Legal Random, Random

[ti-amie]

‪CNN‬
‪@cnn.com‬
· 4m
A federal judge says he believes the immigrant defendant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the administration wrongly sent to El Salvador, may have been targeted with a criminal charge by the Justice Department this year out of vindictiveness.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/politics ... ce=bluesky

[ti-amie]

Anna Bower
‪@annabower.bsky.social‬
I don’t understand the supposed legal basis for this.

DOJ requested a summons—*not* an arrest warrant—under Rule 9 of the FRCrP.

Are they going to go back to the magistrate and ask for a warrant, even though Comey hasn’t failed to appear? If not, what’s the exigency for a warrantless arrest?

Carl Quintanilla
‪@carlquintanilla.bsky.social‬
“.. leadership asked for ‘large, beefy’ agents to conduct an arrest of Comey ‘in full kit,’ including Kevlar vests and exterior wear emblazoned with the FBI logo.”

@macfarlanenews.bsky.social

www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-arr...

John Abplanalp
‪@jackson54.bsky.social‬
It is all performance art with the bozos of this administration. They haven’t got a case, so they are trying to "dress up" his arrest. They are fools and charlatans.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Ron Filipkowski
‪@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social‬
Trump is generously willing to settle his lawsuit against the government to allow taxpayers to pay him $230 million. The negotiators on behalf of the taxpayers representing DOJ are his former lawyers. bsky.app/profile/atru...

[ti-amie]

Trump has claimed millions from the government. He has power to order payment.
The president has claimed he was damaged by investigations and wants compensation. “It sort of looks bad. I’m suing myself,” he acknowledged.

By Perry Stein

Ever since his inauguration in January, President Donald Trump has sat uncharacteristically silent in the face of a potential windfall of more than $100 million from U.S. taxpayers.

As a private citizen, he claimed he was entitled to money from the government. As president, he could now, in effect, order that government to pay him. If the payment came in the form of a settlement, the White House might be under no legal obligation to disclose it to the public.

On Tuesday, when the subject was spotlighted in a news report, the president responded to questions with equivocation.

“All I know is they would owe me a lot of money, but I’m not looking for money,” Trump told reporters, adding that if he did get a payment, “any money that I would get, I would give to charity.”

“It’s interesting because I’m the one that makes a decision. And, you know, that decision would have to go across my desk,” he said. “It’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself.”

At issue are two administrative claims that Trump filed against the government in 2023 and 2024. The first asked the Justice Department to pay him damages related to the FBI probe and special counsel investigation that looked into the connection between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign, according to a person familiar with the complaint, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Last year, Trump filed his second complaint, that time asking for damages related to the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property in 2022. Agents searched the property as part of the investigation of Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and obstruction of the government’s efforts to reclaim them.

In all, Trump asked the Justice Department to pay him upward of $100 million in damages for allegedly violating his rights.

Under the law he used, the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Justice Department typically decides on whether to pay a claim against the government.

Thousands of such claims are filed each year.

Trump’s claims, however, are the only ones filed by the person who appoints the Justice Department’s leaders.

To date, Trump has not taken any public step to enforce his claim. Under the law, if the government does not pay a claim within six months, the claimant has the right to sue in court. Trump hasn’t done so.

On Tuesday, he didn’t say he would. But he didn’t rule it out, either.

“It could be. I don’t know what the numbers are. I don’t even talk to them about it. All I know is that, they would owe me a lot of money, but I’m not looking for money,” he said.

The more likely scenario for Trump would be to reach a settlement with a Justice Department he has publicly said works for him. Trump did not comment Tuesday on whether formal settlement negotiations are underway. Any such discussions would pose serious ethical challenges because some of the defense attorneys who represented Trump in the investigations at the center of his claims are now top Justice Department officials, who would probably need to sign off on any agreement.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, served as Trump’s top personal defense attorney in the classified document case. Stanley Woodward, who heads the civil division, served as the top attorney for Trump’s co-defendant in the classified document case.

Trump acknowledged the thorniness of any potential settlement when he obliquely raised the subject while answering questions from reporters at the White House last week. Without specifying what he was referring to, he talked about a claim he had in which he said he would be in effect suing himself.

“I don’t know, how do you settle the lawsuit, I’ll say give me X dollars, and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit,” Trump said then. “It sort of looks bad, I’m suing myself, right? So I don’t know. But that was a lawsuit that was very strong, very powerful.”

The New York Times reported Tuesday afternoon that Trump’s remarks were a reference to his claims against the government over the two investigations, and that the total claim was for $230 million. The existence of Trump’s claim over the Mar-a-Lago search had been publicly reported.

Under the Tort Claims Act, people who want to sue the federal government for damages must first lodge an administrative complaint with the federal government. Trump, who was alleging misdoings by the FBI, filed his claim at Justice Department.

