,” the complaint says.

DHS, however, maintains both women wanted their children with them.

In response to McClatchy News’ request for comment for DHS and ICE on Aug. 11, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that “the media and Democrat politicians are force-feeding the public false information that U.S. citizen children are being deported. This is false and irresponsible.”

“Rather than separate their families, ICE asked the mothers if they wanted to be removed with their children or if they wanted ICE to place the children with someone safe the parent designates,” McLaughlin added. “The parents in this instance made the determination to take their children with them back to Honduras.”

The lawsuit has been brought against Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE and ICE Director Todd Lyons, as well as New Orleans ICE Field Office Director Brian Acuna, the office’s Assistant Field Office Director Scott Ladwig and the office’s former director, Mellissa Harper.

Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre declined to comment.

‘Detained and deported U.S. citizens’

After being deported in April, Rosario said in a statement shared in National Immigration Project’s news release that life in Hondorus has been “incredibly hard.”

“I don’t have the resources to care for my children the way they need,” Rosario said.

The morning of April 25, ICE officers are accused of waking Rosario, Romeo and Ruby and forcing them into a van.

They drove them to an airport in the Alexandria area and had them flown to Honduras, the lawsuit says.

With her son still in need of specialized treatment for his cancer, which had spread to his lungs, she has to send Romeo “back and forth” from Honduras to the U.S. for care, without her, according to the complaint.

“Even though she has very limited financial resources, Rosario has already had to pay for flights and travel companions to enable her children to return to the United States for Romeo’s necessary medical appointments,” the complaint says.

Romeo, whose health has worsened, has been temporarily staying in the U.S. for cancer treatment, according to the filing.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that ICE wrongly arrested, detained and deported Rosario, Romeo and Ruby, as well as Julia, Jade and Janelle, in violation of their constitutional rights.

“This whole situation has been incredibly stressful,” Julia, who is married to a U.S. citizen, the father of her daughters, said in a statement shared by the National Immigration Project.

“Returning to Honduras has meant leaving my husband behind, and that’s been very hard,” she added.

In a statement to McClatchy News, National Immigration Project attorney Stephanie Alvarez-Jones said “ICE put these families through a series of incredibly traumatizing experiences, taking actions that are completely shocking from a human perspective and illegal even by ICE’s own standards.”

“ICE denied these families the fundamental opportunity to make meaningful choices about the care and custody of their children, and detained and deported U.S. citizens in flagrant violation of its own policy and the law,” Alvarez-Jones added.

The families are seeking an unspecified amount in damages and demand a jury trial.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/child-with-stage-4-cancer-deported-by-ice-despite-being-us-citizen-lawsuit-says/ar-AA1Knodq

Alternet: Trump’s worst crimes and destructions haven’t even happened yet | Opinion

The worst crimes of Donald Trump and dangers to America from the unstable, monomaniacal, lying outlaw in the White House have yet to come. He is not satisfied with tearing apart our country’s social safety net for tens of millions of Americans (e.g., Medicaid and food program cuts); wrecking our scientific/medical systems, including warning people about pandemics. He is, by wrecking FEMA et al, failing to address the impact of mega-storms, wildfires, and droughts; and allowing cybersecurity threats to increase while giving harm-producing big corporations immunities from the law, more subsidies, and more tax escapes. Recall how he always adds to his attacks on powerless people that “This is just the beginning.”

He just took the next step in his march to madness and mayhem by announcing more concentration camps holding immigrants, arrested without due process, for deportation to foreign countries that want U.S. taxpayer cash for each deportee.

Recent immigrants are crucial to millions of small and large businesses. Consider who harvests our crops, cares for our children and the elderly, cleans up after us, and works the food processing plants and construction sites. Already, businesses are reducing or closing their enterprises – a political peril for Dangerous Donald.

If all immigrants to the U.S. from the last ten years, documented and undocumented, went on strike, our country would almost shut down. Yet Trump, who hired 500 undocumented workers for just one of his construction sites in New York, and had similar laborers at his New Jersey golf course, promises deportations of millions more.

