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
“. . . the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of *insecurity for all*.” (emphasis added)
Judge Snyder is clearly evading reality.
Masks *increase* security for those who matter most in the encounters: Federal law enforcement and their families.
. Clearly, Sam, these people have been traumatized by the lawlessness within their communities. Robbers are masked and they can’t rationally make a distinction anymore. PTSD or other…
“HUGE: European Parliament Approves New Immigration Rules Allowing EU Countries To Send Illegals to Offshore Migrant Centers”
Will the invasion stop?
In a significant move, the EU Parliament approves an offshore ‘processing’ center for ‘asylum seekers.’
This groundbreaking change is a measure of just how strong right-wingers have become in the EU parliament, and also how unpopular the unchecked mass migration policies are right now.
– Remix News & Views
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.
The problem with this law against Doxxing is the same as with other laws. That is, it punishes for behavior that HAS (past tense), happened. Facial Coverings, along with other efforts attempt to prevent Doxxing in the first place. Why is the distinction important? FAMILIES! Should a wife or 6-month old child be threatened for something the father does, especially when that thing is Lawful, and part of his Law ENFORCEMENT function? However, that is what happens when a Law Enforcement official, whether that be an ICE officer, or a Police Officer has their Personal information broadcast for everyone to see.
In essence, I see this in this manner: Many in our society are attempting to punish those who ENFORCE the law, while PROTECTING those who VIOLATE the law. How perverted is that?
“Many in our society . . .”
Well said!
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?
Not occurring in this second comment, either.
Are you for real ?
Just about every crime ever committed involves some speach.
“Hey Buddy $25 for a rub and tug”
“Joey, I am having a real problem with mikey, do you think maybe you can ICE him, I would be very appreciative”
What are “two things that aren’t occurring together”?
@pbinca in defense of Dr. Turley’s logic and discussion. While “Res ipsa loquitur” is true, we all know actions speak louder than words. Castration of the rule of law through action without consequence. Most are unaware of the Nuremburg Judges trials, which basically exonerated those who created the “progressive” law (and rule thereof) to load up the trains to “work camps”.
If you need an illustration of this, see the example of the political structures’ passing as judicial officials condone and encourage punching in the face of anyone felt to deserve it protected by 1A (Freedom of Speech).
DA Bragg’s office drops case against woman who allegedly sucker-punched pro-life activist:
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2025/09/1862/1046/savannah-craven-violent-liberal-attacks.png
https://www.foxnews.com/us/da-braggs-office-drops-case-against-woman-who-allegedly-sucker-punched-pro-life-activist
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.
I get it, but this is the lunatic fringe acting. There is always a lunatic fringe. I am no AOC or Chuck Schumer fan, but I do not believe for one second they truly mean harm to law enforcement.
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?
I watched vido of MPD arresting violent protestors in front of the ICE fascility in Minneapolis.
The Riot police were in buddy armour, the had face sheilds but under those they had additional protection that obscured everything but their eyes.
There are plenty of circumstances in which just about every type of police force will wear masks.
. 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
“is there a federal law that explicitly states that ICE agents must be allowed to mask?”
The rule of law is that what ever is not explicitly prohibited is allowed.
Government is supposed to be constrained to a small subset of negative morality “thous shalth NOT”
Laws are not written nor do they need to be to allow people to do something that is the default.
“What is the federal law that explicitly or implicitly conflicts with California law?”
The conflict is that CA is attempting to regulate the federal government – which it can not do.
The officers are agents of the Federal government working for the federal government, they are completely outside of CA’s jurisdiction.
When they STOP working if they remain in CA and they do something that violates CA law, Then they fal under CA’s jurisdiction.
“Does the supremacy clause prevail over state law even when there IS no federal law that actually conflicts with the state law?”
It is not just that federal law is supreme over state law, it is also that the state does NOT have the power to make law controlling the federal government.
“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,”
No, you keep inverting the constitution.
The state just does not have jurisdiction over the federal government, and that includes over its employees while that are working.
