Two of the documents he released were politicized documents, one from DHS falsely claiming that states that don’t use a flawed SAVE database to validate their voting rolls don’t care about the election, and one from an unidentified entity (probably CISA) laying out what it claims are threats that hostile entities can access voting rolls.

The latter includes a list that is mostly — but not entirely — focused on foreign attempts to breach voting rolls.

I’ve added links to the sources of the stories in the list below, which are placed at the end of the report, perhaps to hide the slovenly work behind the report, or perhaps to hide the reliance on reports that show the Russia Russia Russia hoax was very real.

• Russian government cyber actors attempted to identify and exploit SQL database vulnerabilities in webservers and databases. The FBI reported that they lacked insight into the extent to which the attempts were successful. However, in at least two separate instances, Russian actors accessed voter registration files from a US county website.2 (June 2016) [Mueller’s GRU hacking indictment]
• The District Attorney in Riverside County, California revealed that a bad actor used the state’s voter registration website to change the party affiliation of a large number of registered voters. The individual made the changes by leveraging access to voters’ personal information (name, date of birth, driver’s license, or Social Security number) to make the change without the voters’ knowledge or consent.3 (July 2016) [local news story]
• Russian actors hacked the website of a state board of elections and stole information related to approximately 500,000 voters, including names, addresses, partial social security numbers, dates of birth, and driver’s license numbers.4 (July 2016) [Mueller’s GRU hacking indictment]
• Russian actors hacked into the computers of a U.S. vendor that supplied software used to verify voter registration information.5 (August 2016) [Mueller’s GRU hacking indictment]
• DHS and FBI confirmed that Russian actors conducted election system reconnaissance to identify vulnerable databases, usernames, and passwords in webpages of state and local governments and probed voter registration database in all 50 states. They could not confirm how many of the probes resulted in successful breaches.6 In January 2017, WH officials reported that the federal assessment was that networks in at least seven states were compromised.7 (2016) [bad link to SSCI report, NBC News report]
• Arizona experienced a breach and the Illinois State Board of Elections announced that attackers gained access to voter registration data, including names, addresses, birth dates, and partial Social Security numbers.8 (2016) [Reuters report]
• Kennesaw State University, which was responsible for supporting Georgia’s voter registration database, was found to expose nearly 7 million voter records including driver’s license and Social Security numbers of registered voters. The data may have been exposed for as long as seven months.9 (March 2017) [Atlanta news report]
• Chinese state-sponsored cyber actors aggressively targeted U.S. critical infrastructure to steal sensitive data and personally identifiable information (PII).10 (August 2021) [USIC report, actually dated July 2021]
• CISA and the FBI reported that members of the Iranian Republic Guard Corp attempted to exploit websites to obtain voter registration data. They confirm that the actor successfully obtained voter registration data in at least one state. They could not determine if the attempts were successful in the other 11 states targeted.11 (September 2020) [2020 CISA report developed under Chris Krebs]
• Pro-Russian hacktivists claimed to have conducted a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack that resulted in temporarily restricted access to a public-facing US state election office website. 12 (2022) [December 2023 report]
• Suspected Chinese cyber actors scanned both election-related and non-election state government websites. Other suspected PRC cyber actors also collected publicly available U.S. voter information.13 (2022) [the same December 2023 report]
• New Hampshire election officials discovered that a vendor selected to replace the state’s aging voter registration database had offshored part of the project. The software had been configured to connect to servers in Russia, and a programmer had hard-coded the Ukrainian national anthem into the database. The issues were corrected prior to deployment.14 (2023) [HS Today blurb of 2024 Politico story]

The exception to the foreign focus of this list is a local story, dating to 2016, reporting allegations made by Riverside County’s DA that the rest of the story suggests were not entirely substantiated that someone had changed the party registration of voters, preventing them from voting in an election.

Using the state’s voter registration website, someone with access to voters’ personal information changed their party affiliations without their knowledge or consent, Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin said Wednesday, July 6.

Hestrin’s comments validate earlier complaints of voter-registration tampering by local Republican Party leaders and others. They also expose a potential flaw in the state’s online voter registration system in which someone can impersonate a voter and change his or her information.

[snip]

And although Hestrin said his office received “a few dozen complaints,” Riverside County’s registrar of voters has reported just two complaints from voters who said their party affiliation was changed.

[snip]

Hestrin said in some cases, the switch was due to voter confusion. But a preliminary investigation revealed that someone with access to Social Security numbers and other private data went to the state’s voter registration website, pretended to be a voter and changed that voter’s affiliation, the district attorney said.

“This appears to have happened in several of the cases,” he said.

Registered Republicans as well as Democrats complained about party affiliation switches, Hestrin said, adding that complaints came from elected officials, political candidates and regular voters.

This local news report is the single one that lays out the risk posed by accessing voter rolls: That citizens will not be able to vote.

The balance of that document describes the risks of identity theft.

All that is precisely what Trump himself has done; indeed, the DHS document is itself part of the plot to deprive citizens of their right to vote. This is what a lawsuit from League of Women Voters aims to stop (complaint; amended complaint): the sharing of the inaccurate SAVE list based on Social Security Administration data DOGE accessed, which states — including Texas — have used to strip legal voters of their right to vote.

As a declaration from a Doe plaintiff who was naturalized when they were 21 described, they were struck from the voter rolls after purportedly receiving notice that their registration was being canceled (they claim they never received the notice, and when their county later sent it to them, it was dated contemporaneously).

11. After voting in the November 2025 election, I received a letter from my county elections office, dated mid December 2025, titled “Notice of Cancellation of Voter Registration.” A true and correct copy of the letter, with certain identifying information redacted, is attached as Exhibit 1 (“the Cancellation Notice”).

12. The exterior of the envelope in which the letter was enclosed had no markings indicating it was official election mail or that the enclosed letter had any bearing on my voter registration.

13. The Cancellation Notice states that “[n]otice is hereby given that your voter registration has been cancelled in [redacted to preserve pseudonymity] County. The reason for cancellation was: The reason for cancellation is due to failure to respond to a Notice of Examination mailed to you by this office over 30 days ago. (Sec. 16.033, Texas Code).”

