The loaner AUSA in the Tish James case, Roger Keller, has responded to Attorney General James’ request that they be ordered to follow the rules (he even authored his own document, unlike the Comey loaner AUSAs). I’ll come back to it but it is … inadequate to the task, though it cites liberally and faithlessly from the DC Circuit opinion upholding part of the gag on criminal defendant Donald Trump.

In any case, that may be far less important a development than the order that Judge Cameron McGowen Currie gave in both the James and Comey cases.

As happened with the other challenges to Trump’s unlawfully appointed US Attorneys, Currie (a senior judge from another District within the same Circuit) was appointed by Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz to preside over the challenge to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment. While Comey included Halligan’s appointment paperwork in his challenge, James (who filed hers before she got any discovery) did not.

In any case, Currie wants more. She ordered DOJ to file, “all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts.”

The undersigned has been appointed to hear this motion and finds it necessary to determine the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the grand jury proceedings. Accordingly, the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts. In camera review is appropriate given the secrecy requirements applicable to grand jury proceedings. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2).

Currie may need these simply to understand what the remedy would be if she ruled for Comey and James. As far as we know (and as news reports cited in both motions claim), unlike other challenges to Trump’s unlawful US Attorney appointments, Halligan was the only one present for the presentment, meaning if her appointment is unlawful, the indictments have to go away. Both Comey and James are arguing for dismissal with prejudice, though the argument is less compelling in James’ case (because unlike Comey, the statute of limitations did not expire). So Currie needs to understand how much of the case relies on Halligan’s presence.

Whatever Currie’s goal, reviewing these transcripts will likely to be exceedingly damning for Halligan, whom Currie refers to not as the “interim US Attorney” or even (as James referred to her) as the “purported interim US Attorney,” but as the “indictment signer.”

After all, they will show that Dan Richman gave testimony that debunked the very premise of the indictment against Comey; such a review may show that Halligan simply neglected to share that transcript with grand jurors. More damning still, it’ll reveal the testimony of James’ great-niece, Nakia Thompson, describing that she has paid almost nothing in rent since she lived in the home James bought for her in 2020, undercutting the entire claim that Attorney General James was intending to use the house as an investment property. It’ll reveal that Halligan got an Alexandria grand jury to indict James, bypassing those grand jurors in Norfolk who had heard Thompson’s testimony.

But Judge Currie may find something else Comey argued compelling: that because Halligan was not lawfully authorized to be US Attorney, Halligan’s mere presence in the grand jury was a violation of grand jury secrecy.

Here, Ms. Halligan’s unlawful appointment tainted the structural integrity of the grand jury process. Absent Ms. Halligan’s unlawful title, she would not have been able to enter the grand jury room, let alone present and sign an indictment. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow only “attorneys for the government” to be “present while the grand jury is in session,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(d)(1), and define such attorneys to include only “attorney[s] authorized by law to conduct” grand jury proceedings, Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(1)(D) (emphasis added). Those rules implement the longstanding principle “that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings”—a principle that “is ‘as important for the protection of the innocent as for the pursuit of the guilty.’” United States v. Sells Eng’g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 424 (1983) (citations omitted). By limiting participation to government attorneys “authorized by law,” Rules 1 and 6 maintain the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding and reinforce that an unlawfully appointed attorney’s presentation to the grand jury undermines the structure of that proceeding. The fundamental error here thus allows a presumption that Mr. Comey was prejudiced, “and any inquiry into harmless error would [require] unguided speculation.” Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. at 257.

Judge Currie may have very modest reasons for requesting these transcripts. But they will, almost inevitably, raise larger questions about both Halligan’s conduct, and that of the people who appointed her.

When the government first asked, on October 13, to use a filter review to access content seized from Dan Richman five years ago, it described that Jim Comey, “prefers to challenge the underlying search warrant first before any review takes place.”

But in his response yesterday, Comey didn’t do that.

Rather, after a heavily-redacted discussion of the problems with DOJ’s past and prospective access to the content, he proposed that Judge Michael Nachmanoff should deny the government’s filter request without prejudice, allowing DOJ to reconsider its bid for a filter protocol after they’ve first answered a set of questions.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the government’s motion to implement its proposed filter protocol without prejudice, and direct the government to disclose the following information to allow both the Court and the defense to assess the appropriateness of the protocol:

1. The legal authority for the contemplated review.

2. Whether any quarantined materials have been accessed by, shared with, or provided to the case team (and, if so, which materials were reviewed by which personnel on which day), and whether any such materials have been produced in discovery.

3. The protocol used during the prior filter review, including search parameters, segregation measures, privilege determinations, and associated logs or correspondence.

4. Whether the government intends to search raw returns or only the set already filtered in the prior review. See In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159, 181 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended (Oct. 31, 2019) (holding that “the magistrate judge erred” by approving a filter protocol “without first ascertaining” the materials to be reviewed).

5. Whether non-lawyers will conduct any portion of the Filter Review. See ECF No. 38-1 ¶ 2 n.2 (“The Filter Team is comprised of Two Assistant United States Attorneys, and their support staff”) (emphasis added); see In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d at 177 (criticizing the use of non-lawyers to designate documents as nonprivileged).

One might explain the reason why he’s doing this in one or two ways.

The first is a procedural reason. The warrants and original filter protocol themselves were probably reasonably sound for the purpose to which they were put: investigating whether Richman leaked classified information. The heavily redacted bit describes four different warrants and the loaner AUSAs’ original filing described content seized from “an image of a computer hard drive, an iCloud download, the backup of an iPhone, and the backup of an iPad.” There are five sealed exhibits to the filing (none cited in unredacted form), of which four are presumably the warrants and one may pertain to the original protocol, though there is something identified in footnote 4 that “was not produced,” not even after Comey’s team asked about it on October 23. While the seized material included a great deal of material, including material pertaining to Richman’s clients other than Comey and “sensitive and private materials belonging to his students,” the original filter protocol withheld, “private materials related to his students, as well as privileged materials, [from] the case team.”

But, contrary to the approach used with (for example) Michael Cohen as well as what we’ve been able to publicly review of warrants implicating Rudy Giuliani, in which prosecutors obtained new warrants every time the scope or target of an investigation changed, the government appears not to have obtained new warrants to search this material for a different crime, the alleged lie Comey told in 2020.

[I]t appears that the government has not obtained any search warrants in connection with the instant matter, including any warrant authorizing a search of the Arctic Haze materials for evidence of the two offenses with which Mr. Comey is charged.

Comey cites several precedents, one in the Fourth Circuit, that would require a new warrant.

He points to other reasons, too, why the government would need to obtain new warrants: because these warrants are not only stale, but they predate the alleged crime here, testimony from October 2020.

The government now proposes to use those warrants to search for evidence of different crimes that arose from a proceeding that occurred after USAO-DDC obtained the Arctic Haze warrants.

Comey also objects because some part of this was sealed by another court, which by date and location would probably have been an order from Beryl Howell when she was Chief Judge in DC.

The government has no lawful basis to review materials obtained more than five years ago, in a closed investigation that ended without any charges, pursuant to stale warrants for separate offenses, including materials that remain under seal by another court. [my emphasis]

Comey maintains that he can challenge the use of these warrants here.

The Fourth Amendment plainly prohibits the government from doing exactly what it seeks to do here: the Arctic Haze warrants were obtained more than five years ago in a separate and now-closed criminal investigation and authorized the seizure of evidence of separate offenses. Yet the government seeks to turn those warrants into general warrants to continue to rummage through materials belonging to Mr. Comey’s lawyer in an effort to seize evidence of separate alleged crimes. The Court should not authorize the government to conduct an unlawful review.

[snip]

Mr. Comey reserves his right to move to suppress these warrants, to the extent the government continues to use them in this manner. See, e.g., United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709–10 (1983) (a seizure lawful at its inception can nevertheless violate the Fourth Amendment based on agents’ subsequent conduct); DeMassa v. Nunez, 770 F.2d 1505, 1508 (9th Cir. 1985) (“an attorney’s clients have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their client files”). Until the government answers the questions the defense has previously raised about these warrants, which to date have remained unanswered and which are detailed at the end of this submission, the defense will not be in a position to file an appropriately targeted suppression motion.

