California Gov. Gavin Newsom has become increasingly Orwellian in his declarations of success. Last week, Newsom was proclaiming the great success of his high-speed train to nowhere – a project delayed by decades, reduced to a fraction of the original plan, and set to cost tens of billions over budget.
This week, he is proclaiming victory after a court struck down his signature law requiring federal agents to unmask. The preliminary injunction issued Monday by Senior status Judge Christine Snyder against California’s No Secret Police Act was a victory for the Trump Administration. However, it should still appeal Judge Snyder’s flawed decision. In other words, the Administration won for the wrong reason.
Snyder, an Obama appointee, faced two laws passed in September 2025 with great fanfare in California: the Secret Police Act and the No Vigilante Act. As their titles indicate, they are not serious efforts at legislating but unconstitutional acts designed to pander to the politics of the moment.
In the oral argument, some of us were concerned over the curious position staked out by Judge Synder.
DOJ counsel Tiberius Davis tried to explain how such state laws usurp federal authority and violate the Supremacy Clause. He drove that point home by asking “Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are? The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”
That would seem an unassailable point, but not to Judge Synder. She asked, “Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not? How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”
I remarked at the time that the court seemed to miss the central point. The question is not whether the federal government can continue to function under limitations imposed by various states, but whether those states have the authority to impose such conditions.
I do not believe that they do.
Nevertheless, Judge Synder came to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. She enjoined the mask requirement, but did so on the basis that California exempted its own officers.
“Even though the United States has failed to demonstrate that the facial covering prohibition of the No Secret Police Act unduly interferes with federal functions, the court acknowledges that it is nonetheless an incidental regulation on law enforcement officers. The intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits imposing such a regulatory burden, albeit minimal and incidental to operations, in a discriminatory manner against the federal government.”
By adopting this narrow basis, the court was able to enjoin the No Secret Police Act while rejecting an injunction against the No Vigilantes Act and certain other provisions of the No Secret Police Act. I think the court is wrong and should be reversed.
Snyder rejected the rationale of the federal government that these masks are being used to protect ICE agents from “doxing,” even though various agents have been targeted and threatened. Synder waved off the concern and said that the government had not shown by such masking is essential to carrying out such functions. Her opinion relies on broad, unsupported assumptions. Because officers are facing these security concerns, she concludes that they will continue regardless: “Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with or without masks. If anything, the court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”
It is a bizarre rationalization. The court is simply imposing its judgment on what will make officers safer, rather than emphasizing whether these agencies have the discretion to make such judgments in the execution of federal law. Yet the court still enjoins the law because it discriminates between federal and state officers. (Not surprisingly, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of the mask ban, immediately declared that they would amend the law to add state law enforcement).
The Court then upheld a state requirement that federal officers cannot conceal their identities in a discussion more befitting a legislative committee than a court:
“The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency, which is essential for accountability and public trust. Moreover, the Court finds no cognizable justification for law enforcement officers to conceal their identities during their performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public.”
In my view, Judge Snyder twists the analysis into knots to try to preserve as much of these laws as possible while giving the Administration the minimum level of deference.
Under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court has mandated in cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 317 (1819), that “the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional law enacted by congress to carrying into execution the powers vested in the general government.” A state cannot intrude into this authority absent a “clear and unambiguous” authorization from Congress, Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486, U.S. 174, 180 (1988).
Snyder finds that the California laws discriminate but do not constitute direct regulation of the federal government. She does so through a “functionalist” approach that avoids bright lines of supremacy. She simply dismisses the objections, saying the federal government has not shown that wearing masks is “essential” to carrying out these functions. Consider that approach for a second. A wide range of state regulations on federal officers could be deemed permissible, since federal officers can still functionally carry out arrests. States could dictate everything from uniform requirements, such as masks, to vehicle conditions to verbal commands or warnings.
The opinion is spotty in its analysis and sweeping in its implications. It is, in my view, ripe for reversal either before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Here is the opinion: a 30-page decision: United States v. California
How can Turley avoid saying that doxxing is use of public speech for terrorist intimidation, and has no protection under 1A? Those who ignore proposing legal consequences for doxxing (could be civil) are wallowing in a haze of moral confusion. There is nothing right about such militant tactics.
If Section 230 were repealed, the doxxing would be shut down by cautious corporate lawyers.
A citizen may enjoy his freedom of speech then be arrested for obstruction of justice?
How’s that?
