Tag Archives: Congress

MSNBC: Pam [Bimbo #3] Bondi’s cynical, misleading attack on Judge Boasberg

Posted on by
Reply

Another crack in the foundation of American democracy.

Earlier this week, the Justice Department escalated its fight with the judiciary by filing an ethics complaint against Judge James Boasberg, the chief U.S. district judge in Washington, D.C. Boasberg is overseeing the case challenging the Trump administration’s deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a Salvadoran prison without due process. The new complaint, signed by Attorney General Pam [Bimbo #3] Bondi’s chief of staff, accuses Boasberg of making improper comments about President Donald Trump.

Only those wearing MAGA-tinted glasses could fail to see this complaint for what it is: another brazen attack on the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers, and another crack in the foundation of American democracy.

The controversy began March 15, when five Venezuelans sued Trump and other administration officials to block their imminent deportation under a 2025 presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. That 1798 law allows the removal of foreign citizens when there is a “declared war … or any invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation against the United States. The plaintiffs were among hundreds being deported to a country other than their homeland. They were not given an opportunity to challenge the legality of their deportation, or even to contest the government’s allegations that they were gang members. Comparing the situation to a Kafka-esque nightmare, Boasberg ordered the administration to stop the deportations.

In April, the case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled for the administration on a legal technicality regarding the proper mechanism and jurisdiction for the suit. At the same time, the court unanimously affirmed that those facing deportation must be allowed to bring a legal challenge before removal. The case was sent back to Boasberg and remains ongoing.

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Boasberg also found that the government had likely committed criminal contempt of court by willfully disobeying his order to stop deportations. He offered the government a chance to correct its contempt before referring the case for prosecution, but in April a three-judge panel from the D.C. appellate court paused the contempt proceedings without addressing the merits. Curiously, the pause has lasted for months, leaving the contempt action in limbo.

Then came Monday. The Justice Department formally accused Boasberg of committing misconduct during a national judicial conference held March 11 — before the deportation case began. The complaint alleges Boasberg “attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice [John] Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges” by expressing “his belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’” In the AEA case, then, Boasberg “began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders.” The DOJ argues that Boasberg’s “words and deeds” harmed “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

To begin with, the DOJ’s complaint is misleading: The memo it cites, summarizing the conference, says Boasberg “raised his colleagues’ concerns,” not his own. But no matter who raised the concerns, they would be right on the mark. Trump’s record of contempt for the judiciary is well established. Throughout his first term, he repeatedly criticized judges who ruled against the administration. While out of office, Trump repeatedly leveled personal attacks against not only the judges presiding over his criminal and civil cases, but even court staff and their family members. And Trump specifically called for Boasberg’s impeachment in March after the judge ordered a temporary pause in deportations.

Although Trump has publicly said that he would follow court orders, his administration’s track record on respecting judicial authority suggests otherwise. For example, in early July, the Justice Department filed an unprecedented lawsuit against the entire bench of federal judges in Maryland, challenging an administrative order issued by their chief judge regarding deportation cases. Disturbingly, there is also evidence that Emil Bove, whom the Senate confirmed Tuesday to an appellate judgeship, told DOJ prosecutors that, if necessary, they should ignore court orders that stop deportations.

Given this track record, for the Trump administration to accuse Boasberg of undermining public confidence in the judiciary is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. In truth, the complaint against Boasberg is an obvious stunt. The administration is following the old legal adage: When the facts and the law are against you, “pound the table and yell like hell.”

No matter where this complaint goes from here, it is likely to have a chilling effect on judicial independence. Judges routinely discuss their constitutional approach or emerging legal trends in public, including during Senate confirmation hearings. This complaint puts a target on the backs of judges who speak out against executive overreach or comment on other broad legal issues that could be perceived as contrary to administration policy.

It will threaten judicial independence, undermine judicial legitimacy, and ultimately show that, for this administration, legal authority depends on political loyalty rather than adherence to the rule of law.

The justices of the Supreme Court appear to at least understand this in principle. Speaking at a judicial ceremony in May, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized judicial independence is “crucial” to “check the excesses of the Congress or the executive.” Against the backdrop of Trump’s attacks on the federal judiciary, Roberts reiterated the familiar simile that judges are like umpires, responsible for calling balls and strikes fairly and impartially.

It’s less clear whether Roberts and his colleagues are prepared to fight for that ideal. After all, when a manager’s antics — like kicking dirt at the umpire’s feet or screaming in his face — begin to undermine the integrity of the game itself, eventually even the most restrained umpire must be prepared to eject him. Without that implicit threat, the game will collapse under the bullying of any manager who is unwilling to follow the rules everyone else plays by.

No one should tolerate that: not in a sporting event and certainly not in an arena when our nation and democracy are at stake.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/justice-department-pam-bondi-judge-boasberg-rcna222067

Washington Post: Smithsonian removes Trump from impeachment exhibit in American history museum

Posted on by
Reply

The Smithsonian said it restored the display to an earlier version, which notes that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal.”

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in July removed references to President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit display. A person familiar with the exhibit plans, who was not authorized to discuss them publicly, said the change came about as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director.

After this story published, the Smithsonian said in a statement that “a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.”

A temporary label including content about Trump’s impeachments had been on display since September 2021 at the Washington museum, a Smithsonian spokesperson told The Washington Post, adding that it was intended to be a short-term addition to address current events. Now, the exhibit notes that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal.”

In addition to describing Trump’s two impeachments, the temporary label — which read “Case under redesign (history happens)” — also offered information about the impeachments of presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, as well as Richard M. Nixon, who would have faced impeachment had he not resigned. The Post viewed a photograph of the temporary signage.

Now that display has returned to the way it appeared in 2008, according to the Smithsonian spokesperson.

“In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the ‘Limits of Presidential Power’ section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.”

The change coincides with broader concerns about political interference at the Smithsonian and how the institution charged with preserving American history could be shaped by the Trump administration’s efforts to exert more control over its work.

“The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden” opened in 2000 and was curated by a team that included then-museum director Spencer Crew, curator Harry Rubenstein and historian Lonnie G. Bunch III, who now leads the institute as secretary.