But even the language here notes at one problem: Normally you challenge a Fourth Amendment violation by suppressing evidence for use at trial. Here, Comey is trying to do more. He’s trying to prevent investigators from even accessing it. And so, instead, he’s asking the judge to force prosecutors to answer some basic questions in the guise of allowing him to suppress the warrants.

Until the government answers the questions the defense has previously raised about these warrants, which to date have remained unanswered and which are detailed at the end of this submission, the defense will not be in a position to file an appropriately targeted suppression motion.

Which brings us to the second possible reason for responding this way: question 2. Who already accessed privileged material, when did they do so, and has the government turned over that material in discovery? The answer to that question, especially, would force investigators to confess if they’ve already snuck a peek into what is in the privileged communication.

The “spill” that Comey suspects happened may have happened recently: on the day Lindsey Halligan obtained the indictment.

That footnote, marked in pink, cites the Criminal Case Cover Sheet, which, in spite of being labeled as “REDACTED,” is not, and so among other things, reveals the name of one of two FBI agents on the case, Miles Starr (the other being Jack Eckenrode, who investigated Scooter Libby but then left the team, and who joined John Durham in chasing Russian disinformation for four years).

I’ve redacted Starr’s phone number. You’re welcome, Miles.

But the Sheet also includes an error: it lists three counts, including the one, pertaining to Comey’s answer to Lindsey Graham’s question about a CIA referral (one that FBI may never have received) that Kash Patel and John Ratcliffe ret-conned into a “Clinton Plan” on which to hang the Durham investigation. That’s the one the grand jury no-billed.

While none of that explains when and how Starr and Eckenrode snuck a peek of privileged information, it might explain why.

Kash and Eckenrode are still chasing the theory behind the dropped charge, that Jim Comey purportedly knew Hillary Clinton had a plan (one fabricated by Russia and then embellished by Eckenrode and Durham to claim Hillary wanted to frame Trump) to emphasize Donald Trump’s ties with Russia. That’s the logic of the larger conspiracy theory that Eckenrode has been hired to chase. It was and remains Russian disinformation, but that didn’t stop Eckenrode the last time he tried this.

Indeed, because DC USAO obtained warrants in 2019 and 2020, there may be communications between Comey and his attorneys about the John Durham investigation, about Eckenrode’s past witch hunt, which would explain why Comey is so interested in the scope of proposed review, which the loaner AUSAs still haven’t told Comey.

Because Kash and Eckenrode are chasing that conspiracy theory, this is a much bigger issue than just the case before Nachmanoff. As I laid out in my post predicting that John Durham’s investigation was a preview of coming attractions (even before I knew that Kash had brought Eckenrode back!), Durham already played games to access attorney-client privileged material.

In response, Sussmann accused Durham of abusing the same grand jury process he abused with Benardo (abuse, ironically, that debunked Durham’s conspiracy theory).

First, the Special Counsel’s Motion is untimely. Despite knowing for months, and in some cases for at least a year, that the non-parties were withholding material as privileged, he chose to file this Motion barely a month before trial—long after the grand jury returned an Indictment and after Court-ordered discovery deadlines had come and gone.

Second, the Special Counsel’s Motion should have been brought before the Chief Judge of the District Court during the pendency of the grand jury investigation, as the rules of this District and precedent make clear.

Third, the Special Counsel has seemingly abused the grand jury in order to obtain the documents redacted for privilege that he now challenges. He has admitted to using grand jury subpoenas to obtain these documents for use at Mr. Sussmann’s trial, even though Mr. Sussmann had been indicted at the time he issued the grand jury subpoenas and even though the law flatly forbids prosecutors from using grand jury subpoenas to obtain trial discovery. The proper remedy for such abuse of the grand jury is suppression of the documents.

Fourth, the Special Counsel seeks documents that are irrelevant on their face. Such documents do not bear on the narrow charge in this case, and vitiating privilege for the purpose of admitting these irrelevant documents would materially impair Mr. Sussmann’s ability to prepare for his trial.

He also revealed that some of those privilege claims went back to August — that is, the weeks after Durham should have closed up shop.

Email from Andrew DeFilippis, Dep’t of Just., to Patrick Stokes, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, et al. (Aug. 9, 2021) (requesting a call to discuss privilege issues with a hope “to avoid filing motions with the Court”); Email from Andrew DeFilippis, Dep’t of Just., to Patrick Stokes, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, et al. (Aug. 14, 2021) (stating that the Special Counsel “wanted to give all parties involved the opportunity to weigh in before we . . . pursue particular legal process, or seek relief from the Court”). And since January— before the deadline to produce unclassified discovery had passed—the Special Counsel suggested that such a filing was imminent, telling the DNC, for example, that he was “contemplating a public court filing in the near term.” Email from Andrew DeFilippis, Dep’t of Just., to Shawn Crowley, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP (Jan. 17, 2022). [my emphasis]

In a hearing on May 4, right before trial, Joffe’s lawyer revealed they had demanded Durham press a legal claim much earlier, in May 2021.

MR. TYRRELL: So if they wanted to challenge our assertion of privilege as to this limited universe of documents — again, which is separate from the other larger piece with regard to HFA — they should have done so months ago. I don’t know why they waited until now, Your Honor, but I want to be clear. I want to say without hesitation that it’s not because there was ever any discussion with us about resolving this issue without court intervention.

THE COURT: That was my question. Were you adamant a year ago?

MR. TYRRELL: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Were you adamant a year ago that —

MR. TYRRELL: Yes. We’ve been throughout. We were not willing to entertain resolution of this without court intervention.

THE COURT: Very well.

Ultimately, Cooper did bow to Durham’s demand, but prohibited them from using those documents at trial.

That didn’t prevent DeFilippis from attempting to use the privileged documents to perjury trap his one Fusion witness, the kind of perjury trap that might have provided a way to continue the madness indefinitely.

There must have been nothing interesting there: most of the Fusion documents were utterly irrelevant to the Sussmann charges, but could implicate the Danchenko ones, but Durham didn’t use them there, nor did he explain their content in his final report.

That effort involved, among other things, abusing the prosecutorial process to bypass rulings (such as the sealing order mentioned above) that Beryl Howell had already made, and using one criminal case, against Michael Sussmann, to obtain attorney-client privileged materials that would only be relevant in another criminal case, the Igor Danchenko case (or a larger conspiracy).

Particularly given the reticence of the loaner AUSAs to tell Comey what happened, whether they have warrants, who read what, this feels like an attempt to retroactively bless access that investigators already got. And the stakes are bigger than this one case. As Durham (and Eckenrode) did in 2022, this likely would primarily serve to feed their bigger conspiracy theory.

Plus, if Eckenrode is sneaking peeks at Comey’s privileged communications still in FBI custody, there’s nothing that would prevent him from doing the same with all the other people whose privileged communications have been seized during this years-long witch hunt.

And that’s why you ask these questions.

The high profile politicized prosecutions — of Jim Comey, Tish James, and John Bolton (and of LaMonica McIver if the press weren’t broken) — are really important tests of Trump’s attempt to turn DOJ into a weapon.

But the relatively anonymous cases — as often as not, defended by Federal Public Defenders — are just important a vindication of rule of law.

Today’s important victory goes to Ashleigh Brown. She was charged in conjunction with a confrontation with Federal Protective Services (not, NOT ICE or CBP) outside Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on August 2.

c. Approximately three [Federal Protective Services] Officers, including FPS Officer Z.C., walked out to remove REDONDO-ROSALES from the path of the government car. As the group of FPS officers approached REDONDO-ROSALES, he moved backwards away from the FPS officers in an apparent attempt to avoid being apprehended. Then, FPS Officer Z.C. approached REDONDO-ROSALES in an effort to detain him, and REDONDO-ROSALES intentionally struck Officer Z.C. in the face with his left hand (at the time, REDONDO-ROSALES had a tan, wide-brimmed hat in his left hand).

d. After FPS officers were able to detain REDONDORO-SALES, Officer Z.C. and approximately four other FPS officers began to escort REDONDO-ROSALES towards the Alameda Street Entrance.

e. As Officer Z.C. walked a few feet in front of the two FPS officers who were escorting REDONDO-ROSALES toward the Alameda Street Entrance, BROWN approached Officer Z.C. and stepped into Officer Z.C.’s path. Officer Z.C. continued past BROWN toward the Alameda Street Entrance, but as he did so, BROWN intentionally hit Officer Z.C. in his left side with her right arm.

