Yesterday, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, on behalf of the state and alongside the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, filed a federal lawsuit that is most notable in the absence of any intelligible legal principle. The effort to stop the surge of federal personnel to investigate fraud and enforce immigration is breathtakingly frivolous and farcical.
Ellison has long been more advocate than attorney in his public life, even praising Antifa for instilling fear in Trump and Ellison’s political opponents.
Ellison has been actively trying to tamp down coverage of the massive fraud under his watch, including potentially billions meant to support children and impoverished families.
Recently, a tape was released in which Ellison met with Somali figures later convicted of fraud and agreed with them that they needed to support “candidates that will fight to protect our interests.”
Now, Ellison is actually trying to get a federal court to prevent the federal government from surging resources in the state to investigate and prosecute fraud. The filing is little more than a press release with a caption on it:
“The Trump Administration’s new focus on “fraud” in Minnesota is just its latest attempt to attack Democratic politicians and more aggressively and recklessly implement their immigration enforcement agenda.”
Ellison wants a federal court to prevent the assignment of federal investigators and law enforcement to the state to enforce federal law. Ironically, the state is making this argument as a matter of state rights under the Tenth Amendment (as well as a series of equally frivolous claims under the Administrative Procedure Act).
Notably, they are trying to dictate the deployment of federal personnel and resources as a federalism claim. The filing is a diatribe that vaguely alleges racial profiling and attacks on “law-abiding citizens.”
At the press conference, Saint Paul Mayor Kaohly Her declared, “Federal law enforcement’s occupation of our city is putting us all at risk.” Ellison repeated the reckless rhetoric, insisting that “this federal invasion of the Twin Cities has to stop, so today I am suing DHS to bring it to an end.”
This is a purely performative measure, using a filing to give the appearance of action to satisfy irate constituents. Hopefully, the district court will respond with clarity about the use of the federal courts for political screeds.
In the movie Billy Madison, the principal responds to an argument from the lead character by saying.
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
The scene comes to mind in reading this meritless filing.
Here is the filing: State of Minnesota v. Noem
Turley: what’s your reaction to multiple federal prosecutors in Minnesota leaving en mass in protest over the command of Trump’s DOJ to open a criminal investigation into Becca Good, Renee Good’s widow, and the command that NO civil rights investigation be conducted of Jonathan Ross—which is standard procedure when a federal officer kills someone. It’s not clear that Ross even received a toxicology test— another standard procedure that was violated. The federal government has declined the case but still won’t release the evidence to local law enforcement— another departure from standard procedure.
Isn’t it obvious what’s going on?
What’s going on? Either the prosecutors are cowards or they’ve received death threats and decided it’s not worth it. Life is short.
Clarity from Chicago’s Police Chief
Pretty much it.
Turley: what is your opinion about Trump flipping the bird at a factory in Detroit in response to a UAW worker accusing him of being a “pedophile protecter”? This was after he said “f..k you” twice. Is someone who would behave this way worthy to hold the title of President of the United States? Would FDR, JFK, Eisenhower, either of the Bushes, Clinton or any other President have done anything like this?
We can only imagine how such conduct by Obama would have gone over and the names he would have been called if he had been so thin-skinned and immature— not to mention the fact that Trump is, in fact, a pedophile protecter. Bondi is slow-walking release of the Epstein files on Trump’s command, and in the process is violating a federal statute.
I notice you didn’t mention LBJ, who was notorious for behaving exactly like that. And yes, FDR and JFK would have done the same, and relied on the news industry not to report it. I don’t know about Eisenhower but it wouldn’t surprise me.
No they wouldn’t—WHEN did LBJ, JFK or FDR actually, publicly, with cameras recording, flip a heckler the bird? You can make up stories about the press hiding such behavior all you want to, but that’s just gossip. They never did anything like that publicly and, incidentally, wouldn’t have protected a notorious pedophile, either. They also wouldn’t lie the extent to which Trump does, or pal around with the likes of Epstein, either.
WTH is your moral high ground, anon?
Just displaying your ignorance. JFK was a serial philanderer, rapist, and druggie, and relied on the news industry to cover it up for him. And LBJ was well known for his constant use of crude language. FDR was a philanderer too, and the news industry covered up for him, just as it covered up his wheelchair use. I don’t know about Eisenhower, but given his military background he was probably foul-mouthed too. He was a lowlife.
Not Rene Good, and techniclly “peaceful”
Regardless is this the people that you think are the “good guys” ?
I would not call that peaceful, I would call it harassment, which is a crime. Especially if this is “ICE Watch”, people who follow ICE around and behave like this multiple times in different locations. That fits the legal definition of harassment, and they should all be arrested for it.
Officer hit moving in front of vehicle
Woman shot by police after high speed chase.
More police being hit
Officer hit in front of vehicle
Why there is no absolute policy regarding police positioning during a stop
Sorry wrong link.
Why there is no absolute policy regarding police positioning during a stop
As one reason, every stop is dynamic, and with varying traffic, weather conditions and other factors, there is no one-size-fits-all policy.
But a segment of the population believes that there are police eager to risk losing their lives, become a parapalegic, etc by purposely putting themselves at risk of being killed – all in the hope that it will generate an opportunity to shoot whoever is in the vehicle. And of course, then as a result of that, be subjected to everything that follows a police shooting.
Probably difficult to turn down billions of dollars? Common man is minimum wage?