18 U.S. Code § 119 – Protection of individuals performing certain official duties
(a) In General.—Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, publicly available—
(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person; or
(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
This law is about as well known as the one insisting you obtain a written release before including a person in a video you publish where they are recognizable.
When someone’s speech creates an obstruction to justice.
How do you not see something so simple, it can take many forms.
Are being insincere?
I cannot tell if this is just plain bad logic or a pointer to find a way to stop Federal authorities from doing their job. I do not get why the Democrats want the mask off these agents. Regardless of where one stands in the politics of ICE, people cannot truly want these agent to have their lives or their families in jeopardy.
To me this is simple Supremacy Clause and is an easy win for the government.
. . . people cannot truly want these agent to have their lives or their families in jeopardy.
Have you not noticed the assassination chic culture that is now dominating the Democratic party, its useful idiots in the streets, and the progressive movement as a whoel? They want everyone who disagrees with them dead, including spouses and children. Doxing is pretty mild compared to what they really want.
Yes, I’ve noticed. It’s about 20% of Democrats, not the majority. The media ignores the 80% who disapprove of doxxing as if their appreciation for civility doesn’t matter. The media crave attention-getting shows of incivility.
The Quiet Man. You underestimate the left. They are the people who want ICE unmasked so that they and their wives and children will be in danger. They then will be more easy to hunt down in their churches and schools. This is who they are.
“people cannot truly want these agent to have their lives or their families in jeopardy. ”
Oh, I remember when I used to think that. I know, it’s hard to believe. These people also started ‘defund police’.
Anarchy intending America’s destruction is a specialty on that side. example: the civil war.
They start wars when they don’t get their way. people die. crazy huh?
. Slick Willy and slick California legislators
I’m no expert, but in this case, is there a federal law that explicitly states that ICE agents must be allowed to mask? What is the federal law that explicitly or implicitly conflicts with California law? Does the supremacy clause prevail over state law even when there IS no federal law that actually conflicts with the state law? In carrying out their duties under federal law, do federal agents have the unilateral power to nullify state law against certain practices merely by engaging in those practices, when there are other ways to carry out their duties that do not involve violating state law? Are federal agents exempt from all state laws so long as they do so in the course of performing duties more specifically prescribed under at least one federal law?
I don’t mean to be snarky, but I imagine questions similar to these must have been litigated at some point. My guess is that past holdings would give federal agents at least some latitude, but surely there are limits – e.g., are all federal agencies exempt from local taxes, can they commit murder with impunity so long as they don’t cross state lines, etc.
Reasonable questions. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted since the early 1800s to mean that states cannot pass laws that interfere with federal operations. The Government’s complaint details some of these precedents in the early paragraphs of its complaint, which can be found here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.995805/gov.uscourts.cacd.995805.1.0_1.pdf
Judge Christine Snyder provided a framework for the concept of Night of the Long Knives. The injunction was simply to assure that Law Enforcement Officers and their families, should be attacked and destroyed – a belief we saw democratized in the election of The Commonwealth of Virginia’s foremost Law Enforcement Officer – Jay Jones (53.14% of the vote) who advocated the same – except slightly differentiated by suggestion of murder of the children of his opponents in front of their mothers to provoke fear and respect.
Consequentially, such an order could be interpreted as the necessity for “outing” both uniformed and under cover agents of any sort – example: Find out who is investigating the drug ring supply chains as an operative, then have them ambushed as ICE agents Jaime Zapata(KIA), Víctor Ávila(WIA) and the DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena (tortured, murdered) were.
Following this “logic”, condone and suggest improved relationships with State/Local Autocratic leadership, foreign interests, and and cartel powers – as we saw in the CBP mole who had been leaking their names, addresses, and personal information – not to mention the missions and projects in which they were engaged.
Example of the illustrious “Cambridge Five” stands behind her. Between 2010 and 2012, a significant breach of U.S. intelligence operations in China led to the dismantling of CIA networks, resulting in the deaths or capture of over 30 informants. This incident is considered one of the worst intelligence failures for the CIA in decades.
https://www.ibtimes.com/dhs-fires-senior-cbp-official-allegedly-leaking-sensitive-agent-information-press-amid-8000-3796961
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-launches-legal-observation-project-monitor-federal
Welcome to America
How is it that first-year law students are better acquainted with the role of a judge than Democrat-appointed federal judges?
i think you mean Republican first year law students ……
That’s right, the leftwing students are figuring out how to cheat on exams.