The felony charge against Brown was reportedly no-billed by a jury. For whatever reason, Bill Essayli charged her with misdemeanor interference instead, only to succeed in getting her detained after she allegedly violated bail by following an ICE officer home, for which she and two others were charged with conspiracy to dox him.

Though in Brown’s response to a 404(b) notice attempting to present the doxing case to the “assault” jury, her lawyers claimed that, “R.H. got into his personal vehicle and drove to where Ms. Brown was parked. He stopped his vehicle in the driveway, blocking Ms. Brown’s vehicle from leaving.” That is, even on the case that did get indicted, the cop in question arguably instigated the confrontation.

There were a number of things that would have been interesting if this had gone to trial, including Brown’s sealed filings about why she had a claim of self defense, as well as her success, after submitting them, in getting an order to share DHS’ Use of Force guidelines.

But things got interesting today when Brown submitted a motion to disqualify the victim in this case, ZC, from testifying based on DOJ’s failure to tell the defense that he had a (misdemeanor) criminal record, most notably a conviction in a harassment involving physical contact charge just four years ago.

C. Defense Discovers Z.C.’s Criminal History

On October 23, 2025, while preparing for trial in this matter, defense counsel learned that Z.C. has criminal history that includes at least:

• Harassment – subjecting a person to physical contact, in violation of Pennsylvania Statute § 18.2709(a)(1), convicted on June 17, 2021;
• Disorderly conduct, in violation of Florida Statute § 509.143, arrested on August 31, 2014; and
• Driving under the influence, in violation of Florida Statute § 316193(1), convicted on November 4, 2013.

Exhibits H, I, filed under seal.

These records were obtained through independent defense investigation. Of note, the defense does not have access to law enforcement databases and thus cannot confirm whether this is Z.C.’s complete criminal history or whether there is additional relevant information about these or any other arrests or convictions.

D. Defense Contacts the USAO With Its Findings. The USAO States It Was Not Aware of Z.C.’s Assault History.

On October 26, 2025, after further research and internal discussion, defense counsel contacted government counsel regarding its findings. Government counsel requested a few hours to investigate and respond. Later that evening, the parties conferred by telephone. Government counsel indicated that it was not previously aware of Z.C.’s 2021 conviction for assault. The government had asked Z.C. about his prior convictions in interviews. The government was only aware of Z.C.’s 2014 arrest for disorderly conduct and his 2013 conviction for driving under the influence. In addition, government counsel stated that it had not conducted an independent Henthorn review of Z.C., but had relied on the word and responsiveness of another agency (FPS) to conduct a Henthorn review of Z.C.’s personnel file.

The judge in the case, Obama appointee Fernando Olguin, was not only interested in learning more about DOJ’s failure to disclose this detail, but also who, if anyone, knew about ZC’s criminal history, and if so, why they didn’t disclose it.

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Complete Personnel Files and Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Z.C., (Dkt. 83, “Motion”), the court concludes that it would benefit from full briefing on the issues presented in the Motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The government shall file its papers in opposition to the Motion by no later than Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.

2. Together with its opposition, the government must submit a declaration signed by counsel for the government that sets forth the names and titles of the individuals who conducted the Henthorn and/or Brady reviews of the relevant personnel file materials, and the dates on which such reviews were conducted. Counsel for the government is cautioned that failure to provide such a declaration may lead to the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to the exclusion of evidence and/or witnesses.

Normally, when DOJ has decided they have to abandon false assault charges, they attempt to dismiss without prejudice.

Not so here. They’re filing to dismiss with prejudice.

The United States moves to dismiss its information with prejudice against defendant in the interests of justice under Federal Criminal Rule 48(a), and therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion. Defendant does not oppose dismissal and the parties agree all pending motions should be denied as moot.

Brown’s legal troubles are not done. The doxing case is a felony, and as a conspiracy case, DOJ has broader leeway for introducing evidence against Brown. She remains detained (based on her prior violation of bail) in that case.

But DOJ has been attempting to link these two cases, presumably as a way to salvage the initial assault case.

And even that tactic could now backfire.

US v Brown (assault) docket

US v. Raygoza (conspiracy to dox) docket

It started with the willful destruction of USAID.

I start what is sure to be a kaleidoscopic (or some might call disorganized) reflection on the undercurrents of power as Trump attempts to build a new America based on illusion by reminding that the first assault was on USAID. USAID was targeted, among other reasons, because it supported the kind of pro-democracy NGOs that have haunted Viktor Orbán for years, and also because the realities of aid in the field look funny to those pickled in the provincialism of culture war.

But it’s a useful reminder, because the destruction of USAID was both the first great strike against Congress’ power of the purse (because Marco Rubio was refusing to spend on programs Congress had appropriated, including programs with bipartisan support, like PEPFAR), and also the consensual destruction of a great deal of soft power the United States built up going back to the Cold War. Then, during the Cold War, USAID was recognized as a low-cost way to contest another great power and, along the way, to do something good and maybe even create a few new reliable markets for farmers in the heartland. Now, it had become a symbol of a past hegemony that conspiracy theorists, starting with the richest man in the world, had made suspect.

This reflection will focus on how Stephen Miller’s two-faced war on America’s immigrant diversity and Latin America exists in tension with Trump’s attempt to subjugate both the Democrats and China. I’m attempting to capture these intertwined threads to get to a point I’ve raised before. We know what the decline from democracy to authoritarianism looks like. Trump is overtly following Orbán’s path to competitive authoritarianism. But far too few have considered what it means that Trump is pursuing that model while committing hegemonic suicide.

The willful destruction of USAID laid an important foundation for two “negotiations” that are bedeviling Trump’s effort to consolidate power: the trade war Trump picked with China, and a funding fight with Democrats over whether Congress will be Congress anymore.

Art of the Deal guy is conducting a bunch of “negotiations” right now. Many of them involve levying threats, whether threatening to withdraw government funding, launching frivolous lawsuits, imposing draconian tariffs, or even charging people with fabricated crimes, and in response, extorting bribes, like the free work some white shoe law firms decided to give away or payment for the ballroom that will scar the edifice where the East Wing used to be. For most negotiating partners, such threats leave two choices: suing in an attempt to deem the entire extortion attempt unlawful, or attempting to minimize the extracted tribute through flattery.

But for China and the Democrats it is different. The government of China doesn’t do flattery — not of foreigners, anyway. Plus, China has been preparing for this moment since the last time Trump tried it, in his first term, in part by increasing its own capacity, in part by replacing American suppliers with countries China has been wooing with soft power for years.

And while Democrats have been suing and suing and suing, Trump’s ultimate goal for the minority — whose party currently leads most of the net donor states in the US — is nothing less than subjugation. Trump was happier to negotiate with Hamas than negotiate with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Trump intends to make them, all Democrats, give him the adulation they refuse him.

And so Trump’s negotiating “tactics” for both are similar: a serial ratcheting up of demands, based on the belief that the desired end — subjugation — is the means to win the negotiation. In both cases, this obstinance has instead created vulnerabilities. By pushing China to impose an export control regime not dissimilar to those the US uses, Trump gave China leverage over the Rest of World countries with which China will continue to trade even as Trump shrivels inside his manufactured walls, the countries Trump once wished to peel off from China.

And every time Russ Vought commits another unprecedented Antideficiency Act crime, it proves the Democrats’ point that there can be no negotiations unless that lawlessness ceases.

But when Trump decided that he had to pay military servicemembers, he directly violated congressional statute. It is “by far the most illegal budgetary action he’s taken as POTUS, potentially setting the stage to break everything,” writes Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress. “The mechanism through which Trump is paying the troops is the most blatant large Antideficiency Act (ADA) violation in US history.”

Trump is taking money from an account specifically earmarked for research, development, testing, and evaluation, and spending it on military pay, which is forbidden by both the Constitution and law (the Antideficiency Act carries a jail sentence of up to two years), and something administration officials publicly promised Congress they would not do. Dave Jamieson reports at HuffPost that Trump is planning a similar process to keep paying ICE and CBP law enforcement.

Even in three votes on paying essential workers, Democrats refused to budge for a bill that ceded any more power to Vought (the end vote was the same as cloture for the continuing resolution has been, but two different Democrats — Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock — voting with Republicans instead of Catherine Cortez Masto and Angus King).

