update - Fed'l appeal court upholds $1 Million costs sanction against Trump and Habba

[mandrill]

Court permanently blocks Trump’s executive order to dismantle federal agency for America’s libraries

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island struck down the Trump Administration’s attempts to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).

www.ala.org

Washington – Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island struck down the Trump Administration’s attempts to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The decision was issued in response to a lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General of 21 states.

ALA President Sam Helmick said, “Today's court decision is a powerful affirmation of what libraries mean to America. It restores everything that the executive order tried to take away: shared access to books in rural and remote areas, essential virtual learning tools, children's reading programs and the countless library services available to anyone who walks into a public, school or academic library. This isn't just a win for the 21 states who filed the case--it's a win for every library user and every American in every state and territory.

“Convincing a federal judge that shuttering a supposedly obscure agency would have an immediate and devastating impact on millions of Americans is no small feat. Libraries also strengthen local economies by supporting jobseekers, small businesses and community learning. Protecting these resources matters. ALA is proud to be in the company of dozens of library workers, associations, Friends of libraries, parents, educators, leaders at every level of government and every American who showed up for our libraries.

“This victory belongs to all of us, and we build the future of our libraries together. As we celebrate this decision, ALA invites everyone to keep using and speaking up for libraries. Your voice makes a difference, and your community leaders need to hear it.”

IMLS is the only federal agency dedicated to the nation’s libraries and museums. On March 14, President Trump issued Executive Order 14238, which directed the elimination of the agency. Subsequently, the Trump administration began mass termination of the agency’s grants, dismissed all members of the IMLS board, halted crucial data collection and research, and intended to lay off nearly all of the agency’s staff. These actions left IMLS unable to fulfill its duties required by federal law and interrupted library services across the country.

Today’s court ruling found that those actions were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to federal law that established IMLS and directed it to carry out programs, including funding for libraries and museums across the nation. The ruling nullifies the Administration’s actions to dismantle IMLS and permanently prohibits the Administration from taking such actions in the future. The ruling has immediate nationwide effect.

ALA also has led efforts in Congress and the courts to preserve IMLS, in parallel to the states’ litigation. ALA filed its own lawsuit challenging the Administration’s actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which remains ongoing. In May, ALA’s lawsuit won a temporary restraining order, which prevented the mass layoff of nearly all IMLS employees, days before it was scheduled to take effect.

ALA also mobilized thousands of contacts from library supporters nationwide urging Congress to protect IMLS. As Congress continues work to finalize appropriations bills for fiscal year 2026, ALA urges advocates to contact their Representatives and Senators in support of continued funding for the agency’s vital work.

 

[mandrill]

Trump makes multi-million-dollar purchase of company debt


Buried within a mountain of financial disclosures made public recently is a potentially multi-million-dollar purchase made by President Donald Trump between August and October, a purchase that has left some critics stunned by its lack of news coverage.

“In a normal administration, this would be a huge scandal,” wrote journalist and political commentator Molly Jong-Fast in a social media post on Tuesday on X.



The purchase was, according to a report Tuesday from The New York Times, for between $1 million and $5 million worth of corporate debt of the technology company Intel. The disclosure was published amid the Trump administration’s decision to secure a more than $11 billion stake in the company, making the U.S. government hold 10% of the company’s stock.

“This is truly insane,” wrote journalist Ryan Grim in a social media post on X Tuesday, responding to the news.



Intel is not the only company Trump has personally invested in. Last week, reporting showed that Trump had also purchased as much as $6 million in corporate bonds for the weapons manufacturer Boeing, a purchase made close to the company being awarded a $877 million contract from the Defense Department.

Back in September, Trump also purchased between $500,000 and $1 million worth of Boeing bonds. Since January, Trump has purchased, at a minimum, $185 million worth of bonds.

These personal investments of the president continue to run in tandem with the Trump administration’s unprecedented purchases of company stocks and bonds, which officials say are being carried out in the interest of national security.

“It is an unusual new strategy that has already committed more than $10 billion in taxpayer funds and shows little sign of slowing,” wrote the Times reporter Ana Swanson in a report on Tuesday.

“The government’s growing portfolio of corporate ownership involves minority stakes, or the option to take them in the future, in at least nine companies involved in steel, minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductors, a New York Times analysis found. The deals were all struck in the past six months, with the bulk made in October and November.”