[snip]

22. In the third phone call, the employee I spoke to informed me that my name had appeared on a list of suspected noncitizens that the county elections office had received from the Texas Secretary of State’s office back in October 2025 after the Secretary had used DHS’s SAVE system to review the state’s voter rolls. The employee said that my inclusion on that list was the basis for sending the Notice of Examination to me. The employee said that they did not have a scanned copy of the Notice of Examination that the office supposedly sent to me because the office only saves scans of notices if they mail them to a second address. Because they had no scanned copy of a mailed Notice of Examination on file for me, the employee said their response to my records request would likely just be a generic copy of the Notice of Examination. The employee told me the date their records indicate that the Notice of Examination was supposedly sent to me, but the date they provided made no sense to me as it was the same December 2025 date that is on the Cancellation Notice I received.

They were unable to vote in the March 3 primary. Another naturalized citizen, Anthony Nel, was also removed from Texas voter rolls.

Last month, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan prohibited DHS from continuing to mass upload the flawed Social Security data, based in part on the injury that Doe and Nels suffered.

On Tuesday — two days before Trump’s speech — plaintiffs in that case moved to get Judge Sooknanan to enforce her judgment (they say the government used a competing Florida case to create a conflict), though the government claims they are complying with Sooknanan’s order.

Elon Musk’s DOGE boys effectively hacked the Social Security database — the identity threat identified in the (apparent) CISA document. And then DHS shared it with states that are using it to strip legal voters of their right to vote.

And then it issued a document falsely claiming that Texas had identified almost 3,000 illegal voters, when in fact, it had stripped naturalized voters of their right to vote.

The urgent threat to voting rolls comes not from China or Iran or Russia.

It comes from Trump himself.

Robert Graham’s thread on contents.

David Sanger and Dustin Volz on what Trump didn’t show.

The Atlantic on Trump’s failure to actually find any there there.

David Ignatius on the ways the released documents debunk Trump’s claims.

WSJ Editorial on the ways the documents debunk Trump.

Anton Shekhovtsov on Trump’s silence about Russia.

Nina Jankowicz on Trump’s disinformation.

Tom Nichols on the damage this did.

The post The Electoral Roll Tampering Trump Left Out: His Own appeared first on emptywheel.

Beckenbauer Super football boots, from Adidas

Before there was a Nike swoosh, there were two brands above all others: Adidas and Puma. Before that, going back to the 1920s, there were the Dassler Brothers, Adolf (“Adi”) and Rudolf (“Rudi”), in the town of Herzogenaurach in what is now northern Bavaria. The sports shoes produced by Dassler Brothers Shoes (known by a shortened version of the German as “Geda”) were much sought-after, and prior to the 1936 Olympics, Adi gave Jesse Owens a handmade pair of Geda track cleats, crafted using a new method that made the shoes both stronger and lighter. He urged Owens to use them at the Olympics, and Owens finally agreed.

We all know how that turned out.

Prior to WWII, the brothers both joined the Nazi party, because that’s what you did if you were a business man in those days. During the war, they made shoes for the Wehrmacht and Hitlerjugend until their factory was seized and revamped to make weapons, and after the war, they made shoes for the American Army. And then the brothers split the company — and the town – in two. Two stories are told about their split – either because their wives could not get along (a real problem when the two families shared a villa), or because of Rudi’s growing suspicions that his brother got him drafted into the army which included a stint as a prisoner of the Allies. Rudi’s new company was first called Ruda, but quickly shifted to become Puma, and Adi’s half of the company was renamed Adidas. Like the brothers and their town, athletes chose a side – sometimes because of quality, and other times for sponsorship money. Whatever side you chose, those were your people.

Which brings me to those Adidas Beckenbauer Supers. Those aren’t just any Beckenbauer Supers; those are mine.

Back in junior high and high school, I played a lot of soccer/football, but my town didn’t have organized soccer leagues like they did for baseball and basketball. No, I played with a bunch of my classmates from school, many of whom were the children of international graduate students at the local university. They had been playing football since they were young, and we Americans were just trying to keep up. I quickly became enamored with being a goalie, and approached my game with a Gandalf-like “None shall pass!” attitude.

In 1977, I took a trip to England, and among my most prized souvenirs are those Beckenbauer Supers. Der Kaiser, as the West German defender was known, was a legend at the time after leading his team to become the 1974 World Cup champions, and when I saw those boots in the window, I knew I had to have them. Once I got home, I felt invincible whenever I laced them up. My career peaked with a clean sheet in the championship match of my college’s intramural soccer league, and I put that down to these boots. As you can see, I still have them.

That’s also what made me into a huge fan of the World Cup – not just the games, but all the surrounding thrill of victory and the agony of defeat (to borrow a phrase) in all the fans. Because of quirks in calendars, I often spend at least part of the World Cup in the company of a bunch of professional friends at an international conference, which makes the time even better. (Once, a panel discussion that included an Argentinian and a Brazilian became quite fun as each managed to work football puns into their otherwise professional remarks, skewering their colleague and his obviously inferior team.)

But there is also the dark side of football. In the annals of sports corruption, ugly stories abound. Pick a sport, pick a league, and you’ll find it. Gambling, bribery, performance enhancing drugs, rulebreaking that goes unenforced, and all manner of sh*thousery abounds. But some organizations are more institutionally corrupt than others, and two names stand above the rest. One is the International Olympic Committee, where the bribery competition in deciding where the Games should be held is as closely fought as the races on the track. When compared with the IOC, however, FIFA, the governing body of football, says “Hold my beer.”  In 2015, the US Department of Justice led an international investigation that nabbed nine FIFA officials and five corporate executives for racketeering  and led to the departure of FIFA president Sepp Blatter. While folks knew he was up to his ears in corruption, the DOJ couldn’t pin any charges on him particularly, but when so many folks below him were caught, even FIFA knew he had to go.

Enter Gianni Infantino, who was seen as a football technocrat. In the decade since, Infantino has relentlessly focused on two things: money and how to spend it. Every day, he asks himself two questions: How can FIFA extract more money, and how can he spread it around to insure that he keeps his job? The second is simple – provide “develop the game” grants to smaller nations, earning their gratitude and also quietly making it clear that insufficient gratitude might end up turning the spigot off. But the more Infantino wondered about how to extract more money, the more his eyes turned to the United States. Like Willie Sutton, Infantino knew that if you want the money, you go where the money is. And who should be waiting to greet FIFA in 2018 but Donald Trump.