Vought becomes a greater liability as he gleefully cuts things cherished by Republicans, too, like the promise of an easier commute into NYC.

Having failed thus far, Trump is going to withhold emergency funding for SNAP starting this week. Either he believes that Democrats have empathy (or courage) that Republicans don’t, or he forgets that poor people across the country rely on government aid. But he believes that starving families will force Democrats to bow.

Donald Trump is destroying not just the village but broad swaths of the country in his bid to humiliate his two adversaries. He is seeking capitulation to his person rather than any benefits for the United States.

Even as the country remains shut down, Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller have become NeoNeoCons.

Trump has reverted to Cold War means, launching a larger covert war based on dubious legal claims, what his buddies call the “Donroe Doctrine,” a name as stupid as the concept.

Mr. Trump’s new directive appears to envision a different approach, focused on U.S. forces directly capturing or killing people involved in the drug trade.

Labeling the cartels as terrorist groups allows the United States “to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever, to target these groups if we have an opportunity to do it,” Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser, said on Thursday in an interview with the Catholic news outlet EWTN. “We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organizations, not simply drug dealing organizations.”

The use of Special Forces against alleged drug cartels in other countries rests on the same kind of legal chicanery and nested fabrications that went into Stephen Miller’s unlawful deportation of mostly innocent Venezuelans to Bukele’s concentration camp. And even though the B-1 bombers flying off the coast of Venezuela were readily tracked on commercial apps, Trump explicitly denied them. They’re not hiding, though, that they’re sending the ships that have for decades projected power in the Middle East to take out a two-bit dictator in Venezuela.

But that’s not the only bullshit Trump is selling. For example, Trump’s latest cartel designation — of Cartel de los Soles — is of a cartel that (unlike TdA) may not even exist.

While some of US President Donald Trump’s right-wing led allies in South America — Argentina, Ecuador and Paraguay — have echoed his designation of “Soles” as a terrorist organization, many have doubts such a group even exists.

Venezuela itself, and neighbor Colombia, insist there is no such thing as “Cartel de los Soles.”

Some experts agree, saying there is no evidence of the existence of an organized group with a defined hierarchy that goes by that name.

[snip]

“There is no such thing, so Maduro can hardly be its boss,” Phil Gunson, an analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank, told AFP of the so-called “Cartel de los Soles.”

[snip]

According to the InSight Crime think tank, the name was ironically coined by Venezuelan media in 1993 after two generals were nabbed for drug trafficking. The sun is a symbol on the military uniform epaulettes of generals in the South American country.

“Rather than a hierarchical organization with Maduro directing drug trafficking strategies, the Cartel of the Suns is more accurately described as a system of corruption wherein military and political officials profit by working with drug traffickers,” InSight Crime said on its website.

Yet that is the sketchy basis on which Stephen Miller has authorized the murder of one after another boat full of unidentified, first in the Caribbean and now in the Pacific.

The Administration’s thinking — starting from Stephen Miller’s goal of using dead Latinos as a propaganda stunt– is insanely childish.

Then there are the senior officials who see Venezuela as a means to project a tough-guy, defender-of-the-homeland image. Stephen Miller views the air strikes as an opportunity to paint immigrants as a dangerous menace, according to one of the White House officials. Vice President J. D. Vance, though often inclined toward isolationism, has pushed the necessity of defending U.S. borders. And Hegseth, who prefers to be known as the war secretary, is seeking a means of projecting military strength in a region where Defense Department planners hope to reassert American primacy. Finally, there’s Trump himself, who wants to score a foreign-policy victory amid frustrations over his inability to end the war in Ukraine. One close ally of the president’s told us that he was also drawn to the chance to take decisive action, as he did with June’s Iran bombings. “He can give the order and watch it explode. It’s clear-cut and simple, and no American gets hurt,” that ally told us.

This is not the Dulles brothers playing chess. It’s a bunch of insecure boys overturning the checkers board because the rules assign the same number of pieces to both sides. But they’re toppling the board while wielding very big weapons and sketchy — or no — targeting data.

Indeed, they look like they’re playing, from the failure to destroy a submersible in open water, leaving two very inconvenient survivors, to the shrapnel strike on the Vice President’s security, to the new propaganda corps made up of Russian useful idiots.

Such buffoonery extends to Miller’s war on Blue cities. For all the untold human damage it has and is causing,  it nevertheless continues to shine in its Butt Cracks and Beer Belly squalor, including in its training dropouts who can’t pass an open book test on the Fourth Amendment.

Like the invasion of Latin America, it feigns root in intelligence, as viewed by the invasion of an entire apartment building on Chicago’s South Shore Drive predicated on the alleged presence of one or at most two Tren de Aragua members, looking just like an apartment invasion John Yoo dreamt up 24 years ago.

[I]n execution, a number of aspects of the raid looks just like what the raid Yoo envisioned two decades ago.

The raid took place in the middle of the night; a warranted search would mandate permissible hours — usually after dawn — when the search could be conducted.

The entire raid was predicated on the presence of (initially) two and in retrospect just a single Tren de Aragua member. But virtually every one was detained while law enforcement searched for active warrants, and 37 people were arrested. With the exception of a few apartments, the entire building was searched, and left in a mess.

[snip]

In other words, this raid looks just like what we would expect if Stephen Miller were applying already-dodgy John Yoo opinions targeting terrorists who really did launch a military style attack on the US, and applied it, instead, against a gang that Miller has lied persistently to turn into something greater than it is.

But mostly, like the make-believe cartel just added to the terrorist list, the predicate for invading Blue cities remains make-believe.

Stephen Miller’s justifications for invading Blue cities is no more based in reality than the latest cartel he invaded on which to hang murderboats and Special Operations invasions.

Miller has fed Trump manufactured propaganda about Oregon. And those on the ground have manufactured false claims. Or, in Oregon, the state informed the Ninth Circuit that a key claim a panel used to overturn Trump appointee Karin Immergut’s injunction on Guard deployment — that much of the Federal Protective Services had had to deploy to Portland, was false: “defendants admitted that 115 FPS officers have never been redeployed to Portland.”

Or in Chicago, the explanation that Greg Bovino contemptuously violated a retraining more with claims of “commercial artillery shell fireworks.” “The statement is a lie,” lawyers for Illinois stated plainly about the claimed use of commercial artillery shell fireworks.

It’s still very much in question whether appellate courts and SCOTUS will permit Trump to invade Blue cities based entirely on propaganda, as Susan Graber asked in her dissent to her colleagues’ decision to allow Trump to invade Oregon (a dissent that noted the vagueness of the now-debunked FPS claim).

We have come to expect a dose of political theater in the political branches, drama designed to rally the base or to rile or intimidate political opponents. We also may expect there a measure of bending—sometimes breaking—the truth. By design of the Founders, the judicial branch stands apart. We rule on facts, not on supposition or conjecture, and certainly not on fabrication or propaganda. I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur. Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.

Steve Vladeck lays out the play of all three Blue states — California, Oregon, and Illinois — challenging Trump’s invasion. Joyce Vance has a great update on the Ninth. And Chris Geidner catalogs all the innocent Americans whose rights are being trampled along the way, with three attempts to get Justice Kavanaugh to answer for the Kavanaugh stops he blessed.

Trump is engaging in a kind of magical realism in both Latin America and the United States, inventing the most transparent, outlandish bullshit to justify military invasions by incompetent dolts of both other countries and Blue states.

And for all his dickwagging about power, both of those campaigns make the United States far weaker.

But all that’s happening against the background of Trump’s intransigence — his demand that, while he conducts these invasions, both China and the Democrats (and more recently, Canada) simply bow before him.

This is one reason I’m especially fascinated by Trump’s treatment of Argentina, an attempt to support their peso long enough to stave off a debacle for Javier Milei in this weekend’s legislative elections. That part succeeded: Milei’s party won more than enough seats to sustain his veto power.

President Javier Milei scored a decisive political win Sunday, strengthening his position in Argentina’s Congress and securing a lifeline for his audacious free-market revolution backed by President Trump.

With nearly 92% of votes counted, Milei’s Freedom Advances party won almost 41% of the national vote, putting it on track to more than double its representation in Congress. That means his party and allies should secure at least one-third of the seats in both chambers—the critical threshold that allows Milei to preserve his veto power and defend his sweeping decrees.