 

[mandrill]

MAGA officials picked a fight in court


A newly revealed transcript of a courtroom deposition in Chicago shows MAGA officials picking fights over immigration enforcement — and an exasperated judge accusing Trump's Border Patrol chief, Greg Bovino of constantly dodging questions and making false statements, reported the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday.

This comes after U.S. District Judge Sarah Ellis issued a blistering opinion last week based on this hearing, accusing Bovino of "outright lying" as part of a lawsuit brought to stop the Trump administration's federal raids in Chicago.



The tension began almost immediately, according to the report, as Justice Department attorney Sarmad Khojasteh accused plaintiffs' attorney Locke Bowman he was being disrespectful by not shaking Bovino's hand.

"What followed was nearly seven hours of terse and sometimes evasive answers from Bovino, punctuated by an occasional longer explanation about the allegedly violent mobs attacking and threatening immigration agents," said the report. "The questioning was almost constantly interrupted by bickering between the attorneys, mostly instigated by Khojasteh, who at one point called Bowman a 'petulant old man.'" At the same time, Bowman slammed Khojasteh for showboating, snapping, "You don't need to give speeches."


One of the most damning moments of the deposition, the report continued, came when Bovino was challenged on his claim that he threw tear gas canisters at the crowd because one of the protesters hit him in the head with a white rock.

After further questioning, Bovino admitted he was "mistaken," saying, “The white rock was thrown at me, but that was after I deployed less lethal means in chemical munitions. I was mixed up with several other objects in a very chaotic environment. And I confused that white rock with other objects that were thrown at me.”

After Bowman showed an image of the protesters and asked if this was the "violent mob" he had talked about seeing before throwing the canisters, he said, “Well, this is, you know, I, can’t tell exactly what’s happening from, from a picture. This is, this, this, this picture here that you’ve given me is — this is a snapshot in time.”

All of this comes as Trump dukes out another series of legal battles over whether he can deploy the National Guard to Chicago to back up the immigration agents. A New York Times report on Tuesday reveals the DOJ's filing to the Supreme Court to be full of errors and false claims about the protesters.

 

[mandrill]

Trump admin told Supreme Court that Chicago police refused to help ICE agents


The Trump administration made mistaken and misleading claims over the deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago in an emergency docket to the Supreme Court, according to a new report.

A New York Times investigation published Tuesday revealed that the administration erroneously distorted Chicago Police Department officers' responsiveness and protesters' actions in a filing that requested the high court to allow the troops in the Windy City.


"The emergency request, filed by the solicitor general, D. John Sauer, which draws heavily from court declarations made by two Homeland Security officials, misstates what happened in the aftermath of a car crash and shooting on Oct. 4 in Chicago that involved Border Patrol agents," The Times reported.

After analyzing hundreds of videos and hours of police radio, The Times debunked the federal government's claims that police were slow to respond and left ICE agents on their own in "what they called a riot." During the Oct. 4 crash and shooting, The Times found that police responded within seven minutes and found that "protesters were peaceful for the first two hours, before a forceful federal response."

"That contention is central to the administration’s legal rationale for deploying the National Guard: that 'violent protests' are preventing agents from enforcing immigration law," according to The Times.

The case could set a stunning legal precedent for authorizing the military in American cities.

"The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on the fast-track emergency docket after lower courts granted Illinois’s request to block the troop deployment. The court could rule any day. If the justices decide in favor of the Trump administration, the emergency ruling, although temporary, could lay the legal groundwork for the deployment of National Guard troops to more U.S. cities," The Times reported.

 

[mandrill]

Court official dismisses Justice Department's misconduct complaint against a federal judge in DC


A court official has dismissed a Justice Department complaint that accused a federal judge of “hostile and egregious” misconduct during hearings for a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's ban on transgender troops serving in the military.

The complaint accused U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., of inappropriately questioning a government lawyer about his religious beliefs and of trying to embarrass the attorney with a rhetorical exercise during a February hearing.

In a Sept 29 order that wasn't made public until Monday, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the complaint. Srinivasan said a motion for Reyes' recusal would have been the proper means for the Justice Department to contest her impartiality and seek her removal from the case.

The department didn't explicitly ask for Reyes' removal from the transgender troops' litigation. And it didn't file a petition for a review of the chief judge's order, which didn't reach any conclusions about the merits of the complaint's allegations.

“If a party that believes a judge’s conduct in a case raises serious questions about her impartiality were to press its concerns in the ordinary way — by seeking her recusal in the case itself — the standards for resolving the matter are well established,” Srinivasan wrote.