For ten years, FIFA has played the US. Flattering Trump with the FIFA Peace Prize was the ultimate carrot, even as FIFA wielded the stick to get exemptions from paying taxes, special treatment by every local host city, and very specific demands of broadcasters. (Chicago famously looked at FIFAs list of demands, and laughed in their faces, saying “We know a shakedown when we see it. No thanks.”) This included “renaming” iconic stadiums, so that no other entity would get any “free advertising” through the World Cup. So Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City became “Kansas City Stadium” for two months, to the bewilderment of some of the locals, and the same happened everywhere else. Every football fan around the world knows that Mexico City has the Azteca, and not “Mexico City Stadium”. Here in KC, I heard more than one person say “I know where Arrowhead is, but where is this Kansas City Stadium people keep talking about?” It as amusing to me that when the matches got really exciting and tense, the broadcasters forgot themselves and used the names they knew belonged. “Arrowhead is going crazy right now!” Perhaps Infantino docked their pay for that.

After the mess with Trump appearing to call in a favor from Infantino that got a suspended US star back on the field to play in the round of 16 match against Belgium, two things happened. First, every neutral fan instantly started rooting for Belgium. Second, football pundits became to muse longingly for the good old days of Sepp Blatter.

But even the combination of Infantino and Trump has not been enough to dampen my spirit. Two of the four teams playing this weekend – England and Argentina – made their base camps in the metro Kansas City area. So did the Netherlands and Algeria. Visiting fans from all four nations had some similar reactions: they were warmly welcomed by the locals, and they were NOT expecting that. Similar stories are told elsewhere, which says to me that Trump’s anti-immigrant mentality can be overcome by the face-to-face connections of ordinary folks. Among my favorite stories . . .

Both KC and Argentina love their BBQ, but have very different styles, I don’t know how this came to be, but a local KC barbeque joint opened their pits to some visiting Argentinian BBQ pitmasters, and the result was . . . amazing.

Algeria made their base camp at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, just west of KC. A couple of KU students from Algeria heard about it, and immediately set about galvanizing the local community to welcome them. They connected with the local Algerian immigrant community in the southern KC metro area, and taught their friends and neighbors about Algerian food and culture. When the Algerians arrived, they were in tears at the welcome they received. How big was this welcome? A local sportswear shop in Lawrence said they were selling more Algerian jerseys than US jerseys.

I could go on and on. Local weather reporters added Celsius temperatures to their forecasts for the sake of the visitors. Kansas City loves their tailgates, but the Argentina fans take that a step further with banderazos – in essence, tailgate/street parties the night before their matches. Amazing, and the locals loved it. Locals in almost all the cities can say the same. Boston folks talk about the Scottish fans known worldwide as Tartan Army drinking the pubs dry (or at least forcing them to send out for reinforcement kegs from the brewery). Texans can talk about Norway’s Erling Haaland going crazy for cowboy hats and Texas cuisine. Stadium staffers are stunned when the Japanese fans pick up all the trash in their sections, as a way of thanking the hosts for their work.

My favorite match has been Curaçao v Ecuador, in which Curaçao goalie Eloy Room made 15 saves in regulation. (Yes, US keeper Tim Howard holds the full match record of 16, but that was done in a match that was tied and went an extra 30 minutes.) Room was incredible, including several occasions where he’d jump to block a shot, fall to the ground, then leap back to his feet to block another shot off that rebound. The commentators watching the match included several retired goalkeepers, and they too were amazed.

Today, it’s England v France in the 3rd place match, and tomorrow it’s Spain unbreakable defense against Argentina’s unstoppabbly creative offense. Both France and England are playing for a measure of redemption, which should make for a good match. In the final, put me down for an Argentina win. Lionel Messi is the leader in both goals and assists at the World Cup, which says a lot about both him and his team. Yes, he’s gotten older and lost some stamina, but he’s also gotten wiser and craftier. If the defense gives him too much room, he will find space to take the precisely targeted shot that no one but him could see, and the goalie is left to simply take the ball out of the back of the net. If the defense plays him close, he will find a way to make a precisely targeted pass to one of his teammates, who is ready and waiting in precisely the right place at the right time to put the ball in the net themselves. That’s the essential part of Messi’s game: his team trusts him and he trusts them. He doesn’t need to score the winning goal; he just wants the person scoring that goal to be wearing blue and white stripes.

This is an open thread, where all are encouraged to express their thoughts on any subject, even their football/soccer related opinions (as wrong as they might be if you think Spain will win). If you are a resident of one of the host cities, how did things play out where you are?

The post The Weekend of the (Geopolitical) World Cup is Here appeared first on emptywheel.

The Seal of the US Department of State, at least as the moment

Trump’s rehashing of his first administration’s failure to stop election interference was pretty sad, on the surface. He seemed so honestly angry that he failed to do what both Obama and Biden had done – run safe and secure elections – that he did everything but pound the podium with his shoe. It might give you the impression that he really hated election interference.

You would, of course, be wrong. From El Pais’s reporter in Berlin:

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Wednesday pushed back on any potential interference from the United States, or from any other country, in the regional elections to be held in the fall in the federated states of Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) tops the polls.

During the traditional summer press meeting with accredited reporters in the German capital, the politician was asked about a grants program announced by the U.S. State Department to fund civil society organizations in Europe, from which groups close to the AfD could potentially benefit.

“In Germany it is illegal to finance political parties from abroad. It is illegal. That said, I assume that our friends around the world also respect these legal rules that we have imposed in Germany,” the chancellor said forcefully.

A grants program run by the US State Department, you say? You mean this one?

DRL [the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor] requests proposals to strengthen and develop democratic resilience, rule of law, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the defense of human rights in Europe through research, conferences, cultural engagements, and support for civil society to address national sovereignty, migration, censorship, and lawfare challenges in line with shared political philosophy, law, and our common Western civilizational heritage.

Yeah, that whole “to address national sovereignty, migration, censorship, and lawfare” language sure sounds like it was designed to shovel money at the AfD, as well as Nigel Farage’s Reform folks in the UK and Marine Le Pen’s National Party in France, to say nothing of folks further east (and further down the authoritarian path) like Orban. The application deadline is September 30, 2026, and only 2 or three applicants will be successful, so get your applications in soon!