The impeachment case includes a photograph of the prosecutors in Andrew Johnson’s 1868 case, copies of the investigative report that launched Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings in 1999 and a damaged filing cabinet from the Watergate scandal that would prompt Nixon to resign in 1974.

The online companion for the display briefly mentions Trump’s impeachments, but does not provide any further information about the cases. And a search of the history museum’s collection for “impeachment” yields 125 results for Johnson, Nixon and Clinton — and a single “Impeach Trump” button from a 2017 environmental protest.

The Smithsonian spokesperson said that a large gallery like “The American Presidency” requires a “significant amount of time and funding to update and renew.” Elsewhere in the exhibition, however, visitors can find more recent items, including commemorative pins from Trump and Joe Biden’s inaugurations in 2017 and 2021 and a large wall display featuring every U.S. president.

In January 2020, following Trump’s first impeachment, a political history curator at the American History Museum told The Post that he was on a quest to acquire the right objects to tell the story of Trump’s first impeachment. At the time, he could not predict when the display would be updated, but he said work was underway to change labels and add items.

The Smithsonian that month also announced its plans to update the impeachment section, reaffirming its commitment to actively engage “with the history, spirit and complexity of the United States’ democratic experiment by collecting, documenting and sharing the American political system, including presidential history.”

Trump is the only president in history to have been impeached twice. In 2019, he was charged by the House with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his attempts to withhold military aid meant for Ukraine and pressure its government to investigate his political rival Biden. He was acquitted by the Senate in 2020. Then, just over a year later, Trump was impeached again, for incitement of insurrection following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He was acquitted a second time, after leaving office.

Since returning to the White House in January for his second term, Trump has attempted to exert influence over prominent cultural institutions, including by taking over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, making drastic changes at the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and imposing budget cuts on the National Park Service.

In March, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate “anti-American ideology” across the Smithsonian museums and “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.”

Months later, Trump attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, for being a “highly partisan” person — though he had no authority to do so. The White House later provided a list of 17 instances it said supported the president’s claims about her, including the caption for the museum’s presidential portrait of Trump mentioning his two impeachments and “incitement of insurrection” for the events of Jan. 6.

In response, the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents reasserted in June that only the institution’s secretary could fire museum directors, but also announced it would scrutinize content across its museum for partisan bias. “As directed by the Board of Regents, we will undertake an assessment of the Institution, evaluating the need for any changes to policies, procedures, or personnel, and I will share our findings and recommendations with the Board,” Bunch wrote in an email to Smithsonian employees. Shortly after, Sajet announced her departure, explaining to staff that she was leaving because her presence had become a distraction from the Smithsonian’s mission.

Last week, the celebrated painter Amy Sherald pulled an upcoming exhibit from the Portrait Gallery, citing concerns that the museum considered removing her painting of a transgender woman posing as the Statue of Liberty.

“While no single person is to blame, it’s clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role,” Sherald said in a statement.

History maybe temporarily hidden or rewritten, but the disgrace of King Donald will be back with a vengeance in due time, and probably with a much larger display!

Smithsonian removes Trump from impeachment exhibit in American history museum
A temporary placard, on display since 2021, described the president’s historic impeachments. Officials said the exhibit was restored to an earlier version following a review of legacy content.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2025/07/31/trump-impeachment-smithsonian

Smithsonian removes Trump from impeachment exhibit in American history museum

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/smithsonian-removes-trump-from-impeachment-exhibit-in-american-history-museum/ar-AA1JGees

Law & Crime: ‘Naked attempt to evade clear law’: Federal judge says Trump admin ‘unequivocally’ acted unlawfully in unilaterally shuttering Job Corps

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has halted the Trump administration’s effort to shutter the Job Corps training program — the nation’s largest residential career training program for thousands of low-income youth — becoming the second to do so within the span of a month.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich — an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term — on Friday granted the request for a preliminary injunction blocking the closing of 99 Job Corps centers throughout the nation, reasoning that the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) unilateral closing of the program, which was created and authorized by Congress, violated federal law.

The case stems from the Labor Department notifying the 99 private Job Corps centers across the nation on May 29, 2025, that they would “cease operations” by June 30.

The lawsuit was filed last month by a group of seven student-enrollees in the Job Corps program hailing from Georgia, Mississippi, Oregon, North Dakota, and Michigan on behalf of themselves as well as the putative class of students enrolled at all 99 centers affected by the program’s shuttering.

The complaint alleged that the Labor Department was legally required provide advance notice and an opportunity for public comment before closing any Job Corps center, as required by federal law. By failing to do so, the administration’s actions allegedly violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014.

The administration asserted that the shuttering of all Job Corps centers was a “statutorily authorized pause — as opposed to a closure,” a claim that Friedrich said did not stand up to scrutiny.

“This argument fails because DOL’s across-the-board shutdown extended far beyond any ‘pause’ contemplated by the statute,” the judge wrote. “The agency suspended operations at all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers without any expectation of future reopenings. And it effected the mass shutdown without complying with any of the statutory requirements that must precede a ‘pause’ in operations. DOL failed to conduct an individualized assessment or develop a performance improvement plan for any of the 99 centers. It instead suspended all operations based on the perceived failures of the Job Corps program as a whole.”

Friedrich said the nationwide shutdown was “not only unprecedented,” but also” inconsistent with its historic standard of practice.” While earlier “pauses” allowed for the realistic possibility that Job Corps centers would be reopened, here, the administration informed students that they should harbor “no expectation of transfer to another center or return to their current center.”

The court said there was no need to engage in any analysis regarding the difference between a “pause” and a “closure” because “the record unequivocally demonstrates that DOL unlawfully ‘closed’ all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers, in violation of the WIOA.”

“At bottom, DOL’s position is entirely circular: So long as the agency uses the term ‘pause’ and never makes a final decision to ‘formally close’ a center, it is authorized to shutter any Job Corps center indefinitely,” Friedrich wrote. “In DOL’s view, the WIOA’s procedural mandates hinge on the terminology the agency chooses to use, allowing it to sidestep its statutory obligations entirely. That cannot be correct. Because DOL unlawfully ‘closed’ all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers, in violation of the WIOA, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims.”