The Justice Department had no immediate comment on Tuesday. Reyes declined to comment on the chief judge's order or the department's complaint.

The complaint was filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s then-chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, who has since left the department. Mizelle claimed Reyes' behavior “compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias.”

“When judges demonstrate apparent bias or treat counsel disrespectfully, public confidence in the judicial system is undermined,” he wrote.

Mizelle’s complaint cited an exchange in which Reyes asked a government attorney: “What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me'?” The attorney responded by saying, “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”

The complaint also refers to a rhetorical exercise about discrimination. Reyes spoke of changing the rules in her courtroom to bar graduates of the University of Virginia law school from appearing before her because they are all “liars and lack integrity.” She instructed the government attorney, a graduate of the school, to sit down before calling him back up to the podium.

Reyes was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. Trump and Republican allies have mounted an escalating series of attacks against the federal judiciary since the start of his second term.

Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order claims without presenting evidence that the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness. It required Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue a revised policy.

Six transgender people who were active-duty service members and two other plaintiffs seeking to join the military sued to challenge Trump's order. Reyes blocked the order's enforcement in March, ruling that it likely violates the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. A federal judge in Washington state also blocked enforcement of the order.

Reyes agreed to suspend her order pending the government's appeal, which hasn't been resolved yet. But the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban transgender people from the military in the meantime.

___

Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

 

[mandrill]

Trump considers ousting his FBI Director


President Donald Trump has been considering removing Kash Patel as the FBI director has come under criticism for using private security for his country singer girlfriend and his use of a government jet, according to a MS NOW report published Tuesday

Patel is on "thin ice" as top Trump aides complain that Patel has used government resources for personal use and has had fights with other Trump loyalists, the report adds. It was published at a time when Patel's FBI was facing growing criticism over its use of resources and its investigations into Trump's political enemies.




The "unflattering headlines" have reportedly prompted Trump to confide in his allies about his concerns over the embarrassing stories, MS NOW's report added.

Three people aware of the situation spoke anonymously and told MS NOW that Trump is considering cutting Patel and putting Andrew Bailey as the FBI's new director. Bailey is a top agency official.



Patel's ouster "appears closer than ever, with Bailey as the logical replacement, two of the sources with knowledge of the situation said, though Trump could change his mind in the weeks to come," MS NOW reported.

Patel was at the White House on Tuesday for the pardoning of turkeys, whom Trump dubbed "Chuck and Nancy."

Trump mentioned Patel during the turkey pardoning. He praised him and said he was “very busy doing a great job.”

After several people clapped, Trump said, “See, you’ve got a following, Kash.”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson denied that Trump is interested in removing Patel from his role.

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

DOJ staff resignations suggest agency is buckling under Trump demands


Outgoing Department of Justice staffers are leaving warnings in their farewell letters that "irreversible damage" is being caused by the president's demands.

Former employees are leaving notes before walking out that have been obtained by The Justice Connection. Those letters imply a collapse of ethics within the DOJ, with FBI alumni also leaving behind notes on a toxic workplace under the Trump administration, The Daily Beast reported.


Justice Connection Executive Director Stacey Young said staff are "being asked to put loyalty to the president over the Constitution, the rule of law, and their professional ethical obligations."

The demands of Trump's second term appear to be too much for some staffers, with walkouts in the face of questionable ethical decisions reported. Three assistant U.S. attorneys who refused to dismiss New York Mayor Eric Adams' case explained the department had given in to "obedience" over everything.



In a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, they wrote, "There is no greater privilege than to work for an institution whose mandate is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. We will not abandon this principle to keep our jobs."



The letter also noted some had "decided that obedience supersedes all else." Anam Rahman Petit, an immigration judge who said she was terminated without explanation, believes the staffing changes across the DOJ and other parts of the administration are an attempt to "reshape the bench with individuals more likely to deny cases without regard for due process."

Trial attorney Barbara Schwabauer is another staffer who left office, resigning in August and over changes in department prioritites.

She wrote there was a "hollow leadership that disregards longstanding interpretations of civil rights law, upends Division and Departmental norms, and values perceived loyalty above the meritocratic principles it claims to espouse."

Messages featured also include one from Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, who wrote, "Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place."

 

[mandrill]

Federal judge says immigration officers in Colorado can only arrest those at risk of fleeing


DENVER (AP) — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that immigration officers in Colorado can only arrest people without a warrant if they think those people are likely to flee.

U.S. District Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson issued the order in a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and other lawyers.