Back in 2025, Vance went to address the AfD rally prior to Germany national elections. Now Trump is eager undermine “national sovereignty” in Europe (to borrow a phrase) by sending $5M to folks working to push his same xenophobic, racist, authoritarian beliefs.

So yeah, call me dubious about Trump’s devotion to standing against election interference. (OK, you could have called me that before last night’s speech, but work with me here.) Trump has made election interference in Europe to be the official policy of the US Department of State, and he’s putting $5M in cash behind that policy.

In the Broadway musical 1776, there is a delightful little exchange between John Dickinson and Benjamin Franklin, about Thomas Jefferson’s suggestion to adopt a declaration, explaining to the world why the colonies were rebelling against the British crown:

John Dickinson: Mr. Jefferson, are you seriously suggesting that we publish a paper declaring to all the world that an illegal rebellion is, in reality, a legal one?
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Oh, Mr. Dickinson, I’m surprised at you. You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as “our rebellion.” It is only in the third person – “their rebellion” – that it is illegal.

I guess this is how Trump views election interference. It’s only illegal in the third person, not the first person.

UPDATE

It seems this is but a small part of the election interference funding coming from the State Department. Just posted by The Guardian:

Donald Trump’s state department intends to allocate $12m to organisations in the UK founded by the prominent Conservatives Jacob Rees-Mogg and Toby Young, the Guardian can reveal.

The intended grants, revealed in US government documents, are part of a package of support for European groups viewed favourably by the Trump administration. Some former US officials have criticised the funding as a misuse of public money to seek influence over foreign politics.

The documents reviewed by the Guardian set out details of the grants for the first time. They include $7m for 878, a “leading British and American think tank” devoted to “the rediscovery of our ancient culture” and “ending mass immigration”.

[snip]

The state department has also set aside $5m for Free Speech Union International, citing its work “promoting free speech and countering digital overregulation across the UK, Europe, and Australia”.

The group is an offshoot of the Free Speech Union (FSU), founded by the Conservative life peer Toby Young, and acts as an umbrella organisation for international sibling groups with similar goals.

The FSU describes itself as “a non-partisan, mass membership public interest body” fighting for anyone who gets into trouble for exercising their freedom of speech, from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to Palestine Action protesters.

I’m shocked – shocked, I tell you.

The post Election Interference is Fine For Me But Not For Thee appeared first on emptywheel.

What Judge Williams has done — in addition to imposing sanctions that will be particularly onerous on Trump’s personal lawyer, but which could strengthen ethics complaints against Blanche and Stan Woodward — is take the unitary executive to its logical conclusion, which would mean that Trump (and his failsons and eponymous corporations) cannot be adverse to the government and so Trump can’t keep using the courts to steal from taxpayers.

From yesterday’s hearing, it seems that the personal lawyer Trump is trying to confirm as Attorney General (who will nevertheless be able to continue serving as AG even if the Senate does not concur), Todd Blanche, plans to simply blow off the judge’s ruling that he is a fraud. Not only did he say he disagrees with it in his confirmation hearing, but he violated the spirit of Judge Williams’ order by calling the attempt to steal taxpayer money a settlement (though that part of the order is only binding on the plaintiffs — Trump and his private team — and formal defendants, Todd Bessent and Frank Bisignano).

But as I said, it is still a legal opinion, one in the Miami Florida District where Trump is trying many of his other shenanigans.

One place it could have a swift impact is on Trump’s attempt to sue the BBC for the way they edited a documentary about Trump’s coup attempt. At issue is Trump’s attempt to prevent BBC from getting US government documents to contest the suit.

Trump has been defying discovery in the lawsuit he chose to file for some time. Back in May, the Beeb defended its extensive discovery demands with Alex Britto, the lawyer Judge Williams referred for bar investigation. Later that month, they asked Magistrate Judge Enjolique Lett to force Trump to provide the necessary discovery, and on June 10, she ordered Trump to start complying or she would issue a default judgement.

In contravention of this Court’s 29 Order Setting Discovery Procedures, Plaintiff failed to submit his position to Defendants and, therefore, failed to submit a joint motion as it relates to 57 Motion for Discovery Hearing Related to Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First Requests for Production and Interrogatories. While counsel are free to disagree with the relief and basis on which the opposing party may seek said relief, they are not permitted to disregard the Court’s orders and procedures. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to respond to Defendants’ 57 Motion for Hearing Related to Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First Requests for Production and Interrogatories on or before June 23, 2026. The response shall not exceed five (5) pages. Failure to do so may result in sanctions including granting the relief by default.

Several weeks later, the US noticed that they might get involved. In the Beeb’s response, invoked Judge Williams’ comments, in an early order, describing the lack of adversity between Trump and the government.

First, the Notice asserts that the United States is “seeking the necessary authorization, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, to participate in this litigation,” and further states that this process “requires coordination with the numerous federal entities served with a subpoena” as well as the “approval of the United States Department of Justice through the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.” See ECF 91 at 2. The conflict of interest is clear and stark on the face of that information. As another Court in this District recently observed, “although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president,” and the agencies and entities with which the government intends to coordinate, as well as the Department of Justice from which the government asserts it will seek approval, “are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction.” See Order at 3, Trump v. IRS, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2026) (Williams, J.). Indeed, “President Trump has issued multiple executive orders which shape the relationship of the agencies of the executive branch to his presidency,” including to assert that “‘[n]o employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law . . . that contravenes the President[’s] . . . opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to . . . positions advanced in litigation[.]” Id. at 3 n.2 (quoting Exec. Order No. 14215, § 7).

The government’s “potential participation” in this matter thus raises profound questions about whether and to what extent the Plaintiff in this case – the sitting President – could and would direct that participation. Defendants therefore request that, if the government ultimately decides to seek participation in this matter, the Court provide Defendants the opportunity to address those questions before the United States is actually permitted to participate. [my emphasis]

On Tuesday, the day after Judge Williams issued their ruling, the US did move to intervene in the BBC case. Among other things (including claiming tons of stuff is publicly available after DOJ deleted loads of it and stating it might contest the authenticity of what was preserved elsewhere), they disclaim any conflict of interest.

5 The BBC wrongly suggests the United States has a conflict of interest in filing this statement. See ECF No. 93. Plaintiff is suing a non-U.S. government entity in his personal capacity over a documentary the BBC released while Plaintiff was still a private citizen. See Compl. § 105. It was the BBC, not Plaintiff, that chose to seek third-party discovery from the Federal Government.