“when there are other ways to carry out their duties that do not involve violating state law?”
Your claim mkes clear the problem – the state can not tell the federal govenrment how to perform a constitutional task that belongs to the federal governmet.
Would there have been no civil war if instead of attacking fort Sumter, south carolina just passed a law ordering the federal troops to leave ?
“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?”
You keep trying to find a loophole that allows the state to regulate the federal govenrment. There is none.
The federal agent need not be acting according to a specific federal law, only operating within the legitimate domain of the federal government.
It is not about a conflict of laws, it is about the state not having the ability to regulate how the federal government performs its legitimate constitutional responsibilities.
“I don’t mean to be snarky, but I imagine questions similar to these must have been litigated at some point. ”
One such litigation would he “the civil war”
Presumably you know how that ended.
“My guess is that past holdings would give federal agents at least some latitude, but surely there are limits”
The limits would be – is the federal agent acting as a federal agent. When they are just a person whose job is as a federal agent, but that is not currently what they are doing – then they are fully subject to state and local laws.
“are all federal agencies exempt from local taxes”
When they are buying dinner – no. If they are buying things explicitly for work they likely are.
“can they commit murder with impunity”
Yes, and no. They are immune from STATE prosecution. They are not immune from federal prosecution.
“so long as they don’t cross state lines, etc.” What would state lines have to do with it ?
Federal jusrisdiction is nationwide.
“can they commit murder with impunity”
Yes, and no. They are immune from STATE prosecution. They are not immune from federal prosecution.
John, that is not correct. The state can and will prosecute them, but it may have to do so in federal court, and it would be a defense that they were acting reasonably in pursuit of their federal duties. The prosecution would still be conducted by the state, under state law, and if convicted the president could not pardon them.
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.
Trump cheated to get into Wharton by paying a guy named Epstein (no relation to Jeff) to take the qualifying exam— according to Maryanne Trump, his sister.
“Trump cheated . . . the qualifying exam . . .”
Fascinating.
Except for the fact that Wharton does *not* have a qualifying exam for transfer students (which is what Trump was).
@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).
Because of the ‘Democrat’ part.
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. ^
China has sent over 1 million pregnant women to the United States to have their babies here. They gain IS citizenship by doing so. The mothets return to China to raise their US Chinese children where upon their coming of age, return to the USA to vote and run for office. This is the fightover birthright citizenship.
@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.
Oh look, now it’s 60M…
Do you mean, use to be Captain Mark Kelly?! 🤡
Aside from the ad hominem spin – and obnoxiousness I would agree with you.
Kelley and the rest of his bunches remarks were incredibly stupid. But otherwise protected free speech.
Kelley as retired military still has some military code liability, but no criminal liability for bad speech.
Frankly the Trump administration should have excoriated Kelley and his gangs remarks,
Publicly pointed out that he was still subject to military sanctions for fomenting disorder – there is a better term used in the military but it has slipped my mind. And then left it alone.
Kelley and the rest of his gang were big loosers, But going after them has made them into martyrs, and they do not deserve that status.
Attempting to indict was a mistake. Sanctions from the military were also a mistake just a smaller wone.
DOJ has snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory.
Better to have left Kelley wallow in his misconduct.
She wasted a massive amount of resources trying to incarcerate that guy who threw a Subway sandwich at a police officer. She failed 2 or 3 times to get a felony indictment with a grand jury, so she went for a misdemeanor charge and lost at trial.
The guy was guilty of assault, in a NORMAL district a jury would have found him so. She can’t help that we have been infested by idiots. Back to my original thoughts, appeasement of illegal acts promotes more and worse crimes.
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 the worst AG ever”
ROFL
Today was not her best day – she has had some excellent ones.
Regardless she is pretty good as AG’s go – we have had lots of bad ones,
Merrit Garland for example.
“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,”
No that is NOT the job of the US AG – the AG is first the advocate for the federal govenrment, and next the advocate for prosecuting federal crimes. Advocating for victims is not any prosecutors actual job thouhg many claim it.