They’re representing four people, including asylum-seekers, who were arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement without warrants this year as part of President Donald Trump’s increased immigration enforcement. The lawsuit accuses immigration officers of indiscriminately arresting Latinos to meet enforcement goals without evaluating what’s required to legally detain them.

Jackson said each of those who sued had longstanding ties to their communities and no reasonable officer could have concluded they were likely to flee before getting a warrant to arrest them.

Before arresting anyone without a warrant, immigration officers must have probable cause to believe both that someone is in the country illegally and that they are likely to flee before an arrest warrant can be obtained, under federal law, he said. Jackson also said immigration officers needed to document the reasons for why they are arresting someone.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, called it an “activist ruling” and said the department follows the law.

“Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” she said in a statement.

The ruling is similar to one made earlier this year in a case brought by another chapter of the ACLU in California involving arrests by Border Patrol agents. The government has appealed that ruling.

Another judge had also issued a restraining order barring federal agents from stopping people based solely on their race, language, job or location in the Los Angeles area after finding that they were conducting indiscriminate stops. The Supreme Court lifted that order in September.

McLaughlin suggested the government would appeal the Colorado ruling.

“The Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question elsewhere, and we look forward to further vindication in this case as well,” she said.

Colleen Slevin, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Noem decided not to turn flights around after judge’s order, DOJ says


Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was behind a decision not to turn deportation flights around after a judge’s order, Justice Department lawyers revealed this week.

Tuesday’s court filing marked the first time the U.S. government revealed who was responsible for handing accused Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s March order to turn the flights around. The government's refusal to do so has led to a criminal contempt inquiry, which Boasberg said he was moving forward with last week.

The flights, this past March, have become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation strategy, and his administration’s pattern of defying court orders, according to some judges.

The DOJ explained this week that after the judge ordered the flights to return to the U.S., Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and another DOJ official, provided Homeland Security Acting General Counsel Joseph Mazzara with “legal advice” related to the planes that had already taken off. Mazzara then passed that information along to Noem.

“After receiving that legal advice, Secretary Noem directed that the AEA [Alien Enemies Act] detainees who had been removed from the United States before the Court’s order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador,” the DOJ lawyers wrote.

The Independent has asked the Department of Homeland Security for comment.

The DOJ insisted that Noem’s decision “was lawful and was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order.”

The government has maintained that it did not violate the court’s March 15 order. Regarding Judge Boasberg’s contempt inquiry, DOJ lawyers said “no further proceedings are warranted or appropriate.”

In March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 for the fourth time in U.S. history, stating “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

More than 200 Venezuelan men were on board planes, bound for El Salvador and the country’s notorious CECOT prison, when the American Civil Liberties Union challenged their removal.

Hundreds of Venezuelan men, accused by the Trump administration of being gang members, were removed from the U.S. and sent to El Salvador earlier this year (Getty Images)
Boasberg ordered the government to temporarily halt their removals, including turning around flights that were midair.

The government has argued that there were discrepancies between the judge’s oral directives at the hearing, and his written order produced shortly after.

While Boasberg’s oral directives stated that removed class members “need to be returned to the United States,” the judge’s written order “said nothing about returning class members who had already been removed,” the DOJ lawyers wrote in the Tuesday filing.

In April, Boasberg said the government’s failure to return those flights to the shows “a willful disregard” that is “sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

A divided federal appeals court in August tossed Boasberg’s bid to pursue criminal contempt. A separate panel this month found that the judge could continue with his inquiry.

"The district court's order here was a measured and essential response to what it reasonably perceived as shocking executive branch conduct," the panel wrote.

 

[mandrill]

Supreme Court won't immediately let Trump administration fire copyright office head


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won't immediately allow the Trump administration to fire the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, instead delaying a decision until after they rule in two other high-profile firing cases.

The justices' Wednesday order leaves in effect for now lower court rulings that held that the official, Shira Perlmutter, could not be unilaterally fired.

The case is the latest that relates to Trump’s authority to install his own people at the head of federal agencies. The Supreme Court has largely allowed Trump to fire officials, even as court challenges proceed.

Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have allowed Perlmutter to be fired as her lawsuit proceeds. The court majority, though, decided to wait to make a decision until after they rule in two other lawsuits over Trump firings.

Arguments are set for December in the first case, over the removal of Rebecca Slaughter as a member of the Federal Trade Commission.

And in January the court will hear the case of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, who remains in her job despite Trump's attempt to fire her.