To be sure, the fight may never get this far. For example, Trump (and DOJ) contest the scope of Trump’s lawsuit, whether it is just about a very specific edit in the Panorama video or a larger, sustainable claim, that Trump knew his mob would respond with violence.

And DOJ is misrepresenting the scope of the Beeb’s requests. Just pages after noting that BBC is asking for two memos warning of violence and their backup (here are all the subpoenas),

FBI’s 11-request subpoena seeks all documents and communications from the Washington Field Office about violence and the use of weapons on January 6; all documents and communications referenced in reports prepared by field offices in New Orleans and Norfolk about protest planning activities, as well as communications related to these reports involving the Washington DC area’s Joint Terrorism Task Force;

It complains that the Beeb isn’t using the publicly available versions of the memos themselves.

But there is no evidence in the BBC’s requests that it considered public sources of information prior to issuing the subpoenas. For instance, the BBC’s FBI subpoena seeks two memoranda prepared by field offices in New Orleans and Norfolk, ECF No. 61-2 at pgs. 599–600, but these memoranda have long been publicly available as part of Congress’s release of materials. See GovInfo, “Potential for Violence in Washington, D.C. Area in Connection with Planned ‘StopTheSteal’ Protest on 6 January 2021,” https://perma.cc/9E4V-4QHF; GovInfo, “Communication and Establishment of a Quick Reaction Force by USPERs Related to an Identified Protest in Washington, District of Columbia, on 6 January 2021,” https://perma.cc/S4TD-ZQZB. The BBC apparently did not review the many different sources of FBI records that are already in the public domain

But this fight could soon pivot on whether Trump’s personal lawyer turned AG is attempting to protect further transparency about Trump’s role in a coup by claiming Trump does not control the entirety of the government that, he claims, he does control.

The post To Beeb Adverse or Not to Beeb, That Is the Question appeared first on emptywheel.

Blanche has been remarkably incompetent in the lead-up to the hearing. In Alaska last week, he scoffed at a letter signed by 1,200 former DOJ officials opposing his nomination, noting that 1,200 was just a small percentage of the 40,000 people who worked at DOJ.

“There’s 1,200 former DOJ employees, I think, out of what — 40,000?” Blanche told Alaska’s News Source. “I don’t know. I’m not a math guy, but that’s not a very high percentage.”

The letter was sent Tuesday by Justice Connection, an organization of former DOJ alumni, to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Dick Durbin. The signatories — who say they served across 14 Republican and Democratic administrations — focused their criticism not on Blanche’s policy decisions, but on what they called his systematic dismantling of the DOJ’s career workforce and“to support DOJ’s apolitical workforce.”

“In the coming weeks, many will rightly underscore the corruption and abuses that have defined the Justice Department under Todd Blanche’s leadership,” the letter reads, “the vindictive prosecutions and investigations of the President’s foes; the deals designed to reward lawbreakers with taxpayer dollars; the erasure of accountability for January 6; the mishandling of the Epstein files; and the denigration of judges and repeated violations of their orders.”

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has been celebrating a letter quoted but not linked in [!!!] the Federalist citing 77 people who support Blanche.

“His exemplary record as Deputy Attorney General — and now as Acting Attorney General — demonstrates he is the right man for the right time,” states the letter signed by dozens of former DOJ deputies, assistant AGs, U.S. attorneys, and others. The group includes Gary Barnett, former acting chief of staff and senior counselor to the attorney general; Ketan Bhirud, former associate deputy attorney general; Rachel Bissex, former deputy chief of staff and counselor to the attorney general; and Jonathan D. Brightbill, former acting assistant attorney general.

Using Blanche’s math, he is supported by just 0.2% of those 40,000 people (though Senate Republicans screen-capped, but did not link, a different letter signed by 100 people who support Blanche.

The White House’s in-house troll (whom I’m convinced is a mole because they always make Trump and his people look terrible) calls that “massive support.”

I expect most of the Democrats’ focus will be on Blanche’s Epstein cover-up and his fraudulent attempt to steal $1.8 billion from taxpayers and excuse Trump’s tax crimes.

But I hope Dems also ask why, under Blanche’s watch, DOJ is hiring fraudsters like Kurt Olsen and allowing Kash Patel to “surge” 160 FBI analysts (firing those who refuse) to help create propaganda for a Trump speech attempting to discredit democracy again. I can’t help but think the speech was timed for this week, when Jay Clayton will also testify to serve as Director of National Intelligence. Yes, Trump wants to lay the groundwork for a coup, just as he did in 2020. But he may also use renewed efforts to destroy democracy to push to get Clayton and Blanche confirmed quickly.

Todd Blanche has turned DOJ not just into a criminal protection organization — as might be expected from Trump’s defense attorney — but into a crime ring itself. And Democrats must lay out that any Republican who sanctions such an effort is, themselves, part of the crime spree.

The post Todd Blanche Confirmation Open Thread appeared first on emptywheel.

Billionaire Elon Musk likely broke Wisconsin law when he handed out $1 million checks to voters in the 2025 state Supreme Court election, a bipartisan panel has found.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission last week referred two complaints to the Brown County district attorney’s office, which can choose to bring criminal charges over violating the state law against election bribery. Prosecutors have 40 days to report back to the commission.

[snip]

The complaints, which are confidential under state law, were brought by voters in Milwaukee and Green Bay, which is in Brown County. Musk handed out checks at a rally there just days before the election.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission, consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans, voted 5-1 in closed session on Thursday to refer the complaints to the district attorney, the commission’s spokesperson, Emilee Miklas, said.

Brown County District Attorney David Lasee, a Republican, did not immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday.

The motion approved by the elections commission said it found probable cause that Musk broke Wisconsin law by making a social media post offering $1 million to people who voted in the Supreme Court election “in order to induce them to vote in that election.”

Meanwhile, Elon is fighting (objection, appeal) a Magistrate Judge’s order that a lawsuit by two people challenging his fraudulent contest can move forward and force Musk to sit for deposition.

Donald Trump and Harmeet Dhillon won’t shut up about election fraud. But somehow they don’t seem to notice the increasing claims against African immigrant Elon Musk for election irregularities.

The post African Immigrant Accused of Bribing Wisconsin Voters, Harmeet Dhillon Does Nothing appeared first on emptywheel.

Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1. For that reason, Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. Myers, 272 U. S., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. The President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

While that might have happened in the case of Jan Carey, a veteran prosecuted for burning a flag after Trump issued an Executive Order claiming to make that a crime, DOJ dismissed that case before turning over discovery that might implicate Trump.

But in Trump’s IRS lawsuit, Judge Kathleen Williams did similar work in declaring that Trump and DOJ had engaged in a fraudulent settlement, holding the Unitary Executive to account in several ways.

First, she pointed to the decisions granting the President increasingly unbridled authority over the Executive to point out there’s no way Trump can be adverse to the Executive Branch he runs.

Here, Defendants are the Treasury Department—an Executive agency—and the IRS, the largest bureau of the Treasury Department. Both Defendants are unquestionably part of the Executive Branch and ultimately answer to its Chief Executive, President Trump. President Trump’s authority to appoint and remove federal officers as he sees fit is evidence of his ability to exercise control over Defendants. See U.S. CONST. ART. II, § 2. Article II explicitly states that “[t]he President shall . . . appoint . . . all Other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for[.]” Id.; see also Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 63 (1890) (noting that the ministerial officers are marshals of the United States who are “appointed by the president,” and are “removable from office at his pleasure[.]”). While the Constitution strategically allows “individual executive officials” to “wield significant authority,” such “authority remains subject to the ongoing supervision and control of the elected President.” Seila Law LLC, 591 U.S. at 200; see also Br. for Pet’r at 10, Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. __ (2026) (No. 25-332) (“Article II requires that the President control all executive power—especially the authority wielded by agency heads, who are ‘the most important’ of the President’s subordinates and who ‘must be the President’s alter ego[s]’ in their agencies.”) (citing Myers, 272 U.S. at 133); id. at 2 (“Removal is the President’s indispensable tool of control.”). President Trump’s supervisory authority directly implicates two key individuals acting on behalf of Defendants: Scott Bessent, 22 the Secretary of the Treasury Department and Acting Commissioner of the IRS, and Frank J. Bisignano, 23 the Chief Executive Officer of the IRS. Plaintiffs cannot argue before the Supreme Court that Executive Branch actors “unquestionably exercise[] executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive[,]” Slaughter, 609 U.S. at 27, and then here, argue that the Parties are sufficiently adverse to establish an actual case or controversy.

22 “On January 28, 2025, Secretary Bessent was sworn in as the 79th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.” Scott Bessent, U.S. Dept. of Treasury, https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/officials/scott-bessent (last visited July 9, 2026). Secretary Bessent also serves as the “Acting” Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. See The Commissioner’s Section, Internal Revenue Serv., https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/the-commissioners-section (last updated Feb. 12, 2026). [my emphasis]

Under Slaughter, the defendants who report to Trump cannot be said to be adversaries to his private person.

Then Williams pointed to an Executive Order Trump signed in February 2025, proclaiming his own personal control over all of government, including interpretations of law and litigation approach.

In addition to the Constitutional and statutory bases for President Trump’s control over Defendants, President Trump’s Executive Order confirms his intent to wield actual, comprehensive control over Defendants in this matter. Executive Order 14215: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies (“Executive Order”) sets out the scope and breadth of President Trump’s control over federal agencies. The Executive Order was issued on February 18, 2025, shortly after President Trump took office for his second term, and expands the President’s oversight of federal agencies and employees.28 Notably, the Executive Order provides that “it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch.” Id. § 1.

Most relevant to the issue of control in this matter is Section 7 of the Executive Order which explicitly addresses President Trump’s ability to direct Defendants’ conduct in litigation. Section 7 begins by declaring, “The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.” Id. (emphasis added). The Section continues by making clear that “The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.”29 Id. (emphasis added). The following language further animates the Court’s concern as to adverseness in this matter:

No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.

Id. (emphasis added).

Way back in February 2025, Stephen Miller or Russ Vought got Trump to brag about how much power he planned to wield. And now it has come back to bite him.

Williams then looked at the various people who intervened — but in some instances did not file notices of appearance — in the case, showing how conflicted it all was. She paid particularly close attention to Todd Blanche’s evolving claims about the Terrorist Slush Fund, a topic that several Republican Senators who will vote on Blanche’s confirmation in the days and weeks ahead remain squeamish about.

Ultimately, the DOJ has endeavored to justify its position to create the appearance of a case or controversy “resolved” under the aegis of the Court. But the Parties, most of whom are government actors, did not engage in any public discussion or judicial review regarding their “unusual” arrangement and whether they were legally adverse; indeed, they actively avoided such an undertaking.38 And the extraordinary award fashioned by the Parties for claims that were never litigated, and have yet to be defined, on behalf of unidentified third parties39 whose future remedies bear no relationship to the claims in this case, indicates that real adverse interests were never before the Court. Cf. Monsanto Co., 72 F.4th at 1266 (finding a justiciable case or controversy where the parties zealously asserted their rights and there was “no suggestion” that the defendant “selected or control[ed]” the plaintiff’s counsel). Indeed, the DOJ seems to have purposefully adopted the strategy of creating a “slush fund disguised as a settlement, and then doling the money out to whatever constituency the Executive wants bankrolled.” Keepseagle v. Perdue, 856 F.3d 1039, 1058 (D.D.C. 2017) (Rogers, J., dissenting).40

38 The Court is extremely troubled by the testimony given by Acting Attorney General Blanche on May 19, 2026. In response to why the “settlement agreement” had not been submitted to this Court for review, he stated that “there is no judge” because the case had been dismissed and, therefore, there was “no mechanism” for reviewing the agreement. See supra note 13. While temporally accurate, this answer is, at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous. The Court was available to review any pleading by any Party at any time during this lawsuit. And if Acting Attorney General Blanche had thought the dismissal was improvidently granted or thought Plaintiffs misspoke when they said, “no judicial analysis is appropriate,” (DE 52 at 2), he only had to file an appearance and ask for relief.

39 Compounding these concerns, an official at the DOJ publicly stated that he intended to apply for compensation from the Fund. See Daniel Lippman, DOJ Official Sought Weaponization Fund, POLITICO (June 10, 2026), https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/10/doj-official-sought-weaponization-fund-patrick-davis-00955.