Always bear in mind the self-defined characteristics of corporatist Trump’s feverish, hateful, outlaw mind: (1) He has declared he “can do whatever he wants as President,” proving his serial violations of law and illegal dictates every day; (2) He always doubles down when indicted, convicted, caught, or exposed, falsely accusing his accusers of the exact transgressions they are reliably charging him with; (3) He brags about lashing out at criticism with foul defamatory invectives; (4) He never admits his disastrous mistake; (5) He boasts that he knows more than leading experts in a dozen major areas of knowledge (see, “Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lawbreaking and Lies Betray All”); and (6) He asserts that every action, policy, or program he launches is a spectacular success – the facts to the contrary are dismissed.He is gravely delusional, replaces realities with fantasies, breaks promises that are made to defer any reckoning or accountability, and, like an imaginary King, finds no problem with saying “I rule America and the world.”

His ego defines his reactions, which is why every foreign leader is advised to flatter him. Nobody flatters better than the cunning genocidal Benjamin Netanyahu, who at his last regal White House dinner, held up his nomination of convicted felon, woman abuser, Trump for the Nobel Prize. Netanyahu’s preening comes from a politician whose regime has dossiers on Trump regarding his past personal and business behavior. This helps explain why Trump is letting the Israeli government do whatever it wants in its Gaza Holocaust, the West Bank, and beyond with our tax dollars, family-killing weaponry, and political/diplomatic cover.

The approaching greater dangers from Trump will come when he pushes his lawless, dictatorial envelope so far, so furiously, so outrageously, that it turns his GOP valets in Congress and the GOP-dominated U.S. Supreme Court against him. Add plunging polls, a stagflation economy, and impeachment, and removal from office would become a political necessity for the GOP in 2026 and beyond. In 1974, the far lesser Watergate transgressions by President Richard Nixon resulted in Republican Senators’ demanding Tricky Dick’s resignation from office.

Further provocations are not far-fetched. Firing Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell, sinking the dollar, and angering the fearful, but very powerful bankers are all on the horizon. Will the sex-trafficking charges involving Jeffrey Epstein and vile abuses of young girls finally be too much for his evangelical base, as well as for many MAGA voters? This issue is already starting to fissure his MAGA base and the GOP iron curtain in Congress. Subpoenas have just been issued to the Justice Department by the GOP Chair of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky – a close friend of Senator Mitch McConnell.

There is always SERENDIPITY. Trump, the mercurial egomaniac, offers old and new transgressions to stoke the calls for his impeachment. Does anyone believe that Trump would not start a military conflict, subjecting U.S. soldiers to harm, to distract attention from heavy media coverage of unravelling corruption investigations? Draft-dodging Donald has Pete Hegseth, his knee-jerk Secretary of Defense, waiting to do his lethal bidding, despite possible opposition from career military.

If Trump were to be impeached and removed from office, would he try to stay in office? Here is where a real constitutional explosion can occur. He would have to be escorted from the White House by U.S. Marshals who are under the direction of toady Attorney General Pam Bondi. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution grants “the sole Power” to try impeachments in the Senate and nowhere else. Thus, the courts would provide no remedy to a lawless president wanting to stay in power.

Then what? The country falls into extreme turmoil. The Defense Department, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security are in the Trump Dump. Tyrant Trump can declare a major national emergency, invoke the Insurrection Act, and hurl these armed forces and police state muscle against a defenseless Congress and populace. (Recall the January 6, 2021, assault on Congress.) The abyss would have been breached.

With our society in a catastrophic convulsion, the economy collapsing, what would be the next steps? Like the Pentagon that anticipates worst-case domestic scenarios on possible violent “blowbacks” against U.S. military actions abroad, Americans should start thinking about the unthinkable. Such foreshadowings may make us far more determined NOW to thwart, stop, and repeal the fascist dictatorship which Der Führer Donald Trump is rooting ever more deeply every day. Little restraint on lawless Trump from the Congress and the Supreme Court, and only feeble, cowardly responses by the flailing Democratic Party (and the Bar Associations for that matter) thus far, make for the specter of violent anarchy and terror.

Trump has fatalistic traits. Armageddon shapes his ultimate worldview. Ponder that for a dictator with his finger on more than the nuclear trigger.