The claims process is typically not made public. But, if after six months, the federal government has not settled or acted on the claim, the claimant is eligible to sue in court. The six months have long lapsed in both those complaints, and Trump has not yet sued.

He has also indicated in public statements that the Justice Department has not settled the claims with him.

During the Biden administration, the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland did not settle or close the two claims, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concern for retaliation. It is unclear why the department did not respond to or close the 2023 claim related to the Russia investigation, but federal regulations do not require the government to respond to claims, and it is not unusual for officials to sit on them for a long time.

The claim related to the Mar-a-Lago search would have been harder for the Justice Department to settle since the federal case against Trump was dismissed only in the final days of the Biden administration. The Justice Department would not typically resolve claims related to ongoing cases.

According to the Justice Department manual, any settlement agreement must be signed off on by either the deputy attorney general or associate attorney general.

The Justice Department would not comment on the status of any negotiations, but said when asked about potential recusals of Blanche and Woodward that “all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... s-payment/

[ponchi101]

It will go to charity...

[ti-amie]

‪derek guy‬
‪@dieworkwear.bsky.social‬
· 2h
the most corrupt administration in my lifetime

[ti-amie]

‪Ron Filipkowski‬
‪@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social‬
· 29s
Let the Trump admin argue in court the legal technicalities on why people should starve. Great optics for them.

[ti-amie]

Mueller, She Wrote
‪@muellershewrote.com‬
This is the third U.S. Attorney found to be unlawfully appointed. The other two are Sigal Chattah and Alina Habba. Their indictments stand because they were signed by other prosecutors. Not true for Lindsey Halligan.

Kyle Cheney
‪@kyledcheney.bsky.social‬
BREAKING: A federal judge says L.A.-based US attorney Bill ESSAYLI has been acting in the role unlawfully since July, declaring him disqualified from the position. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...



NOTABLE: The judge says the indictment sEssayli presided over are not dismissed bc they were signed by other lawfully appointed prosecutors. That reasoning, if adopted in other courts, bodes poorly for Lindsey Halligan, who was the only person to sign Comey/James indictments.

Roger Parloff‬
‪@rparloff.bsky.social‬
· 1h
Essayli is the genius who, when asked in a Fox interview if his 120-day term wasn't about to expire, said "we've got some tricks up our sleeves." (Mentioned below in Comey's brief on related issues regarding Halligan.)

[ti-amie]

‪Aaron Rupar‬
‪@atrupar.com‬
· 1h
O'DONNELL: Why did you pardon Changpeng Zhao?

TRUMP: Are you ready? I don't know who he is

O'DONNELL: His crypto exchange Binance helped facilitate a $2b purchase of World Liberty Financial's stablecoin. And they you pardoned him.

TRUMP: Here's the thing -- I know nothing about it

Video at the link
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m4osr6d7ji2p

[ti-amie]

Jury finds D.C. ‘sandwich guy’ not guilty of assaulting officer

Sean C. Dunn admitted he flung the hoagie at a federal agent. His attorneys called it a “harmless gesture” of protest as Trump commandeered D.C. police.
Updated
November 6, 2025 at 4:50 p.m. ESTtoday at 4:50 p.m. EST


Sean C. Dunn holding a sandwich Aug. 10. (Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)

By Salvador Rizzo

A jury on Thursday acquitted a D.C. man who was charged with assault after throwing a sandwich at a federal agent during President Donald Trump’s crime crackdown in the nation’s capital.

The one-sided food fight, which was captured on video and spread through social media, became a slapstick symbol of resistance to Trump’s summertime takeover of local law enforcement. The defendant, Sean C. Dunn, said he was speaking out against what he characterized as fascism and anti-migrant policies from the Trump administration.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office said the 37-year-old Air Force veteran was not on trial for protesting but for “throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range.” Prosecutors sought to indict Dunn on a felony assault count, but a grand jury rejected that charge, and prosecutors downgraded it to a misdemeanor.

The trial jury in U.S. District Court rejected that charge as well, deliberating for seven hours over two days before returning the not-guilty verdict.

It was the highest-profile repudiation to date of Pirro’s efforts to ratchet up penalties for local offenses. Grand juries have declined to indict several people accused of assaulting federal officers this year. A trial jury last month acquitted a D.C. woman, Sydney L. Reid, who had rowdily protested an immigration arrest at the doors of the city jail and was charged with the same misdemeanor as Dunn.

“I’m relieved, and I’m looking forward to moving on with my life,” Dunn told reporters after the verdict was read. He added later, “I am so happy that justice prevails, in spite of everything happening.”

Pirro said in a statement that she accepted the jury’s verdict. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” she said. “Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another.”

The prosecution called two witnesses: the Customs and Border Protection agent who was on the receiving end of the sandwich and a Metro Transit Police detective who saw the Aug. 10 incident unfold.