But Judge Williams was even more scathing in her treatment of Todd Blanche’s attempt to win his client millions of dollars in tax relief.

Moreover, the Release Order, signed only by Acting Attorney General Blanche, extends a blanket grant of immunity to all Plaintiffs and their families and “affiliates,” and precludes all “current or possible” investigations or actions before any other agencies or departments.50 The Release Order also purports to bar the IRS from conducting any future tax audits of President Trump, his sons, and their entities.51 This provision directly contravenes 26 U.S.C. § 7217, titled “Prohibition on executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations,” which states:

It shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.

26 U.S.C. § 7217(a) [link added]

The explicit text of this statute prohibits President Trump and his lawyers—one of whom was former White House Counsel—from asking for or promoting termination of an audit directed toward him.52 And acquiescing to any such demand is wholly incompatible with the duties of DOJ attorneys (as well as CEO Bisignano for the IRS) to enforce the law and protect the public interest. Moreover, the conferral of possibly millions of dollars in tax relief and corollary benefits potentially violates Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, a limitation surely known by former White House Counsel and the current Acting Attorney General. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 7: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”53

52 This proviso of the “settlement” also raises the question of whether the agreement violates Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which directs that the President “shall take [c]are that the Laws be faithfully executed[.]” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3.

53 “Neither the Union nor any of its members will be at liberty to give, nor will he (the President) be at liberty to receive any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act.” THE FEDERALIST NO. 73 (A. Hamilton).

And while I would ordinarily think that Trump would appeal this decision, there may be several reasons he might not. For one, it would sustain this as a live controversy, when Trump has been trying to bury it until the political controversy goes away (or until after the election). For another, Trump took this lawsuit in Florida because he assumed it would be an easy path to political wins. Already, his past frivolous lawsuits are creating 11th Circuit precedents constraining his corruption — Judge Williams cited the SDFL and 11th Circuit opinions upholding sanctions for his lawsuit against Hillary Clinton over and over.

And because this fact was so obvious and so insurmountable, the Court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a “settlement” that had no viable basis in law or fact. As was observed in another matter brought in this District, “this case is part of Mr. Trump’s pattern of misusing the courts to serve political purposes.” Trump v. Clinton, 653 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1219 (S.D. Fla. 2023).

[snip]

Although Rule 11 limits imposing monetary sanctions following a voluntary dismissal, the Court’s inherent authority remains available to address conduct that abuses the judicial process. Trump v. Clinton, 161 F.4th 671, 688 (11th Cir. 2025) (“Federal courts have the inherent authority to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.”);

Todd Blanche moved the grand conspiracy case against all of Trump adversaries to Florida in hopes of a more favorable legal landscape. But now Trump’s fraudulent tax claims risk making Florida less friendly for Trump’s shenanigans.

What Judge Williams has done — in addition to imposing sanctions that will be particularly onerous on Trump’s personal lawyer, but which could strengthen ethics complaints against Blanche and Stan Woodward — is take the unitary executive to its logical conclusion, which would mean that Trump (and his failsons and eponymous corporations) cannot be adverse to the government and so Trump can’t keep using the courts to steal from taxpayers.

The post Judge Kathleen Williams Hoists the Unitarians on Their Fraudulent Petards appeared first on emptywheel.

I’m pessimistic any Republican on the Committee will object to formally installing Trump’s defense attorney as Attorney General. Thom Tillis, who plays a big game of opposing January 6, doesn’t find Blanche’s coddling of terrorists (most recently with the dismissal of the Proud Boy leader verdicts against those who appealed) disqualifying.

But Blanche’s role in covering up the Epstein files may still incur a political cost. I’ve described Katie Phang’s attempts to force Blanche to adhere to the Epstein Transparency Act here; her response to Blanche’s excuses for not doing so is due today, with Blanche’s reply due next Monday, so all that may take too long to stave off a Senate vote. The survivors have taken out a billboard trying to hold him accountable.

Perhaps most interesting, though, is a letter that New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez sent to Blanche last month, reported by MS-Now here, demanding that DOJ finally turn over files relevant to his investigation of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes in the state. It laid out a timeline showing how DOJ has given him the runaround, promising cooperation but ultimately giving him none.

I. February 13, 2026 — Written correspondence to then-Deputy Attorney General Blanche requesting access to a specific EFTA document and all related Zorro Ranch investigative materials.

II. March 13, 2026 — Formal letter to Attorney General Bondi identifying five illustrative redacted EFTA documents and requesting access to complete, unredacted versions of all pertinent records.

III. April 1, 2026 — Telephone conference with Associate Deputy Attorney General Diego Pestana, in which the USDOJ affirmed its commitment to cooperation and directed the NMDOJ to submit a formal Touhy letter through standard channels.

IV. May 3, 2026 — Comprehensive Touhy letter submitted to First Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison and FBI Albuquerque Special Agent in Charge Justin Garris, identifying specific EFTA document examples and requesting access to all relevant unredacted records. This letter sought a response from the USDOJ by May 11, 2026.

V. May 29, 2026 — Written follow-up to Acting Attorney General Blanche and Associate Deputy AG Pestana renewing the request after receiving no substantive response to the Touhy submission.

VI. June 4–5, 2026 — Meeting requests directed to your office seeking an in-person conference during Attorney General Torrez’s visit to Washington, D.C. No response was received. [my emphasis]

The timeline has all the trappings of bureaucratic blow-off.

But I am specifically interested in the affirmative commitment to cooperate in the normal fashion on April 1.

That was the day before Trump fired Pam Bondi on April 2.

And since then, DOJ has provided no formal response to Torrez’ Touhy letter, the means by which prosecutors make a formal request for materials from DOJ. Blanche’s office totally blew off requests for a meeting in early June.

Probably, the affirmative response to Torrez has nothing to do with the timing of Pam Bondi’s firing; Trump was ready to fire her anyway (though her failure to squelch the Epstein investigation was a key part of it). But Blanche’s commitment to serving Trump’s needs has ratcheted up on all issues since then.

Again, I don’t think any of this will prevent his confirmation. But (as this post from Sarah Longwell argues) it may well make it politically more damaging.

Incidentally, there’s someone who could offer some insight into why DOJ asked New Mexico to drop its investigation of Epstein: Maurene Comey, who made the ask back in 2019. I’m surprised Dems on Oversight have not yet asked James Comer to subpoena her.