Again, Aristotle got it right over 2300 years ago, “Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.”

https://www.alternet.org/trump-s-worst-crimes-and-destructions-haven-t-even-happened-yet

The Atlantic: The President’s Police State

Trump is delivering the authoritarian government his party once warned about.

For years, prominent voices on the right argued that Democrats were enacting a police state. They labeled everything—a report on homegrown extremismIRS investigations into nonprofits—a sign of impending authoritarianism. Measures taken by state governments to combat the spread of COVID? Tyranny. An FBI search of Mar-a-Lago? The weaponization of law enforcement.

Now that a president is actually sending federal troops and officers out into the streets of the nation’s cities, however, the right is in lockstep behind him. This morning, Donald Trump announced that he was declaring a crime emergency, temporarily seizing control of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department and deploying the D.C. National Guard to the nation’s capital.

“This is liberation day in D.C.,” Trump said. Nothing says liberation like deploying hundreds of uniformed soldiers against the wishes of the local elected government. District residents have made clear that they would prefer greater autonomy, including congressional representation, and they have three times voted overwhelmingly against Trump. His response is not just to flex power but to treat the District of Columbia as the president’s personal fiefdom.

Trump’s move is based on out-of-date statistics. It places two officials without municipal policing experience in positions of power over federalization and the MPD, and seems unlikely to significantly affect crime rates. What the White House hopes it might achieve, Politicoreports, is “a quick, visually friendly PR win.” Trump needs that after more than a month of trying and failing to change the subject from his onetime friend Jeffrey Epstein.

But what this PR stunt could also do is create precedent for Trump to send armed forces out into American streets whenever he declares a spurious state of emergency. Some of Trump’s supporters don’t seem to mind that fact: “Trump has the opportunity to do a Bukele-style crackdown on DC crime,” Christopher Rufo, the influential conservative personality, posted on X, referring to Nayib Bukele, the Trump ally who is president of El Salvador. “Question is whether he has the will, and whether the public the stomach. Big test: Can he reduce crime faster than the Left advances a counternarrative about ‘authoritarianism’? If yes, he wins. Speed matters.”

Rufo seems to view everything in terms of a political battle to be won via narratives; the term authoritarianism appears to mean nothing to him, and maybe it never meant anything to others on the right who assailed Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Democratic governors. It does have a real meaning, though, and Bukele is its poster boy. Despite the constitution having banned it, he ran for a second term in office; his party then changed the constitution to allow “indefinite” reelection. Lawmakers in his party also brazenly removed supreme-court justices, and his government has forced journalists into exile and locked up tens of thousands of people without due process. This is apparently the America that Chris Rufo wants.

To justify the crackdown, Trump has cited an alleged carjacking attempt that police records say injured the former DOGE employee Edward “Big Balls” Coristine. But MPD has already arrested two Maryland 15-year-olds for unarmed carjacking. That’s good news. Carjacking is a serious crime and should be punished. But Trump has used the incident to claim that violent crime is skyrocketing in Washington. This is, put simply, nonsense. During a press conference today, Trump cited murder statistics from 2023, and said that carjackings had “more than tripled” over the past five years. He didn’t use more recent numbers because they show that these crimes are down significantly in Washington. Murder dropped 32 percent from 2023 to 2024, robberies 39 percent, and armed carjackings 53 percent. This is in line with a broad national reduction in crime. MPD’s preliminary data indicate that violent crime is down another 26 percent so far this year compared with the same timeframe in 2024, though as the crime-statistics analyst Jeff Asher writes, this drop is probably overstated.

Trump’s descriptions of Washington as a lawless hellscape bear little resemblance to what most residents experience. Not only is D.C. not “one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the World,” as Trump claims, but his prescription seems unlikely to help. He said he is appointing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Terry Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, to help lead the federalization effort and MPD, but neither has any experience with municipal policing. They have not said what they will do differently. If the administration deploys its forces to high-profile areas such as the National Mall, they won’t have much impact on violent crime, because that’s not where it happens; if they go to less central areas with higher crime rates, they won’t get the PR boost they seek, because tourists and news cameras aren’t there.

