A federal appeals court on Thursday evening took steps that Democratic appointees wrote could represent that best possible way of helping organizations funded by foreign aid payments to get money before a quickly approaching September 30 deadline.
It was the latest unusual sets of rulings in a case challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to cut foreign aid funding — raising the “impoundment” question about the president’s ability not to spend money that Congress has, with its control over appropriations, directed the federal government to spend — that has been up to the U.S. Supreme Court already twice this year.
On Thursday evening over the course of 30 minutes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took seven actions that ultimately sent the case — technically, a pair of cases — back to the district court, where it is before U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.
It was a stark sign of where we’re at: Judges on the court generally thought of as second only to the Supreme Court taking strategic steps to try to protect people and organizations’ rights due to the ways other branches — and actors within their own branch — are failing to do so. (snip-go read the rest, if you’re interested. It’s very well-written.)
This is a thread on Bluesky. One doesn’t need an account to read there. It’s also an excellent explanation.
This was an extraordinarily shrewd *and* principled resolution by the en banc court, in a case in which the various arguments in the trial court and on appeal were *almost* hopelessly entangled and hard to parse. Of greatest importance are two things: [1]
Why would Donald Trump talk about becoming an American dictator…again?
NBC News reporter: Before signing a series of executive orders aimed at reducing crime in D.C. and across the nation, Trump referred to his critics bashing him for sending the National Guard to D.C., claiming that some people think they might “like a dictator.”
Referring to militarizing our cities, Trump said, “They say, ‘We don’t need him, freedom freedom. He’s a dictator. He’s a dictator.’ A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we like a dictator’…You send in troops, and instead of being praised they’re saying you’re trying to take over the republic. These people are sick.”
Before the election, Trump talked about “deleting” parts of the Constitution he doesn’t like. Then, he talked about becoming a dictator for one day. Now, he says some people in this country want a dictator, but to whom is he referring to that would be that dictator? I think we all know the answer. The dictator talk is so disturbing that everyone missed that part where he whines that he’s not being praised. (snip-MORE; go read it!)
(The money graf: “Even the shooter offered “thoughts and prayers” to the intended victims. So, quite frankly, every single Republican’s answer to this isn’t any better than the shooter’s solution.”)
Another mass shooting and another opportunity for Republicans to give us empty thoughts and prayers instead of real solutions. You can’t find a solution when you can’t even identify the problem.
Today’s mass shooting just so happened to take place during a Mass.
An 8-year-old and a 10-year-old were killed while sitting in pews during a Mass at the Annunciation Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. At least 17 people have been injured. The students were from the adjacent Annunciation Catholic School.
Robin Westman, a 23-year-old, has been identified as the shooter and shot through the windows from outside the church. Westman identified as a woman and had changed her name from Robert to Robin. The right-wing fucknuts are going to love this, but they’ll ignore the parts about the mental issues and racism.
The shooter left a manifesto that called for the destruction of Israel and included racist slurs. Westman flashed a white supremacy sign in a video that showed the shooter’s massive gun collection. The shooter admired those responsible for the massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, and the mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand, among others. (snip-MORE, and it’s good info)
There’s a saying in the legal system that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It’s a criticism of the prosecutorial system because a prosecutor has near-total control of the evidence presented to a grand jury, the defense is not present, and the jury only has to be convinced a crime was committed without a real burden of proof, and on the flimsiest charges.
On Tuesday, a grand jury in Washington, DC, refused to indict Sean Charles Dunn, who is accused of throwing a Subway sandwich at a Border Patrol agent. This is a huge loss for US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, who was hired only because Donald Trump liked the way she looked on Fox News. She’s very hateful and always outraged. This is also a failure for Attorney General Pam Bondi, who declared the sandwich attack was part of the “deep state.
I don’t think we have to worry about a “deep state” if the worst they can do is throw sandwiches at cops.
Anyone charged with a federal felony must be indicted by a grand jury. The problem for Trump’s regime is that the voters in Washington, DC, are some of the most intelligent, most educated, and most aware of the issues. These are not West Virginia voters. You would think that if you wanted to indict someone with a felony, you wouldn’t call a grand jury while the city is occupied by the military.
You would think that with the government’s reaction to the sandwich attack, the accused had used one of the weapons used to murder children at a Catholic Church in Minneapolis this week. The Trump regime and Republicans have more outrage over an assault by a sandwich than outrage over a school shooting. (snip-MORE if you can handle it)
The Breakfast Club’s Charlemagne Tha God delivers a devastating new nickname for Hakeem Jeffries. We explain why the Jeffries and the Democratic establishment are so afraid of being challenged from the left, especially on issues like Israel and the influence of AIPAC.
The 2025 Netroots conference is over and David Weigel joins to break down the key takeaways, from a surprising lack of donor support to the crucial debate over how politicians should communicate their message.