The result, stronger than most polls had predicted, gives Milei fresh political momentum after months of unrest over deep spending cuts and a grinding recession last year. It also shores up his standing with Washington and the International Monetary Fund, which have tied future financial support to the survival of his austerity experiment. Market analysts expect Argentine bonds and the peso to rally when trading opens Monday, reflecting relief that Milei still has political traction.

But at what expense?

The only conceivable way to spin this bailout as a benefit for the US — other than for Scott Bessent’s hedge fund buddies and a right wing populist, like Trump, tainted by corruption problems — is to imagine that this bailout, the cost of which soon may rise to $40 billion, helps shore up US allies on a continent increasingly cultivated by China.

That is, in the same year Trump willfully destroyed USAID (yearly budget, $30 billion for the entire world), the best explanation for spending up to $40 billion bailing out a failed economic ideology is that same purpose: soft power.

For just one country.

In a nice touch, the folks in Treasury who’ve implemented Bessent’s bailout of his hedgie buddies have been instructed not to take and disseminate pictures of the wreck Trump has made of the East Wing.

“As construction proceeds on the White House grounds, employees should refrain from taking and sharing photographs of the grounds, to include the East Wing, without prior approval from the Office of Public Affairs,” a Treasury official wrote on Monday evening in an email to department employees viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

A Treasury Department spokesman said the email was sent to employees because photos could “potentially reveal sensitive items, including security features or confidential structural details.”

But the tone deaf bailout wasn’t enough. Nor was Argentina’s poaching of US soybean markets in China, the final death blow for the US soybean market this year. But in the last week, Trump has signaled he will turn to Argentine beef imports in an attempt to bring sky-high beef prices down.

In an interview with Fox Business on Thursday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said: “Currently, Americans consume 12 million metric tons of beef. 10 million, we produce in this country. 2 million, we import. Out of 12 million, [the Argentine quota] would be 20,000 every quarter. This is not a massive influx in the millions of tons I think that some have thought of beef from Argentina.”

But Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle farmer and the senior director of programs at Farm Action, a nonpartisan farm organization, said: “If Trump goes through with what he outlined, I do believe it’s a betrayal of the American rancher. It’s a feeling that you’re selling us out to a foreign competitor.”

On Wednesday, Trump reacted to the backlash from cattle ranchers.

“The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50% Tariff on Brazil,” Trump wrote on social media.

“It would be nice if they would understand that, but they also have to get their prices down, because the consumer is a very big factor in my thinking, also!” he added.

In a statement, Colin Woodall, CEO of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a trade association for beef producers, said the organization and its members “cannot stand behind the President while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices.”

Trump got what he wanted in Argentina, propping up his chainsaw puppet for the next little while.

But in doing so, he made the US far weaker, making China’s leverage over the US even greater.

Trump’s attempts to extend his power by force — to replace American hegemony with personalized coercion — are and will continue to backfire, diluting the power of that coercion.

No one knows what happens after that.

I want to talk about some implications of this Annie Karni story, describing the background to what is plain as day: Donald Trump, who jokes in private that he — not Mike Johnson — is the Speaker of the House, runs the nominal Speaker.

Karni pitches the story in terms of Johnson’s “decision” to keep the House on vacation for the entirety of the government shutdown. But it has larger implications of the possibility of peeling Republican Congresspeople away from Trump.

He has argued that the House, which under the Constitution has the sole power to initiate spending legislation, has no reason to meet as long as Senate Democrats are blocking a bill to reopen the government. He has refused to swear in Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat who won election a month ago and has sued in federal court to be allowed to take her seat, claiming he lacks the power to do so.

His strategy of indefinite hiatus means that Mr. Johnson has not engaged in the typical political theater that speakers often employ during shutdown fights to jam the party out of power: scheduling tricky votes on bills to reopen parks or pay certain categories of federal workers, like agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection.

[snip]

The absenteeism, people around Mr. Johnson said, is a strategic calculation that the best way to keep his unruly rank and file in line is to place them on an extended leave.

[snip]

Mr. Johnson appears to be using the considerable power of the speakership to render the House irrelevant.

Karni quotes New Gingrich saying that the strategy serves to prevent other issues from “clutter[ing] up” Republican messaging on the shutdown. And while Karni provides an incomplete census of those complaining about this strategy, she doesn’t explain what that other clutter might be.

• Kevin Kiley, who’ll likely be ousted if the CA redistricting passes
• Far right Texan Beth Van Duyne, who thinks they need to come back to work
• Elise Stefanik, who wants to pay the troops
• Steve Bannon, who wants to codify some of what Trump did with EOs

Stefanik’s concern, paying the troops, suggests a potentially much bigger concern, such as that Trump is sending service members into a wildly stupid, illegal war in Venezuela without any legal cover.

Given Johnson’s refusal to swear in Adelita Grijalva, one of those other issues is Epstein.

Johnson’s utter silence on a Trump pardon recipient, Christopher Moynihan, threatening Hakeem Jeffries, and Johnson’s cheerleading for George Santos’ commutation hints at another one: the way that Trump’s corruption fosters crime.

Another thing keeping the House on vacation keeps buried is healthcare, which Karni elsewhere describes as “a political vulnerability for the party.” CNN reports more members getting squeamish about the impending healthcare increases.

And Trump’s selections about what to fund and not to fund — his decision to reopen Farm Services Agency, so it can keep farmers afloat while his trade war kills their markets, but not SNAP, are an attempt to game this process. But thus far he has proven wildly tone deaf about what his members are really exposed to. SNAP may be one such example.

All that’s to say that if members were in town, then they might be pushing back more aggressively against Speaker Mike and through him, Trump.

Trump, though, really is trying to neuter Congress. His demands that Republican state after Republican (or, in the case of North Carolina, swing) state redistrict, effectively eliminating democracy and enshrining polarization at the state level would serve his interest in completely defunding blue states which also happen to pay the bills for red states.

Perhaps most tellingly, Trump says that the Big Ugly Bill (Karni focuses on the tax cut part of it, not the creation of a goon army currently invading blue cities) was the only piece of legislation he needed Congress to pass.

Mr. Trump, [] has an iron grip on congressional Republicans and this week told G.O.P. senators that after they pushed through his marquee tax cut law, “We don’t need to pass any more bills.”

Republicans would do well to consider the implications of this, particularly as Trump and Russ Vought continue to violate funding rules. Congress has funded his army. There’s no reason to believe they’ll be entirely immune from targeting by it, as LaMonica McIver already has been.

This all underscores one reason voters should be focusing on Republicans, not Democrats, in the weeks ahead, as SNAP shuts down and a second DOD paycheck arrives. Because Trump really is proposing he proceed without his Republican members of Congress — or without them serving any real function. And at least some of these Republicans do care (or can be made to care) that Trump is destroying their communities.

Listen on spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

I suppose I should not have doubted that Abbe Lowell would file a request for relief based on Lindsey Halligan’s stalking of Anna Bower.

I mean, I didn’t doubt it.

But I was impatient. I should also have considered the optimal timing for Lowell to do that: the evening before the arraignment.

What a way for Lindsey Halligan to start out on the wrong foot with Judge Jamar Walker, with both the request to make Lindsey follow the rules on public comment and notice that Attorney General James (as Lowell refers to his client throughout) intends to move — tomorrow — to disqualify Lindsey on a schedule that will coincide with Jim Comey’s parallel attempt.

The request itself makes ample use of the opening Lindsey gave James to mock her inexperience. It refers to her as the “purported interim US Attorney” (or similar) five times.

Although the government sought and filed the indictment in this case on October 9, 2025—signed only by purported interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—articles issued before the charges were filed indicated that charges would be brought.

What precipitates this motion now is a digital messaging exchange that occurred after the government brought charges, between purported interim U.S. Attorney Halligan and Anna Bower, a senior journalist for Lawfare, published on Monday, October 20, 2025.

[snip]

After confirming Ms. Halligan’s identity, Ms. Bower asked the purported interim U.S. Attorney what she was “getting wrong,” and Ms. Halligan replied: “Honestly, so much. I can’t tell you everything but your reporting in particular is just way off. I had to let you know.”

[snip]

These extrajudicial statements and prejudicial disclosures by any prosecutor, let alone one purporting to be the U.S. Attorney, run afoul of and violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Code of Federal Regulations, this Court’s Local Rules, various rules of ethical and professional responsibility, and DOJ’s Justice Manual.