Throughout his two presidencies, Trump has treated the military as a prop for making statements about which issues he cares about—and which he doesn’t. He deployed the D.C. National Guard during protests after the murder of George Floyd in summer 2020. Earlier this summer, he federalized the California National Guard and sent Marines to Los Angeles to assist with immigration enforcement, but they were sent home when it became clear that they had nothing to do there. Yet according to testimony before the January 6 panel, Trump did not deploy the D.C. National Guard when an armed mob was sacking the U.S. Capitol in 2021 to try to help Trump hold on to power.

Good policing is important because citizens deserve the right to live in safety. Recent drops in crime in Washington are good news because the district’s residents should be able to feel safe. But Trump’s militarization of the city, his seizure of local police, and his lies about crime in Washington do the opposite: They are a way to make people feel unsafe, and either quiet residents’ dissent or make them support new presidential power grabs. Many of Trump’s defenders are angry when he’s called an authoritarian, but not when he acts as one.

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/08/trump-national-guard-dc/683839

CNN: Attorney General [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi orders prosecutors to start grand jury probe into Obama officials over Russia investigation

Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into accusations that members of the Obama administration manufactured intelligence about Russia’s 2016 election interference, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

A grand jury would be able to issue subpoenas as part of a criminal investigation into renewed allegations that Democratic officials tried to smear Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign by falsely alleging his campaign was colluding with the Russian government. It could also consider an indictment should the Justice Department decide to pursue a criminal case.

The move follows a referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who declassified documents in July that she alleges undermine the Obama administration’s conclusion that Russia tried to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

Gabbard requested that the Justice Department investigate former President Barack Obama and top officials in his administration for an alleged conspiracy.

Soon after Gabbard’s referral, [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi announced that the DOJ was creating a “strike force” to assess the evidence released by Gabbard and “investigate potential next legal steps which might stem from DNI Gabbard’s disclosures.”

The Justice Department declined to comment.

CNN has reported that the allegations from Gabbard misrepresent what the intelligence community concluded over Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election.

While Gabbard insisted the Russian goal in 2016 was to sow distrust in American democracy and not to help Trump, the unsealed documents don’t undercut or alter the US government’s core findings in 2017 that Russia launched a campaign of influence and hacking and sought to help Clinton lose.

Fox News first reported [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s grand jury request.

Department of Justice under King Donald and Bimbo #3 Bondi = Ministry of Personal Retaliation

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/politics/justice-department-russia-grand-jury

Law & Crime: ‘It violates my order’: Federal judge calls out DOJ for making ‘completely novel’ pro-Alina [“Bimbo #4”] Habba argument he specifically didn’t want to hear yet

Though he refused to dismiss a drug-trafficking indictment, a federal judge said he wants to hear more about whether U.S. Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi unlawfully reappointed acting U.S. Attorney Alina [“Bimbo #4”] Habba to her role, opening the door to scrutiny of the Trump administration’s method of apparently sidestepping a court and the U.S. Senate’s blocking of certain nominations.

Chief U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew Brann, sitting by designation in the criminal cases of Julien Giraud Jr. and Julien Giraud III after the New Jersey district court declined to appoint [“Bimbo #4”] Habba itself upon the expiration of her 120-day acting limit, decided Friday that the Girauds were “not entitled to dismissal.” At the same time, the defendants made a persuasive enough case for “additional argument regarding the legality of Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s appointment” and the authority of the assistant U.S. attorneys under her command or supervision.

“I begin with dismissal of the indictment, which I conclude is not available, and then turn to injunctions against Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba and anyone acting under her authority, which I conclude would be appropriate if the Girauds prevail on the merits,” the judge wrote.

Regarding dismissal, Brann determined that the Girauds could not credibly argue their indictment, obtained through the Senate-confirmed then-U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger, is “somehow retroactively taint[ed]” by Habba’s appointment, whether or not that was lawful.

But the Girauds can still make their best pitch for blocking Habba, and her assistants, from prosecuting them going forward.

“The Girauds argue in the alternative that Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba should be enjoined from prosecuting their case, and that any AUSAs acting under her supervision be similarly barred. As discussed in the previous section, the Court generally agrees that this remedy would be the appropriate response to the constitutional and statutory violations the Girauds claim,” the judge wrote. “This relief raises two questions: (1) can the Court bar Ms. [“Bimbo #4”] Habba from participating in the Girauds’ prosecution, and (2) does a bar on Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s participation extend to AUSAs?”