@free speech advocate: Obviously first-year law students AREN’T acquainted as demonstrated by this case. Judges, DAs, AGs, and other elected Court Officers electorally funded or influenced appointments through the progressive oligarchy and the OSF dark money foundations who have spouted their beliefs and indoctrination (as well as their indoctrination mentoring) ARE and HAVE BEEN acquainted. Give the first-year law students 2 more years of indoctrination. Followed by the Bar exams provided through the American Bar Association (key indoctrination disciples) – and they’ll get there. (Sarcasm, of course).
The attempt to indict Sen. Mark Kelly and 5 other Democrat lawmakers by Jeanine “Boxwine” Pirro, went down in a historic ball of flames.
The Grand Jury was unanimous in voting against indictment. This is historic. This NEVER happens.
You may be wondering why this happened. Well, the answer is incompetence.
None of the DC prosecutors were willing to bring the case to the grand jury. Pirro was forced to bring in an outsider. The only person she could find who was willing to bring the case was Steven Vandervelden, a former prosecutor with whom she worked in Westchester, NY in the 1990’s. Vandervelden gave up law in 2013, and he now makes a living as a fine art and portrait photographer.
Here is his website.
https://stevenv873.smugmug.com/Site-Files/About-Me
Nothing says competence quite like bringing in a photographer to argue a high profile case before a grand jury.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel comes to mind.
^ China is now paying people to inject themselves with the TDS virus. This is a novelty. ^
@Anon 3:58PM: Simpler answer was 96% jury. If you’d lived in post war Germany and acquainted with those who were part of that holocaust of >60MM human lives – and by a vast majority deeply regretfully, you would understood how effective drinking the kool-aid is here too.
Do you mean, use to be Captain Mark Kelly?! 🤡
Really: California is the dumpster fire of all dumpster fires, and it is always the object lesson: this is what the modern left intends federally to do to entire country, and if you continue to support that, you are, quite frankly, stupid. This is very cut and dry, now.
We may as well consider CA to have already seceded, and the fact that Zuckerberg now lives in Florida, under DeSantis, should kinda tell you everything you need to know. It may not be failed by textbook, but CA has already failed.
I would focus my attention instead on how the fleeing will change the sane places they are fleeing to. Fortify yourselves *now*, Texas, Indiana, Oklahoma, Florida, Tennessee et. al. do not kid yourselves – this is a real threat. Those of you that think, ‘Never!’, are whistling in the dark.
Act as though your lives depend on it, because they do.
James, over the last year my lens has widened. I used to react to each hot-button issue as though it were the core problem. Now I see them differently. Every issue we argue about, immigration, education, media, migration between states, is an output measure somewhere in the system. The problem is that we treat the outputs as the root cause. What strikes me is that the same output is viewed simultaneously as success and failure depending on who is looking at it. That signals not only policy disagreement, but an analytical breakdown. We are not even measuring from the same frame.
That is where citizen formation comes in. If civic literacy and internal self-government are weak, we misdiagnose symptoms as existential collapse. Economic pressures, media incentives, and technology then amplify that misdiagnosis into crisis rhetoric. I live in California. I see real problems. But I no longer see only collapse. I see a system producing what its inputs allow. If we want different outputs, we have to strengthen the character and analytical capacity of the citizens operating the system.
James,
I get what you are saying just as well as what OLLY is saying. I wish I could be as optimistic as OLLY is, but as I mentioned in another comment, yesterday, the left has changed the principles and standards. They are doing it using dirty tricks too, like putting indoctrination in public schools as early as they can. We are also seeing dark money fund a number of NGOs to subvert traditional American values. They are also using the MSM DNC mouthpiece to spread hate and rage. OLLY correctly asks and identifies the root cause of this: Lack of basic civic knowledge. In normal times the answer would be to reintroduce civic understanding of the government, how it works and everyone comes to an agreement of what principles and standards. Normal times is NOT what we have today. Look at the videos of Good and Pertti, the mob that mobbed the IT guys at lunch. Those people are not rational, sensible, likely not willing to hear out a class on government civics. They are full of hate and rage and emotions. Try to point out facts they do not like, they call you a Nazi. Just recently some kid got arrested for planning on some mass killing of ICE agents, beheading them and taking the heads to show some native American tribes in the area. I mentioned the idea of two differing societies, running in parallel, the two shall never meet. That is the nice warm and fuzzy version. The alternative is war. Seems like that is what they are pushing for and our enemies would not only like to see that happen, but based off what money trails the FBI/DOJ have found, our enemies are funding some of these NGOs.