[snip]

Ms. Halligan’s initiation of contact, and then repeated exchanges, with the journalist—a mere two days after filing charges—appear to have violated several of the above-cited rules and codes of professional conduct. As the purported chief law enforcement officer for this District, as well as the individual who alone presented evidence to the grand jury in Alexandria and signed the two-count indictment of Attorney General James, 12 Ms. Halligan should know that she is prohibited by the federal, local, and Department rules governing extrajudicial statements and media contacts from engaging with a journalist about the substance and merits of a charged criminal case and the purported strength of the evidence put before a grand jury. [my emphasis]

It describes how even someone with absolutely no prosecutorial experience like Lindsey should know basic rules.

No prosecutor is exempt from following those rules, but they should be followed to the letter by anyone trying to lead a prosecutor’s office. Rather than follow DOJ’s rules protecting non-public, sensitive information obtained in connection with a criminal case and investigation from disclosure, Ms. Halligan opted to use an encrypted app to text with a journalist and discuss the case, certain evidence, and her views on the strength of the charges brought, while ignoring any concerns of prejudice to the defendant, a fair trial, and rules against extrajudicial statements and pretrial publicity.

It has been reported that Ms. Halligan has no prosecutorial experience whatsoever. But all federal prosecutors are required to know and follow the rules governing their conduct from their first day on the job, and so any lack of experience cannot excuse their violation. While the oftquoted phrase “the bell cannot be unrung” is true for that which has already occurred, the Court can require the government to follow the law going forward by entering Attorney General James’ requested Order and preventing further disclosures of investigative and case materials, and of statements to the media and public, concerning this case and any parties or witnesses.

It lists the many rules Lindsey broke:

• Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)
• 28 C.F.R. § 50.2
• A variety of local rules, starting with Local Criminal Rule 57.1, Free Press – Fair Trial Directives
• American Bar Associations Model Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
• Various parts of the Justice Manual, starting with Justice Manual (JM) 1-7.100

And then there are three footnotes which, as footnotes often do, have the meat of the argument.

Though the body of the motion does not mention Federal Records Act, Footnote 11 notes that Attorney General James will pursue the apparent violation of 44 U.S.C. § 2911 (violations of which require disciplinary action) “with the appropriate offices.”

11 In addition to apparently violating the rules addressed in this section, Ms. Halligan admitted in her exchanges with the journalist to a likely violation of the federal records laws and rules around using unapproved electronic messaging accounts. See 44 U.S.C. § 2911 (restricting officer or employee of an executive agency from sending messages using a non-official electronic messaging account). Ms. Halligan acknowledged she was using an unofficial messaging application, Signal, with its “disappearing messages” feature enabled and set to automatically delete after eight hours. Trying to delete the paper trail of improper communications does not mean they did not occur. For this reason, Attorney General James also asks the Court to order government attorneys and agents involved in this case to follow relevant laws around records retention, and to impose a litigation hold preventing the deletion or destruction of any records or communications having anything to do with the investigation and prosecution of this case. Attorney General James will pursue this apparent violation of the law with the appropriate offices.

As for the grand jury secrecy violations, Footnote 5 notes that a court can prosecute or hold someone in contempt for violating grand jury secrecy.

5 The government can and does prosecute knowing violations of Rule 6(e) pursuant to district courts’ contempt powers under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), as well as pursuant to multiple felony criminal statutes. See Justice Manual, CRM 156 (observing that disclosure of “grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation . . . may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503,” and that an individual who “improperly disseminates grand jury materials may be prosecuted for the theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641”) (collecting cases).

But, Footnote 6 describes, Attorney General James is not asking for that kind of relief — that is, prosecution.

6 Attorney General James is not at this time formally moving for relief pursuant to FRCrP 6(e).

At least, “not at this time.”

And honestly, Lindsey may not be the real target here. One of the things Lowell requests is a log of all contact between “any government attorney or agent on this case and any member of the news media” on this case.

3. Directing government counsel to create and maintain a log of all contact between any government attorney or agent on this case and any member of the news media or press concerning this case.

Lindsey hasn’t been doing the bulk of that. Eagle Ed Martin has.

And because Lindsey blabbed her mouth, Eagle Ed may, as a result, have to catalog all the times he has leaked about this case.

Lindsey Halligan’s ham-handed effort to bully Anna Bower into backing off her coverage of problems with the Tish James’ indictment has not gone unnoticed.

American Oversight just filed a FOIA  for Halligan’s Signal texts.

All messages on the messaging platform Signal and any app that can interfacewith Signal or otherwise borrow its technology sent or received by U.S.Attorney Lindsey Halligan regarding government business.

American Oversight requests that all images, videos, audio recordings, or otherattachments regarding official government business shared via Signal, includingany app that can interface with Signal or otherwise borrow its technology, beproduced in response to this request. To the extent any hyperlinks and/or URLs were shared, American Oversight requests records in a form that display the full URL.

Given that this request is limited to a specific, recent, and readily identifiable documents, American Oversight expects that this request can be processed on the Simple processing track and result in a prompt agency response.

Remember: American Oversight was the organization that sued to preserve Pete Hegseth’s Signal tweets, only to discover many of them were destroyed.

As the NGO noted in a presser, though, Halligan is under additional legal mandate to preserve the texts she sent to Bower: DOJ records retention rules that will become key in the Vindictive Prosecution motions filed against her.

Today, American Oversight launched an investigation into interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s reported use of Signal to communicate with a journalist about the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James — one of President Trump’s perceived political enemies. Halligan, whose status and authority as interim U.S. Attorney are being contested in court, later attempted to retroactively claim her Signal messages to the reporter were off the record. According to reports, she set her messages to automatically delete after eight hours — which, if true, constitutes a clear violation of the Federal Records Act and the Department of Justice’s own records-retention rules requiring the preservation of official communications.

In launching its investigation, the nonpartisan watchdog filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the DOJ seeking Halligan’s Signal communications about government business, as well as related DOJ records concerning her use of the app.

“No one can go ‘off the record’ to avoid following the law, not even someone acting as a powerful interim U.S. Attorney. That Halligan used Signal to discuss government business and configured her messages to automatically delete raises serious concerns that she is actively violating the law and attempting to hide the record of her actions — including that she may have revealed sensitive grand jury information,” said Chioma Chukwu, Executive Director of American Oversight. “What makes this all the more alarming is the context: Halligan appears to have engaged in this conduct while leading prosecutions against the president’s perceived political enemies — heightening concerns that her lawlessness is part of a broader pattern of politicized and unethical behavior within the president’s Justice Department.”

Plus, it’s not like Halligan can claim ignorance of the Federal Records Act. The law was central to the logic of the stolen documents case on which she was a defense attorney for Trump.

I’m still somewhat surprised that neither Patrick Fitzgerald nor Abbe Lowell have filed a preservation order on Halligan. Perhaps they’re just assuming that Halligan’s destruction of these texts will guarantee DOJ’s failure on the Vindictive motions?

Correction: They have not sued for Halligan’s texts, yet; they’ve just filed the lawsuit.

There were two competing letters published yesterday designed to frame Kash Patel’s efforts to frame Democrats with being mean to Donald Trump, for which (the NYT reports) Trump wants to be paid $230 million. They are:

• A letter Lanny Breuer sent to Chuck Grassley, scolding him for the irresponsible way Grassley fearmongered Jack Smith’s analysis of toll records affecting nine or ten members of Congress. (Zoe Tillman wrote about the letter here.)
• A letter Jim Jordan sent to Pam Bondi, effectively recycling debunked Kash Patel claims to support a claim that John Brennan lied about the Intelligence Community Assessment.

I’m a well-established critic of Lanny Breuer, but the letter is substantive and direct. After mocking Josh Hawley’s claim that he was “tapped,” the letter shows how toll records have been used in various other investigations:

• The Robert Hur investigation of Joe Biden.
• Charging documents in five different investigations charged since Kash has become FBI Director.
• In leak investigations, targeting Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and staffers (including Kash Patel).
• The Robert Menendez investigation.

But all that’s just set up for this passage, mocking Kash for his claim, made on Sean Hannity’s show while he was wearing a ridiculous jacket, that Jack Smith was trying to hide his use of toll records in a “lockbox in a vault, and then put that vault in a cyber place where no one can see or search these files.”