“As to the first question, I conclude that the answer is yes,” Brann added.

The answer to the second question, about [“Bimbo #4”] Habba’s AUSAs, was more nuanced. Brann indicated he would not go so far as to block the whole office from prosecuting, but that he could when these prosecutors “do so under Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s authority” — again, if her reappointment was illegal.

“To be clear, the Court is not suggesting that it might impose the ‘officewide disqualification’ the Government fears,” the judge said. “Instead, the Court agrees that a valid remedy for the violations the Girauds’ assert, if I find that they occurred, may be to bar AUSAs from engaging in prosecutions when they do so under Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s authority.”

The line prosecutors or a higher-up DOJ official could still legally come to court under AG [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s authority, with [“Bimbo #4”] Habba in effect recusing herself and not putting her name and title on any filings, Brann said.

“The Court sees no reason why AUSAs acting directly under the delegated authority of Ms. [“Bimbo #3″] Bondi, or possibly another Department of Justice official with sufficient authority to extend Ms. Bondi’s powers to AUSAs in New Jersey, would need to be disqualified,” he explained. “Moreover, so long as it is clear that they are acting under Ms. [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s—and not Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s—authority (essentially a temporary recusal until this matter is resolved), there would appear to be no issue with all of District of New Jersey’s AUSAs moving prosecutions forward now.”

Along the way, even as the judge blasted as “misplaced” the Girauds’ challenge of Habba’s authority for relying on U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s Appointments Clause-based dismissal of special counsel Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago prosecution of Trump, Brann also had some stern words for the DOJ.

The judge noted that he had ordered both the defendants and the DOJ to submit briefs under the assumption that [“Bimbo #4”] Habba was unlawfully appointed, yet the DOJ included an argument that said [“Bimbo #4”] Habba was lawfully appointed one way or another.

Recall that in order to keep [“Bimbo #4”] Habba as acting U.S. attorney Trump pulled her nomination. [“Bimbo #4”] Habba resigned before her acting 120-day stint technically expired and before her first assistant Desiree Leigh Grace’s appointment by court as U.S. attorney became effective.

[“Bimbo #3”] Bondi promptly fired Grace and then reinstalled Habba, citing the Federal Vacancies Reform Act when naming Habba first assistant in the U.S. attorney’s office. At the same time, just in case anyone questioned that legal authority, Habba was named a “Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General” under a federal statute governing the commission of special attorneys, giving her the power to act as a U.S. attorney through another means.

Brann said the DOJ violated his order by citing the latter authority in support of [“Bimbo #4”] Habba, putting the proverbial “cart before the horse.”

“The Government’s argument to the contrary puts the cart before the horse. It argues that no remedy is available to the Girauds by simply rejecting the premise—which I ordered them to assume—that Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba has been illegally appointed, instead contending that she is legally exercising the powers of the United States Attorney through a delegation of the Attorney General’s power to conduct and supervise ‘all litigation to which the United States . . . is a party’ as a ‘Special Attorney’ or in her role as the First Assistant United States Attorney,” he wrote.

“But that is explicitly a merits argument: the Girauds are only entitled to no remedy if the Court finds that Ms. [“Bimbo #4”] Habba’s appointment as a Special Attorney is valid or that Ms. [“Bimbo #3″] Bondi can delegate a First Assistant a level of authority commensurate with the United States Attorney’s,” Brann continued. “Because it violates my Order, I do not consider the argument at this stage.”

The judge added that the DOJ’s maneuvering has “extreme implications that it openly embraces,” making a full briefing and oral argument on the “completely novel question” appropriate.

“[B]y using the Special Attorney designation and delegation, Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba may exercise all of the powers of the United States Attorney without being subject to any of the statutory limitations on that office,” Brann wrote, summarizing the DOJ’s argument. “Whether the Attorney General may statutorily or constitutionally delegate all of the powers of a specific office created by separate statute and constrained by its own statutory limitations in order to evade those limitations is a completely novel question, and one that inherently implicates the Appointments Clause and thus the merits of the Girauds’ motion. I defer resolving it until it has been fully briefed.”