Prosecutors represent the state not the victim.
“instead attacked anyone who dared to challenge her”
No she attacked people who attacked her.
The democrat attack were abysmal – Rep. Leiu was shilling a debunked claim as an example.
But most of Bondi’s counter punches were off.
“when caught red handed failing to comply with the federal law requiring full disclosure of the Epstein files and protection of the survivors,”
A stupid law that could not possibly be complied with.
DOJ dumped 3Million documents in a month and there are still 3Million left to go.
The deadline was OBVIOUSLY impossible to meet.
Mistakes were made, but that is congresses fault, the deadline and requiremnts were impossible, further the law itself runs afoul of the 4th amendment.
“projected blame for her failures on others.”
Congress deserves the blame.
“She refused to respect the Democrat members of Congress who were exercising their responsibility of oversight”
No mostly they were disrespectful of her – which violates house rules but Chair Jordan allowed them to embarras themselves.
“who questioned her about her failure to redact the names, contact information and images of Epstein victims”
Mostly that questioning was by Massie who is a republican.
Bondi’s attack on Massie were out of line, But Massie was also pushing too hard for someone who must know he gave DOJ an impossible task and mistakes were inevitable.
“but redacted the wealthy and well-connected predators who abused them.”
Only one and that was corrected immediately
“She LIED about hiding the names of predators by claiming that there were pending investigations into prosecuting them”
Not what she said, and you have no idea what pending cases DOJ has, and DOJ is not obligated to tell anyone including congress.
“AFTER Todd Blanche previously said that there were NO plans for further prosecutions.”
So, that is not the same as no pending cases or investigations.
“Of course, there are NO such plans–Trump won’t allow it.”
Why not ? There are LOTS of democrats that atleast in theory could be prosecuted – why not prosecute the clintons ?
If we are going to ignore the law, there is plenty of democrats for Trump and DOJ to prosecute
“She tried to shift blame to Merrick Garland”
Correct, Garland had 4 years to prosecute the Epstains Pedos,
The Trump DOJ successfully investigated Epstain, and arrested him, They also investifated and arrested Maxwell.
Garland got the conviction in a case that was handed to him.
And did NOTHING else.
Nor did Holder or Lynch under Obama,
“was verbally abusive to members of Congress.”
Who were even more abusive to her.
Bondi did not handle herself as well as she has in the past – she was off and flailing and her attacks and defenses were all over the place and not in her domain. She is not Sec. Treasury – it is not her job to defend the economy.
Buut the behavior of democrats was worse.
“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.”
That is on congress – republicans and democrats. you can not properly release 3M documents in the time provided.
” The “errors”, if that’s what you want to call them, fall on her”
Bondi deserves proper criticism for her own conduct – which was NOT misconduct – while that of Democrats was,
Bondi was just not landing her punches.
“but she is defiant–pure Trumpian MAGA”
Absolutely – and that is NOT the problem -defying insulting and stupid morons, who do not know what they are talking about is perfectly legitimate. Doing so badly is not.
“never admit you are wrong, never apologize, and project blame.”
Like democrats ?
“Insult anyone who criticizes you”
No insult anyone who insults you.
Turn about is fair play.
Bondi’s failure was not fighting back, it was swinging and missing rather than landing the haymakers she is usually capable of.
“Many of us believe”
All kinds of idiotic and stupid things.
Bill Mahr atleast had the descency to admit that Qanon was owed a huge apology – Pizzagate turns out to be real.
How does it feel when Qanon is right more often than democrats ?
“that she is, on orders of Trump, protecting the wealthy and well-connected predators”
More than 90% of whom are democrats ?
People like Mick Jagger, George Clooney a couple off democrat congressmen, Larry Summers – half the hosts on the view,
Everytime a new page drops – more democrats skitter arround like roaches.
“and outed some of the victims as an intimidation tactic, and that these were not “errors” at all–but deliberate.”
Critical thinking is not your forte.