Upstate, six months ago I likely would have said exactly what you’re saying now. I saw the same evidence and drew the same conclusions. What changed for me was stepping back and looking at the system as a whole. I am not dismissing anyone’s concerns about the direction of the country. I understand the evidence being cited and the conclusions being drawn.
This is not optimism. It is realism.
Regardless of where we think things are headed, the one thing that will determine whether liberty survives or is restored is the capacity of citizens for self-government. That is upstream from elections, policy battles, media narratives, and even regime outcomes.
It is tempting to think things may have to collapse before people wake up, but loss alone does not produce maturity. Restoration would still depend on citizens who understand liberty, restraint, and responsibility. If formation is required to rebuild after decay, then it is even more necessary to prevent decay in the first place.
Every scenario people predict, division, parallel societies, even conflict, is downstream from the same root issue. If civic capacity is weak, no political victory will last. If it is strong, even serious decline can be corrected.
My focus is not on predicting collapse or celebrating victory. It is on strengthening the root. Everything else is downstream.
Also Newsom’s in-laws the Seibels fled CA.
California already seceded?
Secession is unconstitutional.
Because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited, according to many of the learned counselors who patronize this blog.
Alternatively, secession is not prohibited, and every act of Lincoln and his successors, subsequent to Lincoln’s denial of said secession, was and remains unconstitutional and must be fully and completely abrogated—to include the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx and the enforcement of the Naturalization Act of 1802—with extreme prejudice, in the same vein as the overturning of Roe v. Wade some 50 years retroactively.
Pam Bondi is the most vile, despicable and miserable excuse for a human being that has ever walked this planet.
At todays hearing she accused Rep. Becca Balint of being anti-semitic.
Balint is Jewish.
Her grandparents died in the Holocaust.
You are the most vile, despicable and miserable excuse for a human being that has ever walked this planet with your lies here everyday.
Chuck Schumur is a Jew and anti-Semitic so what is your point?
“Balint is Jewish.
Her grandparents died in the Holocaust.”
Some people sell their souls more cheaply than others.
Bondi is the worst AG ever–she has adopted the Trump tactic of ignoring the fact that she is supposed to be an advocate for the American people and victims of crimes, and instead attacked anyone who dared to challenge her and, when caught red handed failing to comply with the federal law requiring full disclosure of the Epstein files and protection of the survivors, projected blame for her failures on others. She refused to respect the Democrat members of Congress who were exercising their responsibility of oversight, and who questioned her about her failure to redact the names, contact information and images of Epstein victims, but redacted the wealthy and well-connected predators who abused them. She LIED about hiding the names of predators by claiming that there were pending investigations into prosecuting them, AFTER Todd Blanche previously said that there were NO plans for further prosecutions. Of course, there are NO such plans–Trump won’t allow it. She tried to shift blame to Merrick Garland and was verbally abusive to members of Congress. Most outrageous of all is her crocodile tears for the victims: she apologized for what Epstein did to them but REFUSED to apologize for her conduct in outing the names, contact information and nude images of the victims. The “errors”, if that’s what you want to call them, fall on her–but she is defiant–pure Trumpian MAGA–never admit you are wrong, never apologize, and project blame. Insult anyone who criticizes you, and then enlist MAGA media to attack your critics and project blame. It’s outrageous.
Many of us believe that she is, on orders of Trump, protecting the wealthy and well-connected predators and outed some of the victims as an intimidation tactic, and that these were not “errors” at all–but deliberate. At least one of the victims who was outed had never before been publicly named, and her family didn’t even know about the abuse. Well, they sure do now, thanks to Bondi. Bondi doesn’t care about the shame and emotional distress she has caused to women who were children then–only the shame and emotional distress of Trump and his wealthy well-connected cronies she is protecting. Bondi is a disgrace to the office of AG and should be: 1. impeached; and then 2. disbarred. Trump isn’t going to get away with burying this scandal, because the survivors won’t stop until they see justice.
Bondi is one of the more competent AG’s. She was great in Florida and great as US AG. Your hate of her demonstrates how well she performs. Since she is a woman, you hate her doubly. You are a sexist.
On second thought, I suppose it’s tied between Merrick Garland and Eric Holder.
OMFK
Have you heard the one about the Bolshevik Jew and the racist black guy?
No, how does that one go?