Rulings are expected weeks or months after the court hears arguments.

Perlmutter's case concerns an office that is within the Library of Congress. She is the register of copyrights and also advises Congress on copyright issues.

Despite the ties to Congress, the register “wields executive power” in regulating copyrights, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court.

Perlmutter claims Trump fired her in May because he disapproved of advice she gave to Congress in a report related to artificial intelligence. Perlmutter had received an email from the White House notifying her that “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately,” her office said.

A divided appellate panel ruled that Perlmutter could keep her job while the case moves forward.

Perlmutter’s attorneys have argued that she is a renowned copyright expert. She has served as register of copyrights since then-Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden appointed her to the job in October 2020.

Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to replace Hayden at the Library of Congress. The White House fired Hayden amid criticism from conservatives that she was advancing a “woke” agenda.

Mark Sherman And Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Trump, Alina Habba ordered to pay $1M for lawsuit against Clinton


A federal appeals court unanimously upheld a penalty of nearly $1 million against President Donald Trump and attorney Alina Habba for bringing a “frivolous” lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey and other individuals.

In a decision released Wednesday, a panel of three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Trump and Habba committed “sanctionable conduct” by filing the suit three years ago. They also affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case.

The 36-page opinion was written by Chief Judge William Pryor Jr., an appointee of former President George W. Bush. It was joined by Andrew Brasher and Embry Kidd — appointees of former President Joe Biden and Trump.

“Many of Trump’s and Habba’s legal arguments were indeed frivolous,” Pryor wrote, adding the pair provided “no reason” to reverse the initial ruling and associated penalty.

Following the decision, a spokesperson for the president’s legal team told Axios that “Trump will continue to pursue this matter to its just and rightful conclusion.”



The court ruled that Trump and Habba committed “sanctionable conduct” by filing lawsuit against the parties in 2022. (AFP via Getty Images)
The ruling marks the latest setback in Trump’s attempt to punish his political foes.

Earlier this week, a federal judge tossed the Department of Justice’s cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that the prosecutor was unlawfully appointed. And last week, a federal appeals court affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss Trump’s defamation suit against CNN over the network’s coverage of his claims that the 2020 election was rigged. The court called his arguments “meritless.”

Trump filed the suit against Clinton, Comey, the Democratic National Committee and dozens of others in 2022, alleging they conspired to “weave a false narrative” about him “by fabricating a story that he and his campaign colluded with Russia.”

He and Habba, his then attorney, accused Clinton — the Democratic nominee for president in 2016 — of running with this narrative to “discredit, delegitimize and defame” him.

The president maintained that the “conspiracy” to link his campaign to Russia remained ongoing for years, and that he endured a minimum of $24 million in resulting damages, including legal fees.



In 2023, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida, said “no reasonable lawyer would have filed” the suit. (Getty)
But, in 2023, Donald Middlebrooks, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida, tossed the case.

“This case should never have been brought,” Middlebrooks, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote at the time. “Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it.”

He ordered Habba and Trump — who was then living in Florida — to fork over $937,989 to the defendants to help recoup the cost of legal fees.

In their Wednesday ruling, the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit panel wrote that Middlebrooks properly considered Trump’s “pattern of misusing the courts” and that he “did not clearly err” in making his decision.

The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international repor

 

[mandrill]

Backlash mounts as Trump weighs firing of FBI director Kash Patel

 

[mandrill]

Trump's FBI described their work on Epstein files as 'special redaction project'


President Donald Trump may have signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law, but his FBI has reportedly been hard at work keeping certain parts secret ahead of their release.

That's according to a recent Bloomberg article, which reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has reportedly allocated nearly $1 million in overtime pay to agents in an operation known as the "Epstein Transparency Project," with some reportedly maligning the effort as the "Special Redaction Project." The initiative involved an estimated 1,000 FBI agents working out of a facility in Winchester, Virginia (Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Mark, previously said a "pretty good source" told him the DOJ was redacting the Epstein files in Virginia).

Bloomberg reported that between March 17 and March 22 of this year, the bureau spent $851,344 alone. Agents also clocked 4,737 hours of overtime pay between January and July of this year, poring through the DOJ's remaining evidence pertaining to the deceased sex trafficker.

Agents specifically spent their time on “search warrant execution photos,” “street surveillance video" and aerial footage, as well as documents relating to the investigation into Epstein’s death in prison in 2019. The administration is currently working on a 30-day deadline to release the files under the legislation Trump signed into law earlier this month.