Defense attorneys called no witnesses.

The straitlaced court proceedings seemed to crack at times as lawyers played video of Dunn bobbing up and down, hurling expletives at a group of law enforcement officers patrolling a popular nightlife area at 14th and U Streets NW, as a bystander chuckled at the scene and offered running commentary. (“No, Superman!”)

Jurors also saw video of the sandwich being thrown, the short-lived foot chase that followed and Dunn’s statements after the arrest: “I did it. I threw a sandwich. I did it to draw them away from where they were. I succeeded.”

The meatiest factual dispute concerned whether the salami sub had “exploded” on the CBP agent’s uniform. The agent, Gregory Lairmore, testified that he mostly tried to ignore Dunn’s late-night tirade outside a Subway restaurant, until he felt the impact of the sandwich through his bulletproof vest.

“The sandwich kind of exploded all over my uniform,” Lairmore said. “It smelled of onions and mustard.”

Defense attorney Sabrina Shroff then displayed a photo of the wrapped sandwich on the ground and pressed the agent to clarify whether it had really exploded. Lairmore said a piece of the sub seemed to be visible in the photo. “I had mustard and condiments on my uniform, and an onion hanging from my radio antenna that night,” the agent said.

During closing arguments Wednesday, Shroff questioned whether Lairmore really felt threatened, noting that his co-workers gave him a plush toy sandwich as a gag gift, which he displayed on his office shelf, and an insignia that he affixed on his lunchbox, showing a likeness of Dunn hoisting a hoagie above the words “Felony Footlong.”

“They’re joking about it with each other, and they’re joking about it with Agent Lairmore. Why? Because they think it’s funny,” she said.

Judge Carl J. Nichols instructed the jury that to convict Dunn, they would have to find he acted forcibly and generated a “reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.”


Artwork in the Adams Morgan neighborhood depicts Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, throwing a sandwich. It spoofs street artist Banksy’s “Flower Thrower.” (Tom Brenner/For The Washington Post)

Dunn’s attorneys said Lairmore was “very heavily armed” and with a group of law enforcement officers, in addition to wearing the bulletproof vest. “If that vest … is going to keep you safe from military rifle fire, it is certainly going to keep you safe from a sandwich,” Shroff said.

“In this country, the last time I checked, dissent and opposition are not crimes,” she said.

Prosecutors asked jurors to set aside any opinions they might have about Trump’s law enforcement surge and find Dunn guilty. A Washington Post-Schar School poll of D.C. residents conducted in August found that 8 in 10 respondents opposed Trump’s executive order to federalize law enforcement in the city for one month, with about 7 in 10 opposing it “strongly.”

“This case is not about someone with strong opinions. It’s not about immigration. It’s not about the First Amendment,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo said in his closing Wednesday. “It’s about someone who crossed the line.”

Dunn was a paralegal for the Office of International Affairs in the Justice Department’s criminal division in Washington until he was fired over the incident.

He deployed to Afghanistan for several months from 2010 to 2011 as a member of the Air Force. His nighttime caper inspired several online memes and D.C. mural art. Supporters raised more than $11,000 for Dunn through a GoFundMe page, and Dunn said after the verdict that the Washington-based law firm Steptoe LLP represented him pro bono, along with Shroff.

Trump declared a crime emergency in the District on Aug. 11. The declaration expired the following month, but about 2,500 National Guard troops summoned by the president continue to patrol the city. A federal judge has indicated she may rule soon on a legal challenge brought by D.C. officials seeking to end the National Guard deployment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... -takeover/

[dryrunguy]

“It smelled of onions and mustard.”

This will be my new, go-to expression of social disgust.

[ti-amie]

‪Kyle Griffin‬
‪@kylegriffin1.bsky.social‬
· now
A felon whose sentence Trump commuted in the final hours of his first term has been sentenced to 27 months in prison after being accused of a range of criminal conduct — including physical and sexual assault — since Trump freed him.

Jonathan Braun had a long history of violence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/10/nyre ... ncing.html

[ti-amie]

independent.co.uk

https://archive.ph/pTf62

A statement announcing a list of 77 people who were pardoned was tweeted out late Sunday evening, at 10:54 p.m. local time, by Trump’s “clemency czar” Ed Martin. It included a number of Americans who participated directly as members of the slates of false electors, whose purpose was to supplant duly-elected state electors bound to cast their states votes in the Electoral College for Joe Biden, after Biden won states including Georgia, Arizona and Michigan in the general election.

[ti-amie]

Kimberly Atkins Stohr
‪@kimberlyeatkins.bsky.social‬

Good morning to everyone but especially to Lady Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, whose judgement against Rudy Giuliani for defaming them and turning their lives upside down cannot be pardoned away by the president
November 10, 2025 at 11:09 AM