” 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. ”
This is what happens when you unconstitutionally demand millions of documents that are protected by the 4th amendment and you want them overnight.
I opposed this clown sho nonsense from the start.
Next to nothing has been released that allows us to tell the actual abusers from plain vanilla idiots whose mistake was being in Epstains orbit – or do you think Whoppi Goldberg is a child predator ?
Absolutely Epstain and those who abused under age girls deserve a special place in h311.
But being mentioned in the Epstain files does not allow anyone to tell between the actual pedos and people who had poor choices of freinds.
“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”
I m sure she does – but in fact that is NOT actually part of her job.
Assuming there was someone who COULD be prosecuted – that would absolutely mean outing a victim and inflicting share and emotional distress. It would STILL be Bondi’s job to prosecute.
The reality hear is that Both the democrats and republicans who wanted all this out are learning – or probably not, Why the 4th amendment bars the release of this stuff except in a prosecution. A prosecutor may not out anywon – unless they are prepared to files charges.
“only the shame and emotional distress of Trump and his wealthy well-connected cronies she is protecting.”
Almost all the wealthy and well connected people in this are no friends of Trump.
For every ONE person you can name with a positive relationship with Trump there are 10 in the files that are atlest enemies and often Loath Trump.
“Trump isn’t going to get away with burying this scandal”
He has not tired to – he signed this stupid law.
Only in your head is this hurting him.
” because the survivors won’t stop until they see justice.”
Which they have always been free to do.
They did not need the release of the Epstain files for that.
I told you above that pretty much nothing in the files goes beyond innuendo.
The files so far prove nothing about no one – beyodn association with Epstain.
BUT the victims absolutely can provide evidence of criminal conduct – they can stand up point their fingers and say “he raped me” – like Virginia Guifoile.
If you want people to go to jail you need victims to point fingers.
That is how they get justice.
Not buy hiding.
For those who are unaware, “John Say” is a paid MAGA apologist. He is paid to write lengthy screeds disputing whatever people post that makes Trump and MAGA look bad. It’s all part of MAGA media’s effort to sell Trump. For this reason, he is ignored.
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.
Why are you entitled to an appology ?
Bondi’s statement was accurate.
and yes a jew who descended from a holocaust survivor can be antisemetic.
There are lots of antisemetic democrats who are jewish in congress.
Outside of the left – antisemetic jews are rare as hens teeth.
Bondi was off today, but she was not antisemetic.
She was being viciously and unjustifiably attacked – but that was to be expected.
And she usually handles that well
Today she did not.
She did not lie, she was not wrong, but she kept going off topic and uncharacteristically landed no haymakers.
There is no antisemitism in Bondi’s comment, as you claim. It was clearly protective of the State of Israel. Balint voted against the resolution condemning the slogan “from the river to the sea.” That mantra incites hatred and violence toward the Jewish people and Israel. It calls for the destruction of the Jewish homeland and the elimination of Jews residing in that region.
Bondi rightly noted the duplicity and severe partisanship of Balint, who in this matter never once criticized Biden or Clinton for the Epstein situation. Bondi’s statement was true. Balint appears to be invoking her family tragedy while failing to recognize that she refused to support a bill meant to protect the Jewish people.
This is emblematic of a broader problem among Democrats. To stay in line with the party, they too often cast votes inconsistent with their own stated beliefs, even when it serves no practical or moral purpose.
What you think the grandchild of a hollocaust victim cant be antisemetic ?
But apparently antisemitic comments by Bondi are just fine, even when directed at the descendant of a Holocaust victim.
There was nothing even slightly antisemitic in Bondi’s comment. Even if it was incorrect (which it wasn’t), it wasn’t antisemitic. No one is even alleging that it was; you made that one up yourself.
Bondi’s comment was completely correct. Balint has clearly demonstrated that she is at least okay with other people being antisemitic, and in all likelihood she herself is one.
Also, she is NOT Jewish. Her father was (is?) but she is not. Not that being Jewish stops anyone from being antisemitic, there have always been plenty of Jewish antisemites, but she isn’t even Jewish.