Why is the National Guard on trash duty in Washington, DC? While the Trump administration claims the troops are needed to combat crime, we examine what this says about the true agenda behind the deployment and break down how this costly, aesthetic-focused mission is not about public safety but about political aesthetics.
When a grand jury returns an indictment, it’s called a true bill. On those exceedingly rare occasions where they decline to sign off on an indictment prosecutors present to them, it’s called a no bill. In 25 years at DOJ, I never had a grand jury no bill one of my cases. And I can only recall a couple of instances where it happened in the entire district.
Donald Trump’s new U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia can’t say that. Former judge, Fox News host, and defendant in a defamation case where she is accused of spreading false information about voter fraud, Jeanine Pirro, recently received three no bills—all in the same case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office tried to charge Sydney Lori Reid with felony assault on three separate occasions this month, but the grand jury declined to do so. CNN reports that “In one case this month — related to an FBI agent and an immigration officer allegedly scrapping with a detainee — the federal grand jury in Washington voted ‘no’ three times.”
Proceedings inside of the grand jury are conducted in secret, so there is no way of knowing why the grand jury rejected the charge. Typically, if a grand jury expresses some hesitation over a case, prosecutors will bring in additional witnesses or offer counsel about relevant laws to help alleviate their concerns. To fail to indict not once, but three times, indicates a failure of both competence and judgment.
When asked about her failure, Pirro responded, “Sometimes a jury will buy it and sometimes they won’t. So be it, that’s the way the process works.” But that’s not true. The standard for obtaining an indictment is a low one: The prosecution need only persuade the grand jury that probable cause to proceed on the charges exists. That’s a far lower bar than the requirement that the government prove a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt before a trial jury can convict. Any prosecutor who doesn’t back off of a case where they can’t even convince grand jurors that probable cause exists, knowing that much more will be expected of them at trial, is wasting taxpayer resources. Prosecutors have plenty of cases. Move on and do a righteous one. But apparently, that’s not how the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office operates these days.
Prosecutors, who have 30 days following an arrest like Reid’s to obtain an indictment, told a judge they now plan to bring misdemeanor charges against Reid. Misdemeanor charges can be brought by prosecutors without the need to present them to a grand jury for approval. But we already know at least some of the facts in the case, because a statement of facts was filed in support of the arrest warrant.
The affidavit alleges that Reid assaulted FBI agent Eugenia Bates. Reid was video recording agents outside of the D.C. jail, where at least two individuals were being arrested as “known gang members” and transferred into ICE custody. Reid was directed to step back, and according to the affidavit, she “got in Officer Lang’s face.” He said she smelled of alcohol and tried to interfere with the transfer of custody. According to the government, an officer pushed her against a wall, but she continued to struggle after being told to stop.
Here’s the heart of the allegation against Reid: “Agent Bates came to Office[r] Lang’s assistance in trying to control REID. REID was flailing her arms and kicking and had to be pinned against a cement wall. During the struggle, REID forcefully pushed Agent Bates’s hand against the cement wall. This caused lacerations on the back side of Agent Bates’s left hand.”
To convict on the federal felony assault charge, the government would have to establish that Reid forcibly assaulted a federal agent. A “forcible assault” is an intentional threat or attempt to cause serious bodily injury by a person who has the apparent ability to do so, including any intentional display of force that would cause a reasonable person to expect immediate and serious bodily harm or death. The statement of facts alleges that Reid “intentionally and forcibly obstructed the transfer of suspects into FBI custody and made physical contact with FBI Agent Eugenia Bates and inflicted bodily injury in violation.” The grand jury didn’t buy, despite having three opportunities to do so, that there was probable cause, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to believe that some or all of that happened.
The lacerations, which were pictured in the statement of facts and presumably shown to the grand jury, seem relatively minor. And it’s difficult to see, at least with this statement of the facts, how a grand jury could conclude, as it must, that Reid was the cause of those “lacerations” or even acting voluntarily when they happened. Assuming they could prove all of that, even small cuts like these could hypertechnically constitute assault. But it’s easy to imagine a grand jury viewing charging it as a felony as overreaching.
Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan will hold a hearing in the matter on Thursday morning at 11:30.
The grand jury process still works as a check and balance on prosecutors, as the Constitution intends. Trump may want you to think he’s all-powerful, but guardrails are still in place. His administration can’t bring felony charges without a grand jury’s approval, an important protection not just for Ms. Reid but for others, as DOJ’s portfolio of revenge investigations continues to grow.
We talked previously about a grand jury in Los Angeles that declined to indict. Now, it’s spread to D.C. And grand juries are only the first layer of guardrails in the criminal justice system, where they are joined by trial juries, judges, and the appellate process.
You’ve heard the line—the one that says prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich, that it’s just that easy. Next stop in D.C., seeing whether they can indict a Subway sandwich. They should think twice after their experience in Ms. Reid’s case with bringing marginal prosecutions to please the president. That’s not justice.