Newsweek: Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update

The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Why It Matters

The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.

Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.

At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.

What To Know

On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.

The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”

The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.

The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.

The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.

Fourteenth Amendment At Stake

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What People Are Saying

President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”

DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”

Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”

What Happens Next

The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.

The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.

For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.


What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁


https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176

Independent: Trump team weighs releasing Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview with DOJ officials over Epstein case: report

It was not previously known that such a recording existed, but a final decision in whether to release it or not has yet to be made

The Trump administration is considering publicly releasing an audio recording of an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell and senior officials from the Department of Justice about Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new report.

It was not previously known that such a recording existed, and officials are currently discussing whether or not to release a transcript of the discussion between the British socialite and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Maxwell, 63, was the disgraced financier’s ex-girlfriend, and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after her 2021 conviction for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple girls. Her attorneys have taken an appeal of her conviction to the Supreme Court.

The interview between the socialite and the DOJ came following ongoing pressure on the administration to be more transparent over the Epstein case, following a July 6 memo which stated that convicted pedophile died by suicide in 2019 and there was no evidence to support the existence of a so-called “client list.” Such claims caused uproar among the MAGA faithful.

Sources told CNN that the audio recording was currently being transcribed and digitized, but that some parts that may reveal sensitive information – like the names of victims – would need to be redacted.

The outlet reported that as of Tuesday morning, a final decision on whether to release the recording and the transcript, had not been made.

CNN also reported that, per its sources, some within the administration were concerned that making details from the interview public would bring the Epstein controversy back into the public spotlight, when many officials close to the president believe the story has largely died down.

When asked for comment by The Independent, the administration denied that any such decisions were being made about the transcript, and that Trump had already addressed the issue.

In a statement, Steven Cheung, White House Communications Director, said: “This is nothing more than CNN trying desperately to create news out of old news. He already addressed this issue in an interview with Newsmax, a real news outlet that routinely gets better ratings than CNN.”

Discussions about the recordings and transcript come after the DoJ admitted that the grand jury transcripts in Maxwell’s criminal case, contain mostly publicly available information.

Trump previously asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to make public “any and all pertinent” grand jury transcripts in both the Epstein and Maxwell cases, in order to stymie the ongoing furore.

A judge overseeing Maxwell’s case asked the government to provide more information to the court. The department provided a version of the transcripts that identifies which information is not publicly available. However, Bondi admitted in a Monday filing that “much” of the information in the transcripts was already made publicly available.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/ghislaine-maxwell-doj-interview-epstein-b2802282.html

Tampa Free Press: Colorado Judge Rebukes AG [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi, Sides With Immigrant Family Over Paperwork Rule 

Appeals Court Vacates Immigration Ruling, Finds Agency Erred on Signature Requirement

In a decision concerning immigration procedures, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Colorado has vacated a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The court’s ruling, filed on Tuesday, in the case of Cortez v. United States Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi, determined that the BIA was incorrect to reject an appeal from a Salvadoran mother and son based on a technicality regarding a signature.

Ana Sofia Cortez and her minor son, M.Y.A.C., who are natives of El Salvador, had their initial application for relief from removal denied by an immigration judge.

Their attorney subsequently filed an appeal with the BIA using the Electronic Courts and Appeals System (ECAS). The BIA, however, rejected the filing, stating that the proof-of-service section on the form was not signed.

The court’s opinion, authored by Judge Hartz, found that the BIA’s requirement for a signature on this section constituted a legal error.

The court highlighted the instructions on the BIA’s own form, which stated that a signature for the proof of service was required “if applicable.” Since the attorney filed electronically through ECAS, the system automatically served the opposing party, making a separate service and, therefore, a signature on that section, unnecessary.

The government, represented by the Office of Immigration Litigation, had argued that the petitioners’ challenge to the rejection was untimely. However, the Tenth Circuit chose not to consider this argument, noting that the BIA had not relied on that specific ground in its decision.

“The BIA’s rejection of Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was predicated on an error of law and must be set aside,” the court stated in its opinion.