[T]here is simply no support for FBI Director Patel’s recent assertion that Mr. Smith hid the toll records information so that “no one would find it,” or that Mr. Smith put the toll records in a “lockbox in a vault, and then put that vault in a cyber place where no one can see or search these files.”9 It is not clear what cyber place in a vault in a lockbox Director Patel is describing, but Mr. Smith’s use of these records is inconsistent with someone who was trying to conceal them. Paragraph 119 of the August 1, 2023 indictment describes some of the calls that were made to U.S. Senators on January 6, 2021, and footnote 132 of Volume 1 of the Special Counsel Report refers to the use of toll records in the investigation. Moreover, the precise records at issue were produced in discovery to President Trump’s personal lawyers, some of whom now serve in senior positions within the Department of Justice.

9 HANNITY: Patel: “We’re Just Warming Up” in Investigation of Alleged Tracking of GOP Senators, Fox News (Oct. 7, 2025), https://www.foxnews.com/video/6382234662112.

Even without this letter, sentient beings were able to point to the place in the indictment and the Jack Smith report where these toll records were described. And, as the letter notes, Trump’s attorneys — including Todd Blanche — got discovery on those toll records years ago, but did not challenge their use in a criminal case.

All this was quite clear to sentient beings. But not the staffers exploiting Chuck Grassley’s diminished capacities to make a stink about something very ordinary.

By comparison, the Jordan letter is shoddy even by his standards.

The ostensible purpose is to refer John Brennan to DOJ (but, significantly, not FBI) for testimony Brennan gave — in a hearing about the letter truthfully saying a bunch of spooks thought the Hunter Biden laptop had the hallmarks of a Russian information op — that mentioned the Steele dossier in passing. This may be an effort to predicate a case in DC after the case in Philly has stalled, but anyone aware of the law would question how comments about the Steele dossier were material to a hearing about the Hunter Biden letter, a point that Brennan even made at the time: “I don’t see any relevance to the Hunter Biden laptop issue now,” as quoted in Jordan’s letter.

More importantly, the letter appears to be an effort to launder debunked propaganda Kash Patel did years ago through Congress back into an investigation led by Kash Patel, something I’ve addressed in the past.

The key paragraph makes a number of claims, some of which are fabrications (and therefore commit the crime that Jim Jordan is referring), others of which are misrepresentations of prior reports that were themselves propaganda.

On January 6, 2017, the CIA, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and National Security Agency published a declassified version of an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. 3 The ICA stated, among other things, that Russia “developed a clear preference” for President Trump and “aspired to help” him win the election.4 This conclusion—now known to be false—was based in part on the Steele dossier, which “was referenced in the ICA main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex.”5 The Steele dossier was a series of reports containing baseless accusations concerning President Trump’s ties to Russia compiled and delivered to the FBI in 2016 by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele.6 Subsequent investigations confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Steele via the law firm Perkins Coie and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to provide derogatory information about Trump’s purported ties to Russia, which resulted in the discredited dossier.7 In July 2025, the Trump Administration declassified numerous documents showing that the ICA’s main findings were false and that the Obama Administration knowingly fabricated the findings for the purpose of undermining the Trump Administration.8

3 OFF. OF THE DIR. OF NAT’L INTEL., ASSESSING RUSSIAN ACTIVITIES AND INTENTIONS IN RECENT US ELECTIONS (Jan. 6, 2017) [hereinafter “Russian Interference ICA”].

4 Id. at 1.

5 MAJORITY STAFF REPORT, H. PERM. SELECT COMM. ON INTEL., 116TH CONG., OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATION & REFERRAL: THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT (ICA) “RUSSIA’S INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN TARGETING THE 2016 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,” at 23 (2020) [hereinafter “HPSCI Report”].

6 See JOHN H. DURHAM, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., OFF. OF SPECIAL COUNS., REPORT ON MATTERS RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND INVESTIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS, at 11-12, 109-117 (2023) [hereinafter “Durham Report”].

7 See id. at 109-117; HPSCI Report, supra note 5, at 22-32; U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., OFF. OF THE INSPECTOR GEN., REVIEW OF FOUR FISA APPLICATIONS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THE FBI’S CROSSFIRE HURRICANE INVESTIGATION, at v-xii (2019); Memorandum from HPSCI Majority Staff to HPSCI Majority Members, Re: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Jan. 18, 2018).

8 Sarah Bedford & Kaelan Deese, Russiagate definitive timeline: How new intelligence documents fit in, WASH. EXAM’R (July 26, 2025). [my emphasis]

The key claim in here — that what Jordan falsely says is the key claim of 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which he describes as, “that Russia ‘developed a clear preference’ for President Trump and ‘aspired to help’ him win the election,” is based on the Steele dossier — is based off two reports Kash substantially wrote (marked in blue). Never mind that it is only the key claim of the Intelligence Community Assessment if you have the thin skin of a Narcissist, never mind that any dispute is about how much evidence there was before discovering the June 9 meetings or Paul Manafort’s sharing of campaign information with Russian spies. That key claim had nothing to do with the subsequent investigation of Trump, which investigation had already been set into motion by Mike Flynn’s shitty OpSec.

But as I wrote extensively,  the one dated 2020, showing that Congressional Republicans packaged up older claims and Russian spycraft after the Mueller Report definitively showed the Russia did prefer Trump and Trump did welcome that help, is an attempt to create a time machine to go back to the halcyon time before we knew all that.

Jordan, perhaps wisely, doesn’t try to lay out how all this fits together. He outsources it to a right wing propaganda outlet, outsourcing to them their credulity about the time machine effect going on.

Jim Jordan lied, shamelessly, when he alleged that that claim was shown to be false. And he lied, shamelessly, when he said that a report that affirmatively did not incorporate intelligence from the Steele dossier, choosing instead to only link it and specifically say it was not incorporated into analytical work (which backs Brennan, not Jordan), instead relied on the dossier.

This conclusion—now known to be false—was based in part on the Steele dossier, which “was referenced in the ICA main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex.”

If the intimation that Kash Patel’s hand-picked investigators breached Jim Comey’s attorney-client privilege in service of this conspiracy bears out, it only adds to the list of corrupt and possibly illegal things Kash has done in pursuit of this witch hunt. And that’s before you consider all the cops and prosecutors that get fired along the way.

Kash Patel may well be in a race against time. He needs to package up things before Comey gets them all thrown out before Andrew Bailey becomes eligible to act as FBI Director bypassing confirmation, in mid-December.

Links

A Dossier Steal: HPSCI Expertly Discloses Their Own Shoddy Cover-Up

Think of the HPSCI Report as a Time Machine to Launder Donald Trump’s Russia Russia Russia Claims

Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe Reveal Putin “Was Counting on” a Trump Win

Tulsi Gabbard Teams Up with Russian Spies to Wiretap and Unmask Hillary Clinton

The Secrets about Russia’s Influence Operation that Tulsi Gabbard Is Still Keeping from Us

Tulsi Gabbard Accuses Kash Patel of Covering Up for the Obama Deep State

Since the invasion of an apartment building at 7500 S. South Shore on September 30, in the same week that Trump sent notice to Congress ostensibly authorizing his murderboat strikes in the Caribbean, I haven’t stopped thinking about this John Yoo opinion from October 2001.

It considers the legality of using military forces to combat terrorist threats inside the United States, with an extensive discussion about whether the Fourth Amendment would prevent the military from seizing and securing an entire apartment building — as CBP did in the September 30 raid — and detaining, searching, and interrogating everyone found inside.