The New York Times reported in July that the DOJ's remaining Epstein documents number roughly 100,000 pages, and that FBI agents combed through them on four separate occasions earlier this year. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel reportedly instructed the FBI to flag any mentions of Trump in the files.



According to a July report from ABC News, there is still a significant amount of Epstein-related evidence that has yet to see the light of day. The FBI's index of the evidence includes "40 computers and electronic devices, 26 storage drives, more than 70 CDs and six recording devices," with those devices collectively containing "more than 300 gigabytes of data."

"The evidence also includes approximately 60 pieces of physical evidence, including photographs, travel logs, employee lists, more than $17,000 in cash, five massage tables, blueprints of Epstein's island and Manhattan home, four busts of female body parts, a pair of women's cowboy boots and one stuffed dog," the report continued.

The FBI is also in possession of a logbook of visitors to Epstein's "Little Saint James" Island, which housed his private compound, as well as a list simply described as a "document with names." It remains unclear whether that document is the rumored "Epstein client list" that Bondi has said does not exist.

 

[mandrill]

Trump DOJ targets another Dem for mortgage fraud


The Trump administration has targeted another Democrat known for criticizing the president.

Representative Eric Swalwell is reportedly next in line and is now facing an investigation for mortgage fraud.

Investigation


Bill Pulte referred Swalwell to the Justice Department for a federal criminal investigation. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump’s top housing official, has referred Swalwell to the Justice Department for a federal criminal investigation.

According to NBC News, the claims of mortgage and tax fraud involve Swalwell’s home in Washington, D.C.

MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin explained the legal and political issues involved in Swalwell’s case: “I will say, for members of Congress, this is a particularly fraught topic because, as you know, if you were to ask many members of Congress, where is your primary residence, that would be a very challenging question to answer,” she said. “Many of them established their households in Washington, D.C. And at the same time, their home base is wherever their state is.”

Legal patterns


Swalwell’s case is similar to Senator Adam Schiff’s. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
Rubin pointed out that Swalwell’s investogation is similar to Senator Adam Schiff’s. He is also facing a federal inquiry over allegations that he misrepresented his primary residence.

“That is the same allegation that has been leveled against Sen. Adam Schiff, also of California, and also a long-term political adversary of the president’s,” she added.

Questionable timing


The timing of the probe raises questions about the administration’s motives. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
The reporter suggested that the timing of the probe raises questions about the administration's motives.

“It’s not lost on me that both congressman Swalwell and Sen. Schiff were members of the impeachment committees, or the groups of impeachment managers who went to the Senate on each of Trump’s two impeachment trials during his first term,” she said.

Rubin also noted that Swalwell has filed a lawsuit against Trump for the damage caused from the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Swalwell’s response


Swalwell called himself© Knewz (CA)
Swalwell posted on X, calling himself “the most vocal critic of Donald Trump over the last decade.”

“Like James Comey and John Bolton, Adam Schiff and Lisa Cook, Letitia James and the dozens more to come — I refuse to live in fear in what was once the freest country in the world. Of course, I will not end my lawsuit against [Trump]. And I will not stop speaking out against the president and speaking up for Californians," he said.

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Trump says he's barring South Africa from participating in next year's G20 summit near Miami


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he is barring South Africa from participating in the Group of 20 summit next year at his Miami-area club and will stop all payments and subsidies to the country over its treatment of a U.S. government representative at this year’s global meeting.


Trump chose not to have an American delegation attend the recent summit hosted by South Africa, saying he did so because white Afrikaners were being violently persecuted. It is a claim that South Africa, which was mired for decades in racial apartheid, has rejected as baseless.


The Republican president, in a social media post, said South Africa had refused to hand over its G20 hosting responsibilities to a senior representative of the U.S. Embassy when the summit ended over the weekend.

“Therefore, at my direction, South Africa will NOT be receiving an invitation to the 2026 G20, which will be hosted in the Great City of Miami, Florida next year,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“South Africa has demonstrated to the World they are not a country worthy of Membership anywhere,” he said, “and we are going to stop all payments and subsidies to them, effective immediately.”

In some ways, Trump views next year's G20 summit as personal, given that he announced it will be at his golf club in Doral, Florida.

This year's summit in Johannesburg, the first held in Africa, was boycotted by the United States, a G20 founding member and the world’s biggest economy. The meeting's declaration, giving more attention to issues that affect developing countries, went unsigned by Washington, and the Trump administration expressed its opposition to South Africa’s agenda, especially the parts that focus on climate change.