The post Trump Fired Pam Bondi the Day After DOJ Agreed to Share Epstein Files with New Mexico appeared first on emptywheel.

How fitting, then, that the tragic story of Ramanullah Lakwanal — the Afghan who fought from a young age with Americans in Afghanistan, but found himself without resources when he was evacuated to the US, and then drove cross-country to attack two Guards in patrolling DC, killing Sarah Beckstrom — would revisit that terrible episode of American history.

A partly redacted filing submitted last Thursday explains that the US Marshals have been worried about Lakwanal since mid-June (the same day that DOJ obtained a superseding indictment that could carry the death penalty against him). He was moved to a hospital on July 9, last Tuesday.

In June 2026, the government learned from the representatives of the United States Marshal’s Service (USMS) that they had concerns regarding the defendant’s physical wellbeing based on his refusal to consume adequate nutrition for an extended period and the resulting physical and physiological changes that put him at risk for long-term health consequences, including a potential risk of death. On June 16, 2026, the government learned for the first time that a protective order existed that prohibited the government from receiving medical records concerning Lakanwal’s treatment. The government has not seen that protective Order. As a result of that Order, the undersigned counsel has not had meaningful access to defendant Lakanwal’s medical records, and has received only limited summary information regarding defendant Lakanwal’s health status.

The government learned this morning, July 9, 2026, that Lakanwal was transferred to [redacted] on an emergency basis on or around midnight for medical treatment necessary to preserve his life. The government contacted the Court and requested an emergency hearing on this matter; the Court held a hearing at 11:30 pm during which it heard representations from Michelle Peterson, counsel for defendant Lakanwal, and the undersigned counsel for the government. At that hearing, the Court concluded that it was necessary and appropriate for the undersigned attorneys to have access to the defendant’s medical records for the period commencing on July 8, 2026, including access to his treatment providers for the purpose of receiving health and diagnostic information.

The government further submits that it is necessary and appropriate for the undersigned to have access to the defendant’s medical records for the duration of his current hospitalization so that it can litigate any issues with respect to the USMS’s continued duty to “provide for the safe-keeping of any person arrested, or held under authority of any enactment of Congress pending commitment to an institution.” 18 U.S.C. § 4086.1 As part of these obligations, the USMS cannot allow an individual to starve him or herself in its custody and has an affirmative duty to “provide life-saving nutritional and medical care to persons in custody.” See Aamer v. Obama, 953 F.Supp. 2d 213, 221 (D.D.C. July 16, 2013). “Whatever the medical ethics for that person at liberty, the United States as custodian has additional obligations.” Id. “Numerous courts have recognized the Government’s affirmative duty to prevent suicide and to provide life-saving nutritional and medical care to persons in-custody.” Id. “[P]rison officials must take reasonable preventative steps to guarantee the safety of inmates in their charge.” Id. at 222. “Thus, prison officials must take reasonable preventative steps when they are aware that there is a substantial risk that an inmate may attempt to take his own life.” Id. “The Government has a legitimate penological interest in preventing suicide, and the involuntary feeding of hungerstriking prisoners and detainees has been repeatedly upheld.” Id. (string cite omitted).

There have been a series of hearings since, with one scheduled for 9:30AM today on whether prosecutors themselves can have access to these files. Some files Judge Amit Mehta ordered to be docketed last week remain sealed, but it appears Lakwanal’s legal team is fighting for a taint team to take decisions about keeping Lakwanal alive by torturing him out of the hands of those who are seeking to punish him for crimes they have not yet proven in court (the precedent cited above pertained to Gitmo detainees, and on appeal it was resolved on standing grounds).

In advance of the hearing, the government shall explore the possibility of creating a separate, “taint-type” team that would be walled off from the prosecution team, for the purpose of receiving Defendant’s medical records and evaluating whether the government will seek a court order relating to possible life-preserving treatment.

All of this is senseless and horrible — the murder of Beckstrom, the abandonment of Afghans who fought with the US, the means the US used in Afghanistan, the torture US employs to force feed prisoners.

And all of it arises from the way the US sacrificed all its claimed values in response to an attack on US soil.

The post Jeanine Pirro Fights to Force-Feed Someone She Wants to Execute appeared first on emptywheel.

This is a semi-open post and thread. By semi I mean I want to try something different here and NOT TALK ABOUT THE ORANGE BAWBAG AT ALL. Nope, nada, nil.

This post is about you. Tell us what you are doing to survive, with an emphasis on what you are doing to bring yourself and others joy. Survival isn’t just putting food on the table or keeping a roof over your head. It’s having a reason to keep on keeping on.

Joy and pleasure and happiness are why we fight, after all. This nation’s founders felt it was an essential reason for signing their own death warrant, saying,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. …”

No matter the administration, no matter the climate, no matter all other conditions, we should continue to pursue our happiness.

It may not be the big, glorious excess decked with bells and whistles; it may not come with accolades and applause from an adoring audience. Our happiness may be small, bite sized, extremely personal and intimate. But what is that joy you are chasing each day?

I’ve told you before about my personal situation. It hasn’t changed; I’m still spending half of my time in Florida caring for my mom whose dementia is worsening along with her disposition. It can be suffocating at times – many of you reading this have experienced this and you know well what toll caretaking places on your body, mind, and soul.

But I am still chasing my personal goals, the things that give me pleasure and a sense of achievement. I am continuing to go to school though remotely. I am doing art as time and conditions permit. My eyes are peeled for new opportunities which fit my current limitations. This is what keeps me sane, glues my shit together every day.

Surprisingly, it’s one of the few things my mother doesn’t crab about. She seems pleased that I’m painting even if it clutters her porch a bit. Perhaps continuing to do art brings her a little pleasure, too; it certainly gives us more to talk about if sometimes the subject is repeated as her memory worsens.

If I can do this, I’m sure you can, too. I’m certain many of you have been engaged in pleasurable pursuits making others happy as well.

So spill here: what are you doing in the pursuit of happiness?

Once again, no orange bawbag allowed in this thread. I will spike comments that don’t comply. This thread is about you, it’s about us. We need this because it’s on this we’ll build the future.

ADDER: No discussion about Sen. Lindsey Graham, either. Again, this is about you, about us.

The post Breathing Room: How Are You Pursuing Happiness? appeared first on emptywheel.