The view that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations against terrorists makes eminent sense. Consider, for example, a case in which a military commander, authorized to use force domestically, received information that, although credible, did not amount to probable cause, that a terrorist group had concealed a weapon of mass destruction in an apartment building. In order to prevent a disaster in which hundreds or thousands of lives would be lost, the commander should be able to immediately seize and secure the entire building, evacuate and search the premises, and detain, search, and interrogate everyone found inside. If done by the police for ordinary law enforcement purposes, such actions most likely would be held to violate the Fourth Amendment. See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (Fourth Amendment violated by evidence search of all persons who are found on compact premises subject to search warrant, even when police have a reasonable belief that such persons are connected with drug trafficking and may be concealing contraband). To subject the military to the warrant and probable cause requirement that the courts impose on the police would make essential military operations such as this utterly impossible. If the military are to protect public interests of the highest order, the officer on the scene must be able to “exercise unquestioned command of the situation.” Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 703 (1981).34

34 In a case decided not long after the end of the Civil War, the Supreme Court of Illinois reached similar conclusions. See Johnson v. Jones, 44 III. 142 (1867), 1867 WL 5117. This was an action in trespass brought by an alleged Confederate sympathizer in Illinois who had been arrested and imprisoned in a military fortress, purportedly on the authority of President Lincoln’s orders. The court rejected the defense that the plaintiff had been arrested as a belligerent and held as a prisoner of war. It did, however, state that had the plaintiff been a belligerent, “the order of the President was wholly unnecessary to authorize the arrest. Any soldier has the right, in time of war, to arrest a belligerent engaged in acts of hostility toward the government, and lodge him in the nearest military prison, and to use such force as may be necessary for that purpose – even unto death.” 1867 WL at ‘5. Further, although the court also rejected the defense that the arrest was justified as an exercise of martial law, it also stated that “[i]f a commanding officer finds within his lines a person, whether citizen or alien, giving aid or information to the enemy, be can arrest and detain him so long as may be necessary for the security or success of his army. He can do this under the same necessity which will justify him, when an emergency requires it, in seizing or destroying the private property’ of a citizen.” Id. at *7. In terrorist wars, unlike conventional warfare, there are of course no battle lines, and the theater of operations may well be in heavily populated urban settings. We think, however, that the same principle applies, and that a military commander operating in such a theater has the same emergency powers of arrest and detention.

As far as I’m aware, the memo was only used as an interim thought piece in 2001.

Rather than using the memo to seize entire office buildings, I believe it served as a basis to seize entire data streams and scanning all of it to search for “terrorist” content.

But the example Yoo envisioned years ago is not far off what we saw on September 30.

While subsequent reporting suggests that the raid arose out of a tip that the slum landlord who owns the building gave to the FBI (meaning, they used CBP as a means to clear the building they had refused to pay to secure), in execution, a number of aspects of the raid looks just like what the raid Yoo envisioned two decades ago.

The raid took place in the middle of the night; a warranted search would mandate permissible hours — usually after dawn — when the search could be conducted.

The entire raid was predicated on the presence of (initially) two and in retrospect just a single Tren de Aragua member. But virtually every one was detained while law enforcement searched for active warrants, and 37 people were arrested. With the exception of a few apartments, the entire building was searched, and left in a mess.

Federal agents pounded on the door of his South Shore apartment about 2 a.m. Tuesday.

“I told them they must have the wrong apartment,” the man said.

But armed agents busted open many doors after arriving in U-Haul trucks to raid the 130-unit apartment building at 7500 S. South Shore Drive. They woke up residents to handcuff them with zip ties and led them into unmarked vans.

Rodrick Johnson, a U.S. citizen, said he heard “people dropping on the roof” before FBI agents kicked in his door. He was stuffed inside a van with his neighbors for what felt like several hours until agents told them the building was clear, he said.

“They didn’t tell me why I was being detained,” Johnson said. “They left people’s doors open, firearms, money, whatever, right there in the open.”

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said federal agencies arrested at least 37 people in the operation at the building, which they claimed is frequented by members of Venezulan gang Tren de Aragua. About 300 federal agents, some landing on the roof from helicopters, descended upon the building, according to NewsNation, which was invited along for the operation.

The report didn’t mention women and children appear to be among the detained, said Brandon Lee, a spokesman with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Organizers worry many people were taken without warrants.

“These were families with their children escorted out in the middle of the night,” Lee said. “This administration is using PR efforts to try to turn communities against their neighbors.”

Residents said the building had become home to Venezuelan migrants. The raid saw people’s apartments turned upside down, citizens held for hours and their neighbors taken away to unknown places. Belongings were stolen from apartments after the agents left the building open.

In other words, this raid looks just like what we would expect if Stephen Miller were applying already-dodgy John Yoo opinions targeting terrorists who really did launch a military style attack on the US, and applied it, instead, against a gang that Miller has lied persistently to turn into something greater than it is.

And if that doesn’t already terrify you, much of the rest of the opinion addresses the kinds of things Miller openly fever dreams about, such as the subjection of “loyal citizens, or persons who though believed to be disloyal have not acted overtly against the government, to deprivations that would under ordinary circumstances be illegal.”

State and federal court decisions reviewing the deployment of military force domestically by State Governors to quell civil disorder and to protect the public from violent attack have repeatedly noted that the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights do not apply to military operations in the same way that they apply to peacetime law enforcement activities. Thus, the courts have explained that “[w]ar has exigencies that cannot readily be enumerated or described, which may render it necessary for a commanding officer to subject loyal citizens, or persons who though believed to be disloyal have not acted overtly against the government, to deprivations that would under ordinary circumstances be illegal.” Commonwealth ex rel. Wadsworth v. Shortall, 55 A. 952, 955 (Pa. 1903) (holding that in time of domestic disorder the shooting by a sentry of an approaching man who would not halt was not illegal). “[W]hatever force is requisite for the defense of the community or of individuals is also lawful. The principle runs through civil life, and has a twofold application in war – externally against the enemy, and internally as a justification for acts that are necessary for the common defense, however subversive they may be of rights which in the ordinary course of events are inviolable.” Hatfield, 81 S.E. at 537 (internal quotations omitted) (upholding the Governor’s seizure of a newspaper printing press during a time of domestic insurrection).35

Our view that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations receives support from federal court cases involving the destruction of property. In a line of cases arising from several wars, the federal courts have upheld the authority of the Government, acting under the imperative military necessity, to destroy property even when it belongs to United States citizens and even when the action occurs on American soil. Such destruction of property might constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the courts have held, even if such seizures might otherwise constitute “takings” under the Fifth Amendment, the exigent circumstances in which they occurred absolve the Government from liability. The cases articulate a general rule that “the government cannot be charged for injuries to, or destruction of, private property caused by military operations of armies in the field.” United States v. Pacific R.R. Co., 120 U.S. 227, 239 (1887)” Although these decisions arise under the Fifth Amendment rather than the Fourth, we think that they illuminate the Government’s ability to “search” and “seize” even innocent United States persons and their property for reasons of overriding military necessity. For if wartime necessity justifies the Government’s decision to destroy property, it certainly must also permit the Government to temporarily search and seize it.

35 See also Powers Mercantile Co., 7 F. Supp. at 868 (upholding the seizure of a factory to prevent a violent attack by a mob and noting that “[u]nder military rule, constitutional rights of individuals must give way to the necessities of the situation; and the deprivation of such rights, made necessary in order to restore the community to order under the law, cannot be made the basis for injunction or redress”); Swope, 28 P.2d at 7 (upholding the seizure and detention of a suspected fomenter of domestic insurrection by the “military arm of the government,” noting that “there is no limit [to the executive’s power to safeguard public order] but the necessities and exigency of the situation” and that “in this respect there is no difference between a public war and domestic insurrection”) (emphasis added) (quotations and citation omitted); In re Moyer, 85 P. 190, 193 (Colo. 1904) (“The arrest and detention of an insurrectionist, either actually engaged in acts of violence or in aiding and abetting other to commit such acts, violates none of his constitutional rights.”); In re Boyle, 57 P. 706, 707 (Idaho 1899) (upholding the seizure and detention of a suspected rebel during time of domestic disorder).

36 See also Heflebower v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 228, 237-38 (1886) (“There is a distinction to be drawn between property used for Government purposes and property destroyed for the public safety. . . . [I]f the taking, using, or occupying was in the nature of destruction for the general welfare or incident to the inevitable ravages of war, such as the march of troops, the conflict of armies, the destruction of supplies, and whether brought about by casualty or authority, and whether on hostile or national territory, the loss, in the absence of positive legislation, must be borne by him on whom it falls, and no obligation to pay can be imputed to the Government.”).

We don’t yet know the full extent of justification for the abuses CBP engaged in on September 30. While I don’t follow the Chicago docket as closely as many, I’ve seen no more than two people who might have been arrested in the raid, and that off a warrant in another state.

Which is to say, we don’t yet know precisely what CBP imagined they were doing in the apartment building. We only know that it looks like Stephen Miller adopted one of John Yoo’s discredited bad ideas and tested it in practice.