On Monday, the U.S. took over the rotating presidency of the G20, leaving the long-term impact of the South African declaration unclear.

By tradition, the host country hands over a symbolic wooden gavel to the nation taking over the G20 presidency. But there was no American official on hand to receive it from South African President Cyril Ramaphosa because of the boycott.

The U.S. wanted to send a representative from its embassy. South Africa refused, saying it was an insult for Ramaphosa to hand over to what it called a junior official.

Trump has claimed that white Afrikaner farmers in South Africa are being killed and that their land is being seized. The South African government and others, including some Afrikaners themselves, say Trump's claims are the result of misinformation.

South Africa has been a target for Trump since he returned to office at the start of the year, with his administration casting the country as anti-American because of its diplomatic ties with China, Russia and Iran.

Last month, the Trump administration announced it would restrict the number of refugees admitted annually to the U.S. to 7,500, with most of the spots reserved for white South Africans. Trump had suspended the refugee program on his first day in office in January. Since then only a trickle have entered the country, mostly white South Africans. In May, the administration welcomed a group of 59 white South Africans as refugees.

Afrikaners are South Africans who are descended mainly from Dutch but also French and German colonial settlers who first came to the country in the 17th century.

Afrikaners were at the heart of the apartheid system of white minority rule from 1948-1994, leading to decades of hostility between them and South Africa’s Black majority. But Afrikaners are not a homogenous group, and some fought against apartheid. There are an estimated 2.7 million Afrikaners in South Africa’s population of 62 million.

Josh Boak, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Federal judge says trial for Wisconsin judge accused of helping immigrant will go on next month


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge said Wednesday that the trial for a Wisconsin judge charged with illegally helping an immigrant evade federal agents will go on as planned next month, brushing past talk of a possible plea agreement.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman told prosecutors and attorneys representing Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan during a hearing to assume the trial will begin as planned on Dec. 11 with jury selection.

Federal prosecutors charged Dugan in April with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. According to court documents, Dugan was set to hear a state battery case in April against 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an immigrant who was in the country illegally. Federal agents learned he was scheduled to appear in her courtroom and traveled to the Milwaukee County Courthouse to apprehend him.

Dugan learned the agents were outside her courtroom and led Flores-Ruiz out through a private door, according to the documents. He found his way outside the courthouse but agents caught him after a foot chase. The Department of Homeland Security announced this month that he has been deported.

Dugan faces six years in prison if she's convicted on both the obstruction and concealment charges. U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel said last week that plea negotiations were underway but Dugan wasn't interested in a deal.

Her defense team has insisted she's innocent and is preparing for trial, arguing that she was acting in her official capacity as a judge when she led Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom. Still, Schimel's remarks raised questions about what might happen next in the case.

No one from Schimel's office or Dugan's attorneys mentioned the prospect of a deal during Wednesday's hearing, the last one scheduled ahead of Dugan's trial. They instead focused on the logistics of jury selection and trial procedure.

Steven Biskupic, Dugan's lead attorney, told Adelman that the two sides have already stricken 34 potential jurors based on responses to a questionnaire they sent out gauging their political biases. The two sides said they may need two days to select jurors from the pool of 90 or so remaining prospects.

Dugan’s indictment has intensified the clash between President Donald Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republican’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

Democrats accuse the Trump administration of trying to blunt judicial opposition to the crackdown by making an example of Dugan. The administration has vilified Dugan on social media, posting photos of her being led out of the courthouse in handcuffs and labeling her an activist judge.

Biskupic said that he wants to make each potential juror fill out another questionnaire about their biases on the way into the courtroom on the selection days, saying publicity over the case is continuing. Adelman agreed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling told Adelman the government plans to call 25 to 28 witnesses, including federal immigration agents and witnesses who saw what happened in Dugan's courtroom and in the courthouse. Biskupic told the judge that the government also plans to introduce about a half-hour's worth of recordings made in Dugan's courtroom.


The government's case will take at least four days, Frohling said. Biskupic did not offer any details about his witnesses or the potential length of his side of the case.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys did not speak with reporters on their way out of the hearing. Dugan attended the proceeding but said nothing. She also left without speaking with reporters.

Todd Richmond, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Court transcripts show Border Patrol official Greg Bovino dodging questions about use of force


CHICAGO (AP) — Newly released transcripts of private interviews with a senior U.S. Border Patrol official and other authorities leading the immigration crackdown in the Chicago area reveal tense exchanges as leaders dodged questions about high-profile uses of force.