To jail hopefully! 😝
S. Meyer
Interesting comment from someone who frequently accuses his critics of being antisemitic when they just happen to disagree with him.
But apparently antisemitic comments by Bondi are just fine, even when directed at the descendant of a Holocaust victim.
Do you understand the meaning of hypocrisy.
I didn’t note Bondi being antisemitic, but if you can quote her in context with the entire quote, I’ll listen. Your problem is, you frequently read paraphrases that are out of context, and then, being the foolish person you are, you use the paraphrase rather than the original comment.
S. Meyer, if you are are serious person, you could have simply asked for the quote, without the gratuitous insult.
But since you insist, here is the relevant quote from the Jewish News Syndicate.
Balint asked Bondi a series of questions during the U.S. Department of Justice oversight hearing about connections between officials in the Trump administration and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of child prostitution in 2008 and killed himself in jail in 2019 pending charges for the sex trafficking of minors.
After receiving time to respond from a Republican congressman, Bondi turned the criticism on Balint.
“I didn’t see one tweet when Joe Biden was in office about Bill Clinton—didn’t ask Merrick Garland anything about Epstein,” Bondi said, referring to the former U.S. attorney general. “Also, I want the record to reflect that with this antisemitic culture right now—she voted against a resolution condemning ‘from the river to the sea.’”
Balint, who is Jewish, responded as Bondi was mid-sentence.
“Oh, do you want to go there, attorney general?” Balint shouted. “Are you serious? Talking about antisemitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust, really?”
Source: Jewish News Syndicate
https://www.jns.org/attorney-general-spars-with-jewish-congresswoman-over-antisemitism/
Becca Balint is Jewish. She is a second-generation Holocaust survivor whose Hungarian-Jewish father immigrated to the U.S. in 1957. Her grandfather, Leopold Bálint, was murdered by the Nazis during a forced march from the Mauthausen concentration camp in 1945
An apology for the gratuitous insult would be in order, but I am not holding my breath.
Bondi is a joke. She is a syncophantic toady whose only qualification was unquestioning willingness to do whatever the narcissistic pathological liar commands her to do— which is mainly to use the power of the DOJ to get revenge on his perceived enemies, to abuse brown and black people and to defend all of the outrageous crimes committed on his behalf. They keep losing case after case.
Under Bondi, the DOJ is nothing but the personal law firm of of the most corrupt President in American history. Her performance was nothing short of shameful. Instead of preparing to account for her conduct, which Congress has the responsibility to, she prepared by doing oppo research. The DOJ was actually tracking what members of Congress who reviewed the Epstein file were looking at, so she could put on a show for the MAGAs. She had no valid explanation for her failure to protect the victims and to protect the pedophiles instead.
Her “leadership” is so subpar that US Attorney Offices are drastically understaffed due to massive staff turnover (because there are a surprising number of lawyers who don’t want the stench of Trump on their resumes) and they are begging on social media for applicants. It is unheard of for the DOJ to need to beg for applicants. How many times has “Judge” Pirro lost grand jury indictments? That, too, is unheard of. Most recently, she tried to indict members of Congress for exercising their First Amendment rights and was sent packing.
In advertising for applicants, the DOJ requested that applicants advise how they would be willing to advance Trump’s agenda. They’re not even trying to hide the fact that the priority for them is NOT representing the American people or enforcing our laws—but advocating for Trump.
At today’s hearing, Bondi wouldn’t even look at the Epstein victims, much less apologize for the damage she caused. Instead, she chose to refuse to answer questions, insulted members of Congress and attempted to do a campaign commercial for Trump by changing the subject— she tried to argue about the stock market doing well and even accused members of Congress of TDS. She had a script of zingers to use to deflect away questions she refused to answer and attack the questioner.
Today’s performance was a disgrace.
“Bondi is a joke.”
…And you are Gigi, no, Natacha, no, Anonymous. You don’t even know who you are, so how would you know who Pam Bondi is? Pam Bondi is exceptional, and you are a clueless bimbo.
Notice that I can disagree with you without calling you names or personally attacking you?
Yes, Bondi IS exceptional— exceptionally incompetent, exceptionally corrupt, exceptionally obnoxious, exceptionally arrogant, and exceptionally unapologetic for her failures. Even Fox News wouldn’t carry the hearing—her talking back and name-calling was beneath the office of the Attorney General. She was putting on a performance for an audience of one, while demonstrating a total lack of respect for members of Congress who are seeking accountability for her failure to protect the Epstein victims and shielding of the pedophiles. When Zoe Lofgren asked her why the DOJ wasn’t working with local law enforcement, her answer was that Donald Trump is the greatest president in history. When asked whether Trump ever attended a party where there were underage girls, she called the question “ridiculous”.