As a result, the court has vacated and remanded the case back to the BIA for further proceedings. This decision allows the petitioners a renewed opportunity to have the merits of their appeal considered. The ruling underscores the importance of agencies adhering to the clear language of their own procedural instructions and forms.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-judge-rebukes-ag-bondi-sides-with-immigrant-family-over-paperwork-rule/ar-AA1JXQk8

Atlanta Black Star News: ‘Inherently Unreliable’: Trump’s Attempt to Clear His Name Backfires As a Blatant Lie from Maxwell’s Past Resurfaces and Destroys Her Credibility

From the rally stage last year, Donald Trump hyped the Epstein files as proof of a Democratic coverup to protect pedophiles who never faced justice.

Now, as public scrutiny lands squarely on the president, he’s calling the whole thing a “hoax.”

It’s a striking turn for Trump, who once amplified conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein’s black book and teased his base with promises of transparency. But with the recent disclosure that Trump’s name appears in the unsealed Epstein documents, and his administration suddenly going soft on convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, critics say Trump is no longer just dodging questions—he’s actively working to bury the answers.

The latest red flag? Trump’s own deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche — formerly one of his personal lawyers — conducted a nine-hour interview with Maxwell over two days last month. According to sources familiar with the meetings, Maxwell told Blanche that Trump had “never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern.”

But not everyone on social media was buying it.

“Shocking. You’re telling me Trump’s former lawyer turned Deputy AG ‘interviewed’ Ghislaine Maxwell while she is desperate for a pardon and Trump is publicly suggesting he might give her one, and she said she didn’t witness him commit any crimes? The fix is in,” the group Republicans Against Trump posted on X.

Blanche confirmed that Maxwell “didn’t hold anything back” and was asked about “one hundred different people.” But Trump’s insistence that the interview was “totally above board” hasn’t left anyone feeling convinced.

Making matters worse, days after the interview, Maxwell was quietly transferred from a low-security prison in Florida to the Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas — one of the most lenient facilities in the country, described by former corrections officials as a “country club.”

“Someone gave special preference to Maxwell that, to my knowledge, no other inmate currently in the Federal Bureau of Prisons has received,” said Robert Hood, former warden of the Florence supermax prison, who spoke with The Washington Post. “Inmates, if they have a sex offense, are not going to a place like that, period. It’s truly unheard of.”

Critics now see the nine-hour sit-down between Maxwell and Trump’s handpicked former lawyer as a quid pro quo in motion. As one observer put it: “Trump’s old lawyer, now Deputy AG, has a cozy nine-hour chat with Ghislaine Maxwell, who’s practically begging for a pardon, and—surprise, surprise—she swears Trump never did anything sketchy around her.”

Maxwell, the convicted accomplice of Epstein, was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years for trafficking and abusing underage girls. Federal prison guidelines state that sex offenders — particularly those with sentences higher than 10 years — should not be housed in minimum-security facilities like Bryan. Yet that’s exactly where she now resides, complete with arts and crafts, a dog-training program, and unfenced dormitories in a residential neighborhood 100 miles from Houston.

Even Trump feigned surprise: “I didn’t know about it at all, no. I read about it just like you did. It’s not a very uncommon thing,” he said when asked if he approved the transfer.

But according to multiple sources, the prison move followed her voluntary sit-down with Blanche — part of what ABC News described as an effort to defuse growing criticism that the Justice Department was shielding information about Epstein’s network.

That criticism intensified after Attorney General Pam Bondi declared the DOJ found no client list, no blackmail material, and no justification for further investigation — despite admitting Epstein harmed more than 1,000 victims.

Trump’s followers were among the loudest voices demanding answers. In 2019, his top advisers circulated theories about Epstein’s connections to powerful Democrats. Trump himself fueled suspicion when he publicly wondered if Epstein had been murdered. Yet now, as those same followers demand full disclosure, Trump’s tone has shifted dramatically.

“I want to release everything. I just don’t want people to get hurt,” Trump told Newsmax last week. “We’d like to release everything, but we don’t want people to get hurt that shouldn’t be hurt.”

Who those “people” are, Trump wouldn’t say. But the about-face has many asking whether Trump is trying to protect himself — or someone close to him.