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol leader behind the operation that has netted more than 3,000 arrests since September, sat for the sworn deposition over three days in late October and early November. He left Chicago this month to lead a similar operation in North Carolina and is expected to oversee another in New Orleans starting as soon as next week.

Hundreds of pages of transcripts from the deposition released Tuesday shed light on key moments noted by U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis in a blistering 223-page opinion this month in a lawsuit alleging federal agents used excessive force against protesters, journalists and clergy members.

Ellis issued a preliminary injunction earlier this month restricting agents from using physical force and chemical agents like tear gas and pepper balls, unless necessary or to prevent “an immediate threat.” A federal appeals court later temporarily halted the order. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, called the appeals court ruling “a win for the rule of law and for the safety of every law enforcement officer.”

U.S. Border Patrol Commander at large Gregory Bovino looks on, Monday, Nov. 17, 2025, in Charlotte, N.C. (AP Photo/Matt Kelley)© The Associated Press
Deposition transcripts reveal tense clashes between attorneys

The deposition was heated from its first moments as U.S. Department of Justice attorney Sarmad Khojasteh complained about an attorney representing the coalition of protesters, journalists and faith leaders not shaking Bovino's hand as they arrived.

“That was noted," Khojasteh said on Oct. 30. “I get your position. This is like the hill you’re going to die on here. That’s fine. Treat him with respect. Treat me with respect.”

“Treat the process with respect, sir,” the plaintiffs' attorney Locke Bowman responded.

The tense standoffs between the attorneys also included Khojasteh calling Bowman a “petulant old man” as Bowman accused Khojasteh of hindering the proceedings through constant objections.

"Stop it. Just stop it," Bowman finally said after Khojasteh consistently objected to questions throughout the deposition.

Bovino evades questions about immigration agents' use of force

The transcripts also include hours of Bovino giving evasive responses as he defended agents' use of force and characterized protesters as “violent rioters.”

He was repeatedly questioned over an Oct. 23 protest in the historically Mexican-American neighborhood of Little Village, where Bovino initially claimed he threw tear gas canisters after being hit with a rock, which he said hurt but did not break skin. As he was questioned, Bovino admitted he was “mistaken” and the rock was thrown after he threw the tear gas. Ellis has accused Bovino of lying about the incident in court.

When he was asked if he threw “a canister of CS gas,” Bovino said he did not.

“Okay. Why not?” he was asked.

“You said canister. I threw two. That’s — that’s plural,” Bovino responded.

Bovino also said he believed agents were justified in using tear gas in a residential neighborhood prior to a Halloween parade before admitting he had not reviewed any footage of the incident.

He continued to dodge questions, even after being shown a clip of himself tackling a man to the ground during a protest outside a federal immigration facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview. After attorneys played footage of the man's arrest, Bovino repeatedly denied that he tackled “an older gentleman” in the video and dodged questions on whether he used force. Bovino acknowledged that he made physical contact with the man, but denied that he applied force.

Other officials dodge questions about ‘Operation Midway Blitz’


Private interviews with other federal officials — Russell Hott, a US. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement official, and Daniel Parra, deputy chief patrol agent at Customs and Border Protection — also showed bickering between attorneys and lawyers representing the federal government consistently objecting to questioning.

During his deposition, Hott acknowledged that ICE agents do not receive regular training on crowd control and that he too had no crowd control experience before arriving in Broadview, the site of tense demonstrations over the last few months. He also admitted that the consistent use of tear gas and pepper balls stopped after Illinois State Police took over responding to these protests.

Hott also dodged questions about use of force, including by saying he doesn't know the context when asked if use of force was justified against a pastor shot in the head with pepper balls while praying. Parra, meanwhile, repeated “I do not recall” when asked about specific incidents in use of force reports presented by attorneys during his deposition.


Parra also admitted that Border Patrol agents do not typically work in dense urban areas or in situations where they encounter protesters — an issue brought up by Ellis in court as she slammed agents for engaging in high-speed car chases and using crowd control techniques she said were inappropriate for urban areas.

“This isn’t the border,” she said.

Parra also said he could not "think of at the moment" any evidence that Ellis’ restrictions on use of force are adversely affecting Border Patrol enforcement operations. This comes after attorneys argued in court that complying with the requirements would halt immigration enforcement operations.

Christine Fernando, The Associated Press