Seeking accountability is what the constituents of members of Congress elected them to do. Bondi was not elected— but the members of Congress she insulted and whose questions she refused to answer WERE elected. America is watching and we’re not amused.
You should just ignore S. Meyer.
Personal insults and attacks are his standard operating procedure here when he has nothing substantive to say in response, which is most of the time. He is the master of the ad hominem attack.
Personal attacks, if you wish to call them that, target those who are empty and unable to engage in meaningful discussion. Consider these “attacks” as an attempt to compensate for your own void and to inflate your sense of superiority over the anonymous person you claim to assist.
“Notice that I can disagree with you without calling you names or personally attacking you?”
One of the reasons you have had to change your name so many times is precisely because of your attacks, whether direct or indirect. Your lack of civility is clearly noted. Character assassination is your basis for life. The most notable thing about you is how you cannot defend your character assassination except with lies and omissions of truth.
Did I earlier call you a clueless bimbo? I must have been in an exceptionally kind mood.
See what I mean, Anon @9:12.
Meyer has absolutely nothing substantive to say in response to your comment. Just more personal insults and attacks at an escalated level.
He is a very angry and shallow individual, who obviously has severe anger management issues.
When engaging with trolls, we often confront individuals who lack substance. Craft a post with meaning, and you may receive a thoughtful reply (also consider a unique name and icon). Consider this reply a learning opportunity to foster richer, more productive discussions rather than empty exchanges.
Just more insults and attacks. You really cannot control yourself.
Anon @9:12 crafted a substantial “post with meaning” as you put it. If you disagree with his comments, which you clearly do, then the rational response would be to offer a substantive reasoned counterargument. But your only response so far is to dismiss him or her with increasingly petty insults. You have offered no substantive response at all. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is a “troll” who is unworthy of a response and to be dismissed with insults.
Listen to yourself. You never say anything of importance.
You really are quite pathetic. Your ONLY comments in this thread have been petty insults. You have not offered a single comment of any substance or “importance”. You simply keep doubling down on your insults. This is really quite childish.
Did you ever wonder about the connection between Bondi, who was FL AG at the time when Alex Acosta was Palm Beach County Prosecutor and the sweetheart deal that was given to Epstein— 18 month sentence (in which he was free to go about his business during the day and only slept at night in jail) AND the fact that Bondi is now trying to cover up the names of the perpetrators of crimes against the victims and outing the victims instead? Acosta is now Labor Secretary.
According to Maxwell’s habeas corpus petition, there were 25 men who made private settlements with some of the victims, and who should have been prosecuted as co- conspirators but weren’t.
AND Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old girl. That incident was NEVER investigated.
It stinks and when Democrats take over, Bondi’s going down—probably Acosta, too.
How outrageous that you accuse ME of “character assassination” when that is exactly what you do. Bondi is a public servant and is accountable for her actions and omissions. She has done an unthinkably awful job.
Bondi did not negotiate or authorize Epstein’s 2008 plea deal. She was not Fl AG.
Interesting comment from someone who frequently accuses his critics of being antisemitic when they just happen to disagree with him.
But apparently antisemitic comments by Bondi are just fine, even when directed at the descendant of a Holocaust victim.
Do you understand the meaning of hypocrisy.
. . . the most vile, despicable and miserable excuse for a human being that has ever walked this planet
Among AGs, that prize goes to Merrick Garland. It’s not even close.
She spells it Ba’al iant…
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) attack Trump for Epstein, which occurred during Bush and Obongo “The Ineligible.”
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) could have taken Epstein up under Bush, Obongo “The Ineligible,” and Biden “The Stupid!”
They did not for obvious reasons.
Bondi and no other person in the Trump administration has to sit for an assault harangue by idiotic communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs).
Go pound sand, you disgusting, treasonous, un-American, anti-American commierades.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Based on investigations and reports, the major plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein occurred during the George W. Bush administration, while he served his sentence and the deal was unsealed during the early part of the Obama administration.
If the Supreme Court had stopped illegal DOXing, there would be no need for masks.
Swift justice would see illegal protestors (Americans have the freedom “peaceably to assemble” only) and doxers in jail.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
In a society of laws, when the laws fail, the society fails.