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.
ATS when you lie, being called a liar is both the truth and an insult, and justified.
“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.
In a long stream of insults Anon@9:12 – merely having to refer to a poster that way already demonstrates they are not to be trusted. – make only two statemnents that have any support”
“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.”
While I would like the ACTUAL text – because you left wing nuts lie constantly in your claims about what others say,
Regardless, it is not DOJ’s job to prosecute local crimes. And while the ONE Point that Rep. Leiu actually had is that Bondi is AG now, everything DOJ currently has – 6 other AG’s had and did nothing.
Further if DOJ was working with local law enforcement – they could not talk about it.
Finally – none of these pervests will ever see the inside of a jail cell unless their victims come forward.
No one can be convicted of anything based on the epstain files.
If the Victims want justice – and they certainly are entitled – that is within their power and only their power.
The AG and other prosecutors can help – but only a victim can turn suspicious conduct into a crime.
” When asked whether Trump ever attended a party where there were underage girls, she called the question “ridiculous”.”
Which is the correct response.
How in the world is Bondi supposed to know every event Trump has attended and whether there were underage girls ?
Beyond that – I am sure that Trump attended a Birthday party for a teenage Eric or Don Jr. or Barron or Ivanka where there were girls that were underage and friends or classmates.
Have YOU never been to a party with “underage girls” present
When Lofgren asks a question that is not stupid, she will get a better answer.
Asking a question the person being asked can not possibly have direct personal knowledge of
but whose answer is both obvious and obviously does NOT mean what the questioner was implying is “ridiculous”
SM was perfectly responsive.,
When someone tells a lie with no support, the correct response is to call them a liar.
If you do not like that – do not lie.
If you beleive that Nutacha’s list of insults that included NO evidence was somehow not lies.
Pick one and provide the evidence.
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.
Correction: Bondi was not in office when Acosta cut the sweetheart deal with Epstein, but she WAS in office in 2008 when the Epstein survivors and their supporters raised Cain over the leniency Epstein received and the additional allegations by other victims whose cases weren’t investigated AND Bondi did NOTHING about it.
You are grasping at straws. What did you want Bondi to do, prosecute him for the same crimes he was already convicted of? Don’t you think that would be illegal?
Bondi became FL AG in 2011.
The Acosta deal with 2008.
When you are accusing someone of something that is factually impossible – that is called a lie, and it is character assassination.
But do you even care enough to check anything you say before posting it ?
Wikipedia lists the FL AG’s and their years.
It is Vile to make a provably false claim that you clearly made from thin air and did not bother to check first
John/Seth
Is he alluding to the alleged “cover up” of releasing the files release they are now all harping about?
It really is stunning how many obvious facts a Leftist can get wrong in one smear comment:
“. . . Bondi, who was FL AG at the time . . .”
Someone should arrest Bill McCollum. He was pretending to be FL AG at the time.
“Acosta is now Labor Secretary.”
And they should arrest Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who’s claiming to be Labor Secretary.
No one needs to accuse you of “character assassination.” You’ve committed character suicide.
So you lie, lobb insults at almost everyone and you want credit for only sort of insulting SM ?
When you lie, you deserve to be called out for it.
That is an insult, it is also a fact.
You made a long list of obviously bogus claims about Trump and Bondi.
Pick ONE and actually defend it – with sources, facts, logic reason.
Dont hurl insults without evidence and then whine when you are justifiably called a liar.
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.
Again – hollocost survivers are not typically antisemetic – but it is not impossible.
In fact it is true of a significant portion of jewish democrat congressmen.
She is not a holocaust survivor. Her grandfather was killed. She wasn’t even born. While actual survivors are not typically antisemitic, it’s not so uncommon for their descendants to be. Especially their GENTILE descendants.
I was happy with her nomination
I was happy with her confirmation.
Sometimes I am happy with what she is doing.
Other times not
There are some allegations by conservatives that is trust and respect that are disturbing
but have not so far gotten much press.
Regardless she had a bad day.