The plaintiffs are being represented in the case by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Public Citizen. Adam Pulver, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, lauded the ruling.

“The Department of Labor’s decision to abruptly close Job Corps centers across the country, ignoring legal requirements and literally putting vulnerable young people on the street, was callous, and as the Judge today agreed, illegal,” Pulver said in a statement. “The Department’s ludicrous argument to the court, that in shutting down 99 Job Corps centers it was not actually closing those centers, was a naked attempt to evade clear law.”

Federal judge says Trump admin ‘unequivocally’ violated law in shuttering Job Corps
A Trump-appointed judge blocked the administration’s effort to shutter al 99 Job Corps centers nationwide, saying it violated federal law.
‘Unprecedented’: Judge says Trump admin ‘unequivocally’ acted unlawfully in unilaterally shuttering youth job training program

NBC: A ‘beautiful’ ballroom and a new Lincoln bathroom: Trump relishes remaking the White House

Posted on by
Reply

In an interview with NBC News, the president discussed his renovation plans for the most famous house in America. “I’m doing a lot of improvements,” he said.

© DrudgeReport.com

One of Donald Trump’s most visible and potentially enduring legacies as president could be the 90,000-square-foot ballroom that he is planning to build, replacing the East Wing edifice traditionally used for the first lady’s offices.

The project, set to begin in September, looms as the biggest transformation of the White House complex since Harry Truman’s day. Perhaps fitting for the onetime New York real estate developer who branded buildings worldwide with his name, Trump has taken to remaking the White House in accord with his tastes since beginning his second term.

The president told NBC News in an interview that the new ballroom will forgo the need to shuttle guests to tents pitched on the South Lawn for events that are too large for the White House to accommodate.

“When it rains or snows, it’s a disaster,” the president said over the phone, lamenting that tents are positioned “a football field away from the White House.”

Trump said that some of the world’s “finest architects” are involved, and a White House official added that Trump has viewed renderings of the ballroom. The work is expected to finish before the end of his term.

Trump estimated that taking down the East Wing and putting the ballroom in place would cost about $200 million. The East Wing was completed in 1942 under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, according to the White House Historical Association.

Trump said the project would be “his gift to the country,” funded by himself and private donations.

Since returning to office, Trump has set about making an imprint on his White House surroundings. He told NBC News he is replacing what he described as a “terribly” remodeled bathroom in the Lincoln Bedroom with one that is truer to the style of the 16th president’s era.

Elsewhere on the grounds, he has put in a pair of towering flag poles and paved over a grassy patch of the Rose Garden. Wet grass poses problems for women in high heels walking through the garden, he has said.

“I was always a great real estate developer, and I know how to do that,” Trump said.

Partial to one precious metal in particular, Trump has added gold accents throughout the Oval Office.

“He has a vision to make the White House as exceptional and beautiful as possible for future presidents and administrations,” the White House official said. “He is very hands-on and involved in all of this.”

Trump checks in on construction workers on the White House grounds weekly and spends 20-30 minutes with them, asking questions, the same official said. He even invited some of those working on the Rose Garden project into the Oval Office recently.

Another White House official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, added: “The president is very directly involved, even more so than the first lady.”

Much of Trump’s aesthetic can be undone if a future president wishes. Every new president makes changes to the Oval Office décor. The Rose Garden paving can always be torn up and the grass restored. When Trump goes in 2029, the gold could follow.

“Whoever succeeds Trump, if they’re not into gold, the gilding will start to come down,” said Barbara Perry, a professor of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

Yet the ballroom could stand for decades as Trump’s creation, much as “the Truman Balcony” addition in 1948 is linked to Truman.

“I’m doing a lot of improvements,” Trump said. “I’ll be building a beautiful ballroom. They wanted it for many, many years.”

The White House released new details about the ballroom on Thursday, after NBC’s interview with the president and follow-up questions posed by the network. Trump had chosen McCrery Architects as the lead architect, according to the White House. And Trump has held meetings with White House staff members, the National Park Service and others in recent weeks.

Officials will meet with the “appropriate organizations” to keep intact the White House’s “special history … while building a beautiful ballroom that can be enjoyed by future administrations and generations of Americans to come,” Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, said in a statement.

The private funding arrangement for the ballroom worries at least one congressman. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., a member of a House Appropriations panel that oversees the executive office of the presidency, said in an interview Thursday: “It appears that he’s trying to do this perhaps with private donations, but that could be a little odd.”

“Is this going to be a White House ballroom sponsored by Carl’s Jr.?” Pocan asked rhetorically.

Given the magnitude of the project, Pocan said that the president should bring the plan before Congress for discussion.

“This is a major renovation and clearly should come before the committee,” Pocan said. “This would fall under the definition of having proper oversight. It’s a perfectly great conversation to have in a subcommittee meeting.”

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, noted at a press briefing Thursday that Congress has not appropriated funding for the ballroom, saying: “Listen, I’m happy to eat my cheeseburger at my desk. I don’t need a $200 million ballroom to eat it in. Okay?”

A common impression may be that the White House is a historic building frozen in amber, but it has been rebuilt, renewed and refreshed again and again since 1800, when John Adams became the first president to move in.

In most cases, presidents who undertook substantial renovations faced public blowback. In an essay posted on LinkedIn in June, Stewart McLaurin, president of the historical association, documented the fallout over the past two centuries to “give context and set precedent for more recent changes and adaptations.”

With the building about to collapse on his head, then-President Truman carried out a complete gutting of the White House interior from 1948-52 to shore up the structure with steel beams and concrete.

“Preservationists mourned the loss of original interiors, while media outlets questioned the project’s cost during post-war economic recovery,” McLaurin wrote.

The East Wing, the space earmarked for the new ballroom, was itself targeted for criticism in Roosevelt’s time.

“Congressional Republicans labeled the expenditure as wasteful, with some accusing Roosevelt of using the project to bolster his presidency’s image,” McLaurin wrote.

“However,” he wrote, “the East Wing’s utility in supporting the modern presidency eventually quieted critics.”

At this early stage in the planning, the verdict on Trump’s ballroom vision is mixed. Some White House alumni sympathized with Trump’s wish to make the complex more comfortable for visitors who often include heads of state.