SCOTUS doesn’t make the law, they interpret it. Congress makes the law. Your sentiments are right, but focussed on the wrong actors.
Next thing you know, you’ll expound that secession was prohibited because secession is not prohibited. Comrade General Secretary Abraham “Reign of Terror” Lincoln must have been precluded and struck down by the Supreme Court and never happened, as should have been the same fate for all of the current communism in the current communist American welfare state, to include Social Security and Medicare.
Americans were intended to be free from 1776.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
That branch is the abject treason of millennia and the direct and mortal enemy of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
The least shocking part of my day is reading that an Obama appointed activist – masquerading as a judge – issued another ruling using “bizarre rationalization”.
((((((YAWN)))))))
Turley: you KNOW that a preliminary injunction is NOT the final word in a case–so why did you spin it as a “victory” for Trump? It is nothing but a PRELIMINARY ruling. You DO know better–you know that the case will be fully litigated and that the preliminary ruling may well be reversed at the trial court and maybe on appeal, too. Meanwhile, if you want to talk about Trump and his track record in courts when his abusive tactics are challenged, there’s plenty to talk about–like his illegal tariffs, a case he has lost in all of the the lower courts, including the special court that deals just with such matters, and which most people, especially businesses, hope is poised to lose before the Supreme Court where it was argued last November. Then, there’s the freezing of funds appropriated by Congress for the tunnel project that connects NY and NJ that Trump arbitrarily cancelled because they refused to re-name Penn Station and Dulles International Airport after him. He will lose this case, too, and he SHOULD. Meanwhile, there are large holes in the ground and hundreds of construction workers in NY and NJ don’t know if they will be permanently unemployed. But that’s not the purpose for these pieces–which is affirmation for the disciples.
The news is bad all around for Trump–a new low approval rating. Howard Lutnick getting caught lying about breaking off his relationship with Epstein in 2005, only to have it come out in the files that were released that he and his family were guests at Lolita Island in 2012–AFTER Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting children for prostitution. In the UK, people with ties to Epstein are getting fired right and left and King Charles announced that the Palace will cooperate with police investigating leaks of classified information about upcoming financial bail outs to Epstein, which might include is own brother. Over here, Trump defends Lutnick. It’s not OK with the American people that Commerce Secretary Lutnick LIES. Trump also got caught in another lie regarding his relationship with and knowledge of Epstein and what he was doing when a memo surfaced in which Trump contacted the Palm Beach Chief of Police in 2006 and said “everyone knows what he is doing”. That’s not the story he’s telling now. Several names of prominent men were found in the files, and were announced by Rep. Khanna. Americans do not find wealthy, well-connected men abusing little girls acceptable or our POTUS and the DOJ lying about it and trying to cover it up.
Recently, Trump gave an interview in which he made up a fake conversation with the President of Sweden, in which he claimed she begged him to call off tariffs, and he claimed he informed her that there was a multi-billion dollar trade deficit, so he jacked up the rate of tariffs just for giggles–more evidence of Trump using tariffs to play game and to try to get people to kiss up to him–not for emergency purposes as the lying attorneys for the DOJ have claimed. Insulting our trade partners is serious business. One of the reasons that the economy last year wasn’t as bad as it could have been is because so many businesses increased their purchases of imported goods and component parts in advance of tariffs. One reason why prices haven’t soared and businesses have absorbed some of the tariffs is because they believe, based on the law, that the Supremes will strike down the tariffs because only Congress can enact tariffs. If they are right, Trump will have to give the money back. Trump and Republicans are already plotting some kind of way to get around what they think will be an adverse ruling.
Correction–should be “Switzerland”–here is a piece about that incident from “Huff Post”:
“Trump claimed the United States had a $42 billion trade deficit with Switzerland, a number similar to one he’d used before and one that analysts said ignored trade in services, which actually put the deficit at $8 billion.
Trump said he imposed a 30% tariff on goods from Switzerland, leading to “an emergency call from, I believe, the prime minister of Switzerland.”
But that call didn’t seem to go the way Trump wanted.
“She was very aggressive, but nice, but very aggressive,” he said. “And I didn’t really like the way she talked to us, so instead of giving her a reduction, I raised her to 39%.”
There are a few problems with Trump’s claims, starting with the fact that Switzerland doesn’t have a prime minister.