But her performance was still stellar compared to democrats who were excreble.
I was NOT happy with her nomination, because of her troubling record on the 2nd amendment and on the right to self-defense in general, especially her deplorable intervention in the George Zimmerman affair.
. . . 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.
Nah, Holder was worse.
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.
Democrats in todays hearing were Excreble. But Bondi was uncharactericticly off. We have seen her do extremely well at other times such as her confirmation hearings she usually knows how and when to snap back. Today she was off focus and off point.
She is the US AG – not the treassury secretary. She kept deflecting into things that have nothing to do with DOJ, and many of her counter attacks were poorly delivered.
That does not make the conduct of Democrats forgiveable. Frankly Chairmen Jordan gave the democrats HUGE amounts of latitude I suspect because as Sun Tzu says – when your enemy is making a mistake let them.
Congressional rules generally prohibit personal insults to witnesses.
But yes, Bondi was NOT her usual quick and sharp witted self.
Balint is NOT Jewish. Her father was (is?) Jewish by birth (though not in any other way), but she is not.
And Bondi did NOT accuse her of being antisemitic, but of being OK with antisemitism, which she clearly is. I’d go farther and say she IS an antisemite, as so many Jews are. Jewish antisemites, traitors to their people, have been a feature of Jewish history since the beginning. It has long been a common Jewish proverb, riffing off Isaiah 49:17, that the Jews’ worst “demolishers and destroyers” come from within.
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.
So the story is substantially correct.
As to the Michigan ruling – it is obvious shite that will be overturned on appeal.
Federal law requires all election officials to provide election information to DOJ on request.
This is not new – fighting it is.
I have no idea what your FC claim is. But the affadavit of probable cause provided nearly 1 dozen allegations of federal crimes backed up by sworn affadavits from multiple different people or by testimony under oath.
Some of which was by Democrats before the GA State Election committee and is available on Youtube.
There was not much new in the affadavit – except the question of why the courts failed to take it seriously without hearing the evidence in 2020.
SCOTUS recently rules that a candidate in an election ALWAYS has standing to sue regarding election – while techniclly not rhetroactive.
ALL70 of your 2020 election case supposed wins go down the toilet in a single decision.
Not on court heard the evidence at a hearing on the merits.
The cases were all dismissed for standing or some permutation of that.
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!
“There is NO SUCH organization as “Antifa””
Yup, the soy boys in black bloc claiming to be antifa and violently harrassing people are not real
You can ponder how Antifa can be designated a terrorist organization from your cell after you are convicted of domestic terrorist acts.
You can ponder how Antifa can be designated a terrorist organization
John, it isn’t and can’t be, because there is no such legal designation. Trump’s press release was just that; it had no legal significance. Giving material support to Antifa is completely legal in the USA, just as it was before Trump’s press release.
It is true that Antifa is not a national organization. There are several local Antifa organizations, each of which is independent of all the others. It’s equally true that in the 20th century there was never a national organization called the Ku Klux Klan. Each local organization was independent. That doesn’t make either one a myth, or less deadly. Both Antifa and the KKK have been responsible for murders, beatings, and other acts of terrorism. (Note that terrorist acts are distinct from designated terrorist organizations.)
“U.S. immigration agents have shot people during the years Barack Obama was president; investigative reporting shows multiple shootings by ICE and its Homeland Security Investigations division occurred in the period covered by that reporting”
“Overall, the error rate under Obama was 3.36 times higher than under Trump.”
https://nypost.com/2026/01/22/opinion/how-trumps-ice-enforcement-record-blows-obamas-out-of-the-water-by-a-lot/
“ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was created in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act, which was enacted in response to the September 11 attacks. It was formed by merging the functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service.”
There was no ICE under Clinton then it was INS agents.
“ICE under Obama and Clinton did not go around wearing masks and killing US citizens.”
We only have Data for ICE/Obama for 2015 and 2016 but they killed a number of US citizens.
And they didn’t wear masks because they didn’t need to. Masks are uncomfortable, and only worn when necessary to protect the agents’ and their families’ safety.