Anita McBride, who was chief of staff to first lady Laura Bush, said in an email to NBC News: “I think it’s going to be an enhancement that will be welcomed by future occupants. No more big tents damaging the lawn or expensive build outs needed for major events. Clearly makes it easier to invite more people, too, when current state room capacity is limited.”

Rufus Gifford, who was chief of protocol of the U.S. in the Biden administration, likened Trump’s renovation to a renter overhauling an apartment. He shouldn’t make such dramatic structural changes to the iconic building on his own, Gifford said.

“The American people are Trump’s landlords right now,” Gifford said.

Trump, the erstwhile builder, seems to be relishing the return to his roots. Discussing his penchant for choosing paintings to decorate the West Wing, he said: “To me, it’s enjoyment; to other people, it’s work.”

We don’t need a f*ck*ng American Versailles.

We do need to be rid of King Donald. Whatever it takes, the criminal scum must be purged.

A ‘beautiful’ ballroom and a new Lincoln bathroom: Trump relishes remaking the White House
In an interview with NBC News, the president discussed his renovation plans for the most famous house in America. “I’m doing a lot of improvements,” he said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna221937

Newsweek: Trump admin identifies gang immigration “loophole”

Posted on by
Reply

A new report from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has raised concerns over the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program, citing instances of identity fraud and gang affiliations among applicants approved for lawful permanent residency.

“The scale of criminality, gang involvement, and fraud described in this report is more extensive than in earlier public discussions of the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program,” Morgan Bailey, a partner at Mayer Brown and a former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security, told Newsweek.

… which is followed by a lot of continuing fearmongering not worth quoting.

How hard is it to base each individual’s decision on his or her personal criminal history?

If they have no criminal history, let them be permanent residents.

If they commit crimes, deport them.

After 5 years of permanent residence, they can apply for citizenship, at which point their criminal history will be considered.

If they don’t apply for citizenship, they’ll have to apply to renew their permanent residence after another 5 years, at which point their criminal history will still be reviewed.

Focus on the INDIVIDUALS, not on superficial associations and characteristics.

Trump admin identifies gang immigration “loophole”
Criminal groups have exploited a program giving children legal status, USCIS said.

https://www.newsweek.com/special-immigrant-juvenile-visa-gang-exploitation-uscis-report-2104231

Guardian: Ex-CIA agent hits back at Tulsi Gabbard after she accused Obama of ‘treasonous conspiracy’ against Trump

Posted on by
Reply

Susan Miller says US intelligence chief’s allegations were based on misrepresentations of discoveries made by her team about Russian actions

A former CIA officer who helped lead the intelligence assessments over alleged Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election has said Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, is ignorant of the practices of espionage after she accused Barack Obama and his national security team of “treasonous conspiracy” against Donald Trump.

“Ignorant” pretty much describes any of King Donald’s incompetent suck-ups.

Susan Miller, the agency’s head of counter-intelligence at the time of the election, told the Guardian that Gabbard’s allegations were based on false statements and basic misrepresentations of discoveries made by Miller’s team about Russian actions, which she insisted were based on multiple trusted and verified sources.

Gabbard has accused Obama and his former national security officials of “manufacturing” intelligence to make it appear that Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, had intervened on Trump’s side when they knew it was untrue. The goal, she insisted, was to make Trump’s election win appear illegitimate, thus laying the basis of a “years-long coup against him”.

She has passed the matter to Pam [Bimbo#3] Bondi, the attorney general, who last week announced a justice department “strike force” into the affair. However, reports have suggested that Bondi was caught off-guard by Gabbard’s request that her department examine the matter.

Gabbard has called for criminal prosecutions against numerous officials involved, including Obama himself.

Obama last week denounced the allegations as “outrageous and ridiculous”, and part of an attempt to distract attention from the Jeffrey Epstein files, in which Trump’s name reportedly appears.

Until Wednesday, none of the other high-level officials named in Gabbard’s recent report – including James Clapper, her predecessor as national intelligence director; John Brennan, the former CIA director; or the ex-FBI director James Comey – had responded publicly to her allegations. Clapper and Brennan broke their silence for the first time on Wednesday with a jointly written op-ed article in the New York Times in which they called Gabbard’s allegations “patently false” and accused her of “rewrit[ing] history”.

In an interview, Miller – who is not named in the national intelligence director’s public narrative – questioned Gabbard’s grasp of intelligence matters.

Gabbard, who has never worked on the House intelligence committee while she was a member of Congress, has criticized the “tradecraft” of agents who compiled the assessment of Russia’s election activities.

“Has she ever met a Russian agent?” asked Miller, a 39-year agency veteran who served tours as CIA chief of station abroad. “Has she ever given diamonds to a Russian who’s giving us, you know? Has she ever walked on the streets of Moscow to do a dead drop? Has she ever handled an agent?

“No. She’s never done any of that. She clearly doesn’t understand this.”

Miller told the Guardian she was speaking out because Gabbard’s claims besmirched her work and and that of her team of up to eight members who worked on the Russia case.

“My reputation and my team’s reputation is on the line,” she said. “Tulsi comes out and doesn’t use my name, doesn’t use the names of the people in my team, but basically says this was all wrong and made up, et cetera.”

Miller and her former team members have recently hired lawyers to defend themselves against charges that could put them in jail.

Miller has hired Mark Zaid, a prominent Washington defense attorney, to represent her.

The scenario reprises a situation she faced in 2017, when – still a serving officer – Miller hired a $1,500-an-hour lawyer to represent her after being told she might face criminal charges for her part in authoring the same intelligence report now being scrutinized by Gabbard.

Investigators interviewed her for up to eight hours as part of a trawl to ferret out possible law-breaking under Obama that eventually that culminated in Bill Barr, the attorney general in Trump’s first administration, appointing a special counsel, John Durham, to conduct an inquiry into the FBI’s investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“They were asking things like: ‘Who told you to write this and who told you to come to these conclusions?’” Miller recalled.

“I told them: ‘Nobody did. If anybody had told us to come to certain conclusions, all of us would have quit. There’s no way, all none of us ever had a reputation for falsifying anything, before anything or after.’”