The president’s name does appear in Epstein’s files. His associations with both Epstein and Maxwell have long been documented, including photos of the trio together. Still, Maxwell told Blanche that Trump “never did anything concerning” during the years they were acquainted.

The transcript of the conversation has not yet been released, although the DOJ is considering making it public — possibly as early as this week. An audio recording also exists, but there’s no confirmation yet that it will be shared.

Critics questioned how much credibility Maxwell’s claims carry, especially given her own legal jeopardy — and her history of lying under oath. She was previously found to have perjured herself at least twice in depositions related to Epstein’s abuse, casting further doubt on her recent claims that Trump “never did anything.”

Prosecutors said she lied when claiming she wasn’t aware of Epstein’s efforts to recruit underage girls, denied knowing anyone under 18 had ever been on his properties, and falsely stated she had never engaged in sexual activity with other women or seen sex toys at his residences.

Joyce Alene, the first US attorney nominated by Obama posted on X,

“Trump could give Ghislaine Maxwell a pardon on his last day in office, in exchange for favorable testimony now (SCOTUS has already said he can’t be prosecuted for it). She knows he’s her only chance for release. That means any “new” testimony she offers is inherently unreliable unless backed by evidence.”

She followed that up with more context for anyone who wasn’t clear, “And favorable could mean a lot of things here: exonerating him, testifying about other people that MAGA has long believed were involved with Epstein. She can’t be trusted because Trump can’t be trusted–the pardon power is his to wield for his personal benefit and she knows that.”

New York Times best selling author Seth Abramson jumped in the mix to respond to Alene, “Everyone must remember this. Anything Ghislaine Maxwell says at this point is without value because we cannot know what she was paid to induce any new Perjury (she has been charged with it twice in the past) until the final day of the second Trump term…should there ever be one.”

She’s currently appealing her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, and her attorney, David Markus, has said she “would welcome any relief.”

Her lawyers are also fighting the government’s request to unseal grand jury records from her and Epstein’s cases, arguing that releasing them would violate her due process rights and feed “public curiosity” at the expense of fairness.

“Jeffrey Epstein is dead,” the attorneys wrote. “Ghislaine Maxwell is not. Whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into grand jury secrecy.”

Yet some victims argue the public has a right to know. Annie Farmer, who testified at Maxwell’s trial, supports releasing the grand jury material with identifying details redacted.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has said it wants to unseal the records precisely because of public interest, arguing transparency is essential—even while making clear that only law enforcement personnel testified before the grand juries.

Trump was forced to address the growing scandal on Wednesday as outrage over his administration’s handling of the Epstein case spiraled beyond control — even among his own supporters.

The political firestorm was consuming the White House. With some of his most loyal backers demanding transparency, Trump is instead digging in — denouncing the entire controversy as a “hoax” and attacking Republicans who disagree with him as “weaklings.”

In a Truth Social post Wednesday morning, the president lashed out at his critics, comparing the uproar over the Epstein files to past scandals like the Russia election interference investigation and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

“These Scams and Hoaxes are all the Democrats are good at—it’s all they have,” Trump wrote. “Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullsh-t,’ hook, line, and sinker.”

Trump didn’t stop there.

“I don’t want their support anymore!” he added. “Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats’ work… I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country’s history, and all these people want to talk about is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.”

Later, he doubled down during a press spray at the White House, brushing off the Epstein controversy as a “waste of time.”

“They’re wasting their time with a guy who obviously had some very serious problems, who died three, four years ago,” he said. “I’d rather talk about the success we have with the economy, the best we’ve ever had… Instead, they want to talk about the Epstein hoax. The sad part is, it’s people doing the Democrats’ work. They’re stupid people.”

When pressed Thursday on whether Trump had asked Bondi to appoint a special prosecutor in the Epstein case, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded bluntly:

“The president would not recommend a special prosecutor in the Epstein case. That’s how he feels.”

The defensive posture highlights deepening divisions inside the GOP — and even within Trump’s inner circle — over how the administration has handled the fallout.

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino reportedly clashed with Bondi over her decision to block the release of additional Epstein-related documents. Several high-profile conservatives have since called for Bondi’s resignation.

Trump, however, has defended Bondi, saying she has “handled it very well.”