“Obama and Clinton did not use ICE to punish perceived political enemies. ”
Nor did Trump. ICE conducted sweeps in 15 other US cities before coming to Minneapolis.
Only in Minneapolis did they face the extreme violence and obstruction that resulted in to dead knuckleheads who though escalating a conflict with Law enforcement to protect criminals from arrest was a good idea.
The next worst opposition was in LA. Which was tame compared to Minneapolis.
In LA ICE performed arrests, the police coopoerated and did crowd control.
IN MN there has been no cooperation state and local LEOs are barred from enforceing state laws prosecuting violent rioters.
Most places ICE has gone were peaceful.
“Obama and Clinton are not trying to set up a network of concentration camps, either”
They did not ? Then where were all the detentions centers that Obama kept kids in cages from ?
Do you left wing nuts THINK before you post ?
“even red state communities are strongly opposed to”
Right – no one wants to live with a bunch of criminals housed nearby.
“they didn’t use 5 year olds as bait to try to lure parents out of their house to be arrested.”
Your repeating a Hoax That Turley debunked in a prior post.
“If you believe MAGA lies, YOU are the deranged one.”
Top beleive a MAGA lie I would hav to hear one – so far all I have heard is YOU lying about ICE.
That is pretty deranged especially since the lies were obvious have have been debunked many times in the past weeks.
Anonymous, here and elsewhere, you have made accusations and statements that are not truthful.
John Say corrected all or almost all of these errors. Now it is your time to challenge John Say on these issues. You won’t, but you will use your next post to repeat your lies.
Why is it that exactly the same obviously idiotic garbage by left wing nuts must constantly be rebutted.
LEOs frequently where a variety of different face coverings when dealing with crowd control in “peaceful protests” aka riots.
https://www.damascusgear.com/product/px6-tactical-riot-suit/
There were for the past year 6000 ICE officers. Presuming a normal 20 year carreer, that is a turnover of 300/yr even doubling that to 600 means on average an ICE officer has 5 years experience.
The good shooted had 10 years and was not only well trained – but actually an expert.
One of the Pretti shooters had 8 years and was a training officer. the other had 6 years.
in 2025 ICE performed 980,000 arrests. That is 163 arrests per officer. The nationwide norm for LEOs is 7/yr that means in 9 months an ICE officer has as much experience doing arrests as most LEOs do at the end of a 20 year carreer.
Pretty much all ICE does is arrests. They do not conduct investigations, or traffic stops,
They are given a warrant and a deportation order and they serve it.
There is absolutely nothing about an ICE arrest that is constitutionally or prcedurally different from any other LEO except 2 things
There are no rights involved in an ICE arrest – anyone arrested by ICE for being in the US illegally is “free to go” anytime they want.
They are just not “Free to go” back to the US, they can go home at anytime.
ICE is not an army – they are law enforcement.
NO US LEO has authority in a foreign country.
Ouija boards and mind reading are not arguments.
The recent honeypot arrests are NOT the “most-notorious child sex trafficking ring in recent history” unliess recent history is a week.
This was not a Ring, it was a number of johns caught in a honey pot sting – these happen all the time.
There is an FL sherrif that puts his on Youtube
The only lying is yours.
Next time instead of vague as schiff unsourced claims can you add a few facts to your lies.
Even the sensationalizing sheriff in MN did NOT claim that the crimes uncovered were particularly alarming, as our leftist liar here claims. All the sheriff said was that it was alarming that a government employee should have been caught up in this. He exaggerated, not the crime, but the suspect’s position.
. . . Now it Should Appeal
You really need to work on your reading and comprehension, instead of just spouting off your lies.
Actually a PI on a case where the only issue is “the law” not the facts, is pretty much the end of the case.
You do not get a trial when there is no witnesses or evidence to present.
You get to file briefs on the law – which presumably have already been done
at best the next step is that the parties refine their arguments and respond to their oponents.
But without a question of fact there will be no trial.
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.