No charges were brought against her, but nor was she told the case was closed.

Durham’s 2023 report concluded that the FBI should never have launched its full investigation, called “Crossfire Hurricane” into the alleged Trump-Russia links. But his four-year investigation was something of a disappointment to Trump and his supporters, bringing just three criminal prosecutions, resulting in a single conviction – of an FBI lawyer who admitted to altering an email to support a surveillance application.

It is this ground that is now being re-covered by Gabbard in what may be a Trump-inspired bid for “retribution” against political enemies who he has accused of subjecting him to a political witch-hunt.

But the crusade, Miller says, is underpinned by false premise – that the Russia interference findings were a “hoax”, a description long embraced by Trump and repeated by Gabbard in her 18 July report.

“It is not a hoax,” she said. “This was based on real intelligence. It’s reporting we were getting from verified agents and from other verified streams of intelligence.

“It was so clear [the Russians] were doing that, that it was never in issue back in 2016. It’s only an issue now because Tulsi wants it to be.”

Briefing journalists at the White House last week, Gabbard cited a 2020 House of Representatives intelligence committee report – supported only by its Republican members – asserting that Putin’s goal in the election was to “undermine faith in the US democratic process, not showing any preference of a certain candidate”.

Miller dismissed that. “The information led us to the correct conclusion that [the interference] was in Trump’s favor – the Republican party and Trump’s favor,” she said. Indeed, Putin himself – standing alongside Trump at a news conference during a summit meeting in Helsinki in 2018 – confirmed to journalists that he had wanted his US counterpart to win.

Rebuffing suggestions that she or her team may be guilty of pro-Democrat bias, she said she was a registered Republican voter. Her team consisted of Republicans, Democrats and “centrists”, she said.

Gabbard has claimed that agents were pressured – at Obama’s instigation – into fabricating intelligence in the weeks after Trump’s victory, allegedly to raise questions about its electoral legitimacy and weaken his presidency.

“BS [bullshit]. That’s not true,” said Miller. “This had to do with our sources and what they were finding. It had nothing to do with Obama telling us to do this. We found it, and we’re like, what do we do with this?”

At the core of Gabbard’s critique are two assertions that Miller says conflates separate issues.

One is based on media reports of briefings from Obama administration officials a month after Trump’s victory, including one claiming that Russia used “cyber products” to influence “the outcome of the election”. Gabbard writes that this is contradicted by Obama’s admission that there was no “evidence of [voting] machines being tampered with” to alter the vote tally, meaning that the eventual assessment finding of Russian interference must be false.

Miller dismisses that as a red herring, since the CIA’s assessment – ultimately endorsed by other intelligence agencies – was never based on assumptions of election machine hacking.

“That’s not where [the Russians] were trying to do it,” she said. “They were trying to do it through covert action of press pieces, internet pieces, things like that. The DNC [Democratic National Committee] hack [when Russian hackers also penetrated the emails of Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and passed them to WikiLeaks] … is [also] part of it.

“That’s why we came out with the conclusion that 100% the Russians tried to influence the election on Trump’s part, [but] 100%, unless we polled every voter, we can’t tell if it worked. If we’d known anything about election machines, it would have been a very different thing.”

Miller also denied Gabbard’s claim that the intelligence community’s “high level of confidence” in Russian interference had been bolstered by “‘further information” that turned out to be an unverified dossier written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, which suggested possible collusion between Russia and Trump.

“We never used the Steele dossier in our report,” she said. The dossier – which included salacious allegations about Trump and Russian sex workers – created a media sensation when it was published without permission in January 2017 days before Trump’s inauguration.

Miller said it was only included in an annex to the intelligence assessment released in the same month on the insistence of Comey, the FBI director, who had told his CIA counterpart, Brennan, that the bureau would not sign off on the rest of the report if it was excluded.

“We never saw it until our report was 99.99% finished and about to go to print. We didn’t care about it or really understand it or where it had come from. It was too poorly written and non-understandable.

“But we were told it had to be included or the FBI wouldn’t endorse our report. So it was put in as an addendum with a huge cover sheet on it, written by me and a team member, which said something like: ‘We are attaching this document, the Steele dossier, to this report at the request of the FBI director; it is unevaluated and not corroborated by CIA at this time.’”

Ex-CIA agent hits back at Tulsi Gabbard over Russia claims: ‘She doesn’t understand this’
Susan Miller says US intelligence chief, who accused Obama of ‘treasonous conspiracy’ against Trump, is ill-informed

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/30/tulsi-gabbard-obama-russian-intelligence

Raw Story: ‘Bad situation’: Expert warns Trump in legal jeopardy with ‘significant’ Epstein admission

Posted on by
Reply

A legal expert warned President Donald Trump on Tuesday that he may have put himself in legal jeopardy by admitting he knew one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.

Trump told reporters earlier on Tuesday that Epstein “stole” Virginia Giuffre from him when she was employed at Mar-a-Lago. That claim could backfire on Trump because it shows that he knew one of the central victims in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, according to Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University.

Goodman pointed to Maxwell’s 2022 sentencing, where the judge enhanced her sentence to 20 years because of Giuffre’s testimony.

“It’s that much of a significant statement,” Goodman told Erin Burnett on CNN’s “OutFront.” “If he had said he was aware of it from the court documents, then he’s ok in that regard. But I think that’s a very potentially bad situation for him to be in.”

Trump has fiercely tried to distance himself from the Epstein files saga, which has consumed his presidency for the last three weeks. However, his attempts appear to be falling short.

For example, multiple outlets have published previously unreported ties between the two men. The Wall Street Journal published a letter that Trump allegedly sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. The New York Times has published details from one of Epstein’s accusers, and CNN has published previously unseen photos of the two men together at different events in the 1990s.

Trump’s comments come at a time when Maxwell has agreed to testify before Congress. Trump’s Justice Department has met with Maxwell and her lawyer multiple times, and some experts have suggested that Trump may pardon Maxwell in exchange for damaging testimony against Trump’s political rivals.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2673782213

Trump is the first AI slop president. That’s not good for democracy.

Posted on by
Reply

The White House has become a superspreader of AI-generated videos.