Trump’s conversation last year was likely with then-Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter, and occurred after he threatened to raise tariffs on the country to 39%. However, that tariff was later reduced to 15% after a Swiss delegation gave Trump several gifts, including a Rolex watch and a gold bar. The decision to give him those items is now under investigation in Switzerland.”
Meanwhile, another federal court struck down Trump’s efforts to get Michigan voter rolls and ballots, and, it turns out, that the warrant to seize the 2020 Fulton County voting materials was based on allegations from a rabid a Trump election denier.
Meanwhile, “Judge” Jeanine Pirro failed to get an indictment of Senator Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin and the others who made a video advising members of the military that they not only need not, but must not, obey illegal orders. Another loss.
Another leftist with his latest ‘whataboutism’ regarding Pirro. Anything to change the subject and ignore the latest idiocy coming from his Dem team.
DC vote 96% democrat, not really a surprise. Fixed judges and fixed juries. DC is a cesspool.
You’re right that a preliminary injunction is not a final ruling. It can be reversed after full litigation. But when a court blocks enforcement of a state law against the federal government, that is still a win at that stage. “Preliminary” does not mean insignificant.
The additional political issues you raised are separate from the constitutional question in this case. If the ruling is overturned, that simply reflects the appellate process working as designed. The issue here is hierarchy and authority, not personalities.
The “issue here” is Trump’s private army of masked thugs who are inadequately trained and who do not follow any recognized police procedures or Constitutional law. He even sent them to Italy as a show of force, where they have absolutely NO authority–but, that’s not the point. It’s all about the power, the narcissism, which includes lying about his knowledge of and involvement with the most-notorious child sex trafficking ring in recent history, failure to hold accountable people in high places in our government who were involved and lied about it, and covering up what these men did to these women when they were vulnerable children, outing some of the victims and protecting the abusers. It’s always been about Trump getting his way and the rest of us be damned.
The “issue here” is The Democrats private army of masked thugs Antifa and BLM who are inadequately trained and who do not follow any recognized police procedures or Constitutional law.
Why wasn’t ICE so bad under Clinton and Obama while doing the same things? Why is ICE only masked thugs in Minneapolis? Your TDS and mental illness is showing.
There is NO SUCH organization as “Antifa”, much less one that is controlled by Democrats. According to “Common Dreams”:
““Antifa” is a portmanteau meaning “anti-fascist,” and the term encompasses autonomous individuals and loosely affiliated groups of people who say they oppose fascism—but with no organizational structure or leaders, it was not clear on Wednesday how the White House would seek to designate the idea of anti-fascist protest “a major terrorist organization.””
ICE under Obama and Clinton did not go around wearing masks and killing US citizens. Obama and Clinton did not use ICE to punish perceived political enemies. Obama and Clinton are not trying to set up a network of concentration camps, either, which, BTW, even red state communities are strongly opposed to. And, they didn’t use 5 year olds as bait to try to lure parents out of their house to be arrested.
If you believe MAGA lies, YOU are the deranged one.
For our next show folks we bring you a summary review recitation of the Antifa Handbook followed by Janet Reno’s documentary of Killing the Branch Dravidian’s followed by that family hit a Rumble of Death at Ruby Ridge. For our follow up of the Obama years the Ferguson Barbecue and the Looting of Minneapolis, one of my personal favorites.
Let’s keep it real folks!
. . . Now it Should Appeal
You really need to work on your reading and comprehension, instead of just spouting off your lies.
These Blue States attempt to direct the performance of federal law enforcement agencies boils down to a simple means and methods issue. The State (Owner) has a contract (Constitution) with the Federal Government (Contractor). The State cannot dictate or direct the means and methods of the Contractor (ICE/CBP)that the Fed wishes to provide for in meeting the lawful obligations of the contract ( enforce immigration law). It is truly as simple as that and the State assisting these agitators equates to cumulative disruption to the Contractor in performance of their obligations. The Owner should thereby be responsible for all associated costs and damages resulting of said disruption and as specified by federal regulations.
Duplicitous: well I wanted to say I can’t for determined conclusion is that it’s legal but could be illegal, what a bunch babbling non-sense. One of tools of language deceivers will use; it could or couldn’t be, or in debate YES BUT, not addressing the issue by using wishy-washy reasoning.
This has become the lower justice enterprise move when confronted with legal issues vs. emotional issues; we’ll bend the interpretation of the law to suit our emotionally condescending belief of genus, and the fool’s paradise filled a euphoric smell but a dystopia picture that waits.