Franklin Roosevelt mastered the use of radio. John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were top of the game on TV. And Donald Trump is the first AI slop president.

Since January, Trump’s administration has used artificial intelligence to churn out a steady stream of fake images on social media, from alligators in ICE hats to crying members of Congress,while the official White House account on X has used it to portray the president as Superman, the pope and a villain from “Star Wars.”

Earlier this week, Trump used his account on his personal social media platform, Truth Social, to share an AI-generated clip showing former President Barack Obama being forcibly detained by the FBI. As bizarre as it was, it fit in with his other nonsensical memes, which included various Democrats in orange prison jumpsuits as the “Shady Bunch” and a fake-looking video of a woman in a bikini catching a snake with her bare hands.

There’s a term for someone using social media this way that can’t be repeated in polite company, so let’s just call it slop-posting. It’s usually done by a 14-year-old boy, or someone who still acts like one, and it’s mostly just absurd or mildly offensive. It’s not harmless, necessarily, but it’s mostly just lame trolling.

To suggest that our President has the maturity of a 14-year-old boy is generous. Let’s not insult the kids, most of whom are more mature and better behaved than King Donald.

But when the president does it, it’s something else entirely. Even in the most harmless AI-generated memes, Trump is muddying the waters on what is real, encouraging his supporters to believe everything and nothing. Did a woman in a bikini really catch a snake? Is Obama really going to be arrested? To a Trump supporter steeped in these memes, the answer may not even matter.

…

Opinion | Trump is the first AI slop president. That’s not good for democracy.
The White House has become a superspreader of AI-generated videos.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-obama-arrest-ai-slop-video-truth-social-rcna221041

LAist: Disabled immigrants are being abused and neglected inside Adelanto Detention Center, report says

Posted on by
Reply

A disability-rights group says immigrant detainees inside a federal detention center near Victorville are being abused and neglected, in part because the population inside the facility has grown rapidly in recent weeks, according to a new report.

Investigators with the non-profit watchdog Disability Rights California toured the Adelanto Detention Center late last month. They said they interviewed 18 people during the monitoring visit.

They also noted in the report, released last week, that the population inside the facility had risen dramatically from approximately 300 people in the weeks before the visit to nearly 1,400. The increase coincided with immigration agents ramping up raids across the L.A. region.

“Due to the surging numbers of people at Adelanto, conditions appear to have quickly deteriorated,” according to the report.

Spokespeople for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which rents the facility, and The GEO Group, which operates it, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican who represents the Adelanto area, recently toured the facility and praised its operations.

“Those in custody are provided with access to medical care, legal counsel, meals, and the full rights guaranteed under federal law,” he said in a statement.

We reached out to two Democratic members of Congress who toured the facility, but they were unavailable for comment in time or did not respond.

The findings

The report provides a rare look inside the conditions at the Adelanto facility.

Overall, Disability Rights California said it found serious issues including:

  • Inadequate access to medical treatment, such as life-saving medication and wound care, and exposure to widespread respiratory illnesses; 
  • Inadequate access to food and water, including extreme delays in meal distribution, provision of food that results in significant health issues, and a shortage of drinking water; 
  • Inadequate access to clean clothes, with many remaining in soiled clothing for long periods of time; and 
  • Minimal opportunities to contact family. 

“Further intensifying these issues, many of the people DRC interviewed had never experienced incarceration and felt overwhelmed and terrified by their confinement in a locked, jail-like facility,” the report states.

Among the 18 people interviewed during the June 25 visit, many said they were not receiving proper medication to manage their medical conditions, according to Disability Rights California.

One person reported he needed to take diabetes medication twice per day but had only received it twice over the 10 days he had been detained — placing him at life-threatening risk of diabetic shock, according to the report. Other people reported insufficient access to medication to manage severe asthma and urinary conditions, or not having medications transferred from previous facilities to ensure continued treatment.

Access to clean clothes is another problem, investigator Paula Sandoval told LAist. She said she met one man who said he didn’t have access to clean clothes for nearly three weeks.

Another investigator, Robert Reyes Villagomez, described a Venezuelan man who said he had panic attacks stemming from his fear of returning to the country. The investigator said the man came to the U.S. seeking asylum because he was tortured and sexually assaulted by government officials.

“He hadn’t seen or talked to anybody on the medical team despite putting in written medical accommodation requests multiple times,” Villagomez said.

Staff at Adelanto told investigators there were three psychologists to serve the entire population inside the detention center.

According to the report, two people told investigators they had acute spinal conditions that substantially impacted their ability to lie down to rest. The first person said his mattress was damaged and causing significant pain to his spine. He asked for a new mattress, the report states, but never received a response.

‘Grave concerns’

The report focused on people with disabilities, but it noted many of the detainees who were interviewed or otherwise interacted with said they faced the same conditions.

“While walking through the housing units, investigators observed several individuals pointing towards their mouths and shaking their heads ‘no’ to indicate that they were not receiving food,” the report stated.

Most people who were interviewed also reported that the quality of the food was poor or portions were too small to keep them satisfied. Many shared that they are experiencing gastric issues due to poor food quality, including severe stomach cramping and pain.

During the monitoring visit, detainees told investigators they had minimal opportunities to remain in contact with family and loved ones while in detention. They reported limited access to phones to make calls, and those calls were regularly disconnected.

The watchdog group said it has “grave concerns” that a continued surge of detainees held in Adelanto will put those with disabilities at even greater risk of abuse, neglect and harm, according to the report.

“The conditions at Adelanto make it clear that the current system of immigration detention is dangerous and inadequate for all people, especially for those with disabilities.”

The report is available online here.

Disabled immigrants are being abused and neglected inside Adelanto Detention Center, report says
Immigrant detainees have complained of poor conditions inside center amid period of increased ICE sweeps.

https://laist.com/news/disabled-immigrants-are-being-abused-and-neglected-inside-adelanto-detention-center-report-says

The Nation: Punished for Playing by the Rules: the Deliberate Cruelty of Trump’s Deportation Regime

Posted on by
Reply

Joselyn Chipantiza-Sisalema, 20, dressed in a red shirt and blue jeans on a Tuesday morning in June and took the subway from Bushwick to Lower Manhattan. She walked into the Jacob Javits Federal building at 26 Federal Plaza, a few blocks north of City Hall, took her keys and phone out of her pockets to pass through security, and got in an elevator up to the 12th-floor courtroom of Judge Donald Thompson. Like the vast majority of people appearing in immigration court, she had no lawyer with her. Chipantiza-Sisalema’s parents and younger brother had made the brutal journey from Ecuador to the United States in 2022, part of an increasing number of Ecuadorans propelled north as their country destabilized. They settled in New York—where a large Ecuadoran population has been part of the city since the 1970s—and filed a claim for asylum. Chipantiza-Sisalema joined her parents last year, crossing into the US at El Paso in May 2024. In the volatile political climate in Ecuador, she had faced threats and stalking, her father later told reporters. Immigration officials in El Paso determined Chipantiza-Sisalema was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, so she was permitted to go on to New York to her family and told to appear in court more than a year later. She followed the rules.

The June 24 hearing at 26 Federal Plaza was her first immigration hearing. It was brief. Judge Thompson scheduled her next date for March 2026. But when Chipantiza-Sisalema stepped out of the courtroom to return home, masked men grabbed her. She was hustled down to the 10th floor of the courthouse. She would remain there for nine days—without being charged or ever given the opportunity to contest her detention, without access to an attorney, sleeping on the floor, with minimal food and nowhere to bathe. In hasty one-minute phone calls, Chipantiza-Sisalema told her parents there were at least 70 other people there. The small number of holding cells in the federal building are meant to be used just for a few hours before someone is transferred to a different facility, attorneys familiar with the building explained. There is no provision for meals and no beds. When she was put on a plane and transferred to the for-profit Richwood Detention facility in Louisiana on the Fourth of July—before a New York judge had a chance to review the habeas corpus petition an attorney filed the day before—she was still wearing that same red shirt and blue jeans.

The overwhelming majority of immigrants whose cases are winding through the immigration court system show up for their hearings, believing that by adhering to the system’s labyrinthine requirements they’ll be rewarded with clearance to stay in the country. Or at least the chance to fight another day. But under President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation regime, abiding by the immigration system’s rules has become increasingly dangerous. Those who show up in court now routinely face arrest. But failure to appear for a hearing generally triggers a deportation order, attorneys explained. Immigrants, advocates, and elected officials at all levels are scrambling to confront what they say is lawlessness inside the courthouse and throughout the ICE detention system. “ICE is just detaining everyone and giving only some a right to a hearing, and it’s only the possibility of having a lawyer who will shout and scream for you that your case is heard,” said Melissa Chua, an attorney at the pro bono New York Legal Assistance Group, who is representing several people who, despite following US immigration procedure, are now in detention.

Chipantiza-Sisalema is just one of hundreds of people taken in the past month by masked ICE agents at Manhattan’s immigration courts, Harold Solis, co–legal director for the Brooklyn-based immigrant rights group Make the Road New York, told The Nation. “The truth is, I don’t think anyone has a full scope of how many people have been held there.” Make the Road is now representing Chipantiza-Sisalema. Similar scenes have played out in courthouses across the country, with immigrants often shuttled between several facilities before their family or attorney can locate them. Beginning in April, it appeared to court observers in Manhattan that ICE was lying in wait for people whose cases were dismissed or who were ordered to be deported. Veteran attorneys say courthouse arrests had previously been extremely unusual. “In all my years of practice, it has never been a fact of life that going to immigration court leads to you being detained,” Solis said. By late June, ICE was routinely taking people even when, like Chipantiza-Sisalema, US immigration judges had ordered them to reappear several months in the future.

“People are being disappeared into this hole of 26 Federal Plaza for a prolonged period of time and in deplorable conditions,” said Kendal Nystedt, an attorney at the rights group Unlocal whose client was held there for six days. The New York Immigration Coalition is representing someone held for three weeks, executive director Murad Awawdeh said. The vast majority, maybe as many as 99 percent, according to a close court watcher who asked not to be identified because of the nature of her work, do not have an attorney.

“If you’re someone without a family member or no one has alerted us to you, there is no way for us to know what has happened,” said Chua. “They are really creating this shadow place that can deny people protections they are afforded by our Constitution.”

In the chaotic seconds as immigrants exit courtrooms, volunteer observers hastily attempt to catch people’s names, alien registration numbers, and contacts for family members before ICE strongarms them into elevators and out of sight. The hope is that by collecting people’s names, their families will be able to find out where they are sent. A diffuse mutual aid network raises commissary funds, tries to connect people to counsel, and offers support to families left behind—often without a breadwinner. Ordinarily when someone is detained, they show up in the ICE detainee locator in a mattered of hours, attorneys said. But those held at 26 Federal Plaza and in irregular detention in courthouses elsewhere are listed only as “in transit” for the days-long duration of their stay. In this limbo state, their lawyers and families can’t reach them.

Chua and other attorneys emphasized that the spectacle of ICE sweeping people up in courthouses was a dramatic departure from norms—even in an immigration system hardly characterized by transparency or compassion. Several members of New York’s congressional delegation, including Representatives Adriano Espaillat, Daniel Goldman, Jerrold Nadler, and Nydia Velasquez, have tried to find out how many people are held at 26 Federal Plaza—and to assess conditions. They’ve all been rebuffed.

In a surreal, Kakfaesque incident, Bill Joyce, deputy director of the New York ICE field office, told Representatives Goldman and Nadler in June that the 10th floor of 26 Federal Plaza—where a shifting number of immigrants are held against their will for days on end—is not a detention facility. Rather, it is a place ICE is “housing [immigrants] until they can be detained.” Members of Congress have a right to inspect places where people are detained, but not, Joyce argued, a place they are merely “held.” On July 14, Espaillat and Velasquez were again prevented from inspecting the facility. The lawmakers are considering legal action against the Department of Homeland Security for preventing them from exercising their oversight rights, Espaillat said.

That people are held within a courthouse in a sanctuary city that considers itself the capital of immigrant America is an affront that has New York lawmakers searching for solutions. “We’re fighting this from the legal front and the budgeting front and the legislative front. And we’re fighting this in public opinion,” Espaillat said. Likewise, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams said his office is seeking litigation in support and praised the efforts of court observers. A coalition of immigrants rights groups in Washington, DC, filed a class action suit in federal district court in DC on July 17, alleging that the courthouse arrests are a violation of due process. New York groups could soon follow.

While ICE is barred by state law from entering New York criminal and civil courts, 26 Federal Plaza is under federal jurisdiction. But standing beside Chipantiza-Sisalema’s bereft and terrified parents at a July 3 press conference, several elected officials called on New York Governor Kathy Hochul to find a way to intervene. Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher, who represents parts of Brooklyn, thinks lawmakers, whose session ended mid-June, should return to Albany. “I also call on my governor, Kathy Hochul, to pass New York for All and to call us to a special session and get ICE out of our courts,” she said, referring to a bill that would extend some sanctuary protections to immigrants across New York State. Espaillat introduced HR 4176—The No Secret Police Act—in June. In the unlikely event it passes the Republican-controlled Congress, it would bar federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks or hiding their badges except in specific undercover instances. Last week, New York Attorney General Leticia James and a coalition of 20 attorneys general urged Congress to pass the bill and a bundle of similar legislation.

Closer to home, the New York City budget adopted at the end of June increased city funding for pro bono immigration lawyers by $76 million to $120 million in total, and the city’s law department filed amicus briefs in support of two detained New Yorkers this spring. But the New York Immigration Coalition wants to see a full right to counsel extended to immigration court. The rollout of city-funded right-to-counsel in housing court several years ago was not without complications, but it dramatically rebalanced the scale between tenants and landlords and has been copied elsewhere. New York wouldn’t be the first place to guarantee a right to an immigration lawyer. Oregon adopted universal access to representation in most immigration matters in 2022, said Isa Peña, director of strategy for Innovation Law Lab, based in Portland.

As courthouse arrests pile up, lawyers who are able to identify people being held are filing habeas corpus petitions in federal district courts, in hopes of keeping their clients from being transferred to distant detention facilities or deported—but also simply to compel the government to reveal where they are, dispelling the twilight status of being in perpetual “transit.” These petitions have the advantage of being heard by judges who are part of the federal judiciary—and perhaps more attuned to the rule of law than immigration court judges, who serve at the pleasure of the Department of Homeland Security.

In Buffalo, in a case since joined by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Prisoners Legal Service is arguing that ICE’s aggressive presence in the halls of federal courthouses constitutes not just an escalation of Trump’s war on immigrants but a systematic attempt to deprive people of their due-process rights. “It’s a huge deviation in ICE tactics and unlawful in various ways,” said NYCLU attorney Amy Louise Belscher, who is representing Oliver Mata Velasquez in a habeas case. Mata Velasquez, 19, came to the United States from Venezuela in September 2024, using the CBPOne app the Biden administration required of asylum seekers.As with Chipantiza-Sisalema, immigration officials at the border determined Mata Velasquez was not a flight risk or a danger and permitted him to enter the country. He obtained work authorization and showed up May 21 for his first immigration hearing, as instructed. A judge told him to return in February 2026, but before he could leave the courthouse, ICE arrested him. Last week a judge ordered Mata Velasquez immediately released and forbade ICE from detaining him again without permission from the judge.

“Federal judges are finding these courthouse arrests unlawful,” Belscher said. “They are detaining people not because they are at risk of flight or a danger to the community, but because they are easy to find.” The NYCLU’s arguments for Mata Velasquez cite a bundle of cases successfully argued in Oregon, by the Innovation Law Lab. Those cases, named for ICE Seattle field office director Drew Bostock, argue that the courthouse arrests violate the immigrant’s right to due process. That such a violation is occurring precisely in the place one goes to seek justice has scandalized attorneys. “When we saw that people were targeted at the courthouse—where your fundamental freedoms are supposed to be upheld, we moved quickly to intervene,” Innovation Law Lab’s Peña said.

Some of the habeas petitions filed in New York last month resulted in judges’ issuing emergency orders to keep the person nearby, preventing ICE from venue shopping by sending the person to Texas or Louisiana.

People aren’t only being taken at court. Milton Maisel Perez y Perez, a teacher who fled his native Guatemala because of threats from gangs, has been in immigration proceedings for six years. Like hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country, he gained the right to work legally and was required to check in periodically under the Department of Homeland Security’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP). Last month, he went to the ISAP facility in Jamaica, Queens. It was perhaps the 50th time he’d done so, his attorney S. Michael Musa-Obregon said. This time, Perez y Perez was arrested. He was transferred to the 10th floor of 26 Federal Plaza and held for three days. After Musa-Obregon filed a habeas petition with the Southern District of New York, but before it could be heard by a judge, ICE prepared to move Perez y Perez to detention—clear across the country in Seattle. A judge’s order at the last minute had him removed from the plane and transferred to detention in Goshen, New York.

The courthouse arrests are a cynical campaign, Musa-Obregon said. “They are detaining people with the idea that it is much easier to get people to give up their rights when they are incarcerated,” he said. On the Fourth of July, Trump signed into law his massive spending bill, which included $170 billion for immigration enforcement and border security. It makes ICE the largest law enforcement entity in the country and promises to vastly expand the for-profit immigrant detention system. The masked men in the halls of justice are just the beginning. But the ancient writ of habeas corpus appears to be working.

District Judge Analisa Torres ruled on Chipantiza-Sisalema’s habeas petition on July 13, ordering her immediate release. The manner of her arrest, the judge wrote, “offends the ordered system of liberty that is the pillar of the Fifth Amendment.” She was back in her parents’ arms on July 16. Snatched by masked men and held for three weeks, she’s one of the lucky ones.

Punished for Playing by the Rules: the Deliberate Cruelty of Trump’s Deportation Regime
Migrants who show up for their court dates now routinely face arrest by ICE. But failing to appear triggers a deportation order.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/ice-trump-detention-regime-cruelty

Also here:

Punished for Playing by the Rules: the Deliberate Cruelty of Trump’s Deportation Regime

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/punished-for-playing-by-the-rules-the-deliberate-cruelty-of-trump-s-deportation-regime/ar-AA1JcQGd