#civildiscourse — Public Fediverse posts

If Acts Happened Today, Would We Call It Communism?

https://polymathchristian.wordpress.com/2026/07/12/if-acts-happened-today-would-we-call-it-communism-4/

If Acts Happened Today, Would We Call It Communism?

https://polymathchristian.wordpress.com/2026/07/12/if-acts-happened-today-would-we-call-it-communism-2/

If Acts Happened Today, Would We Call It Communism?

https://polymathchristian.wordpress.com/2026/07/12/if-acts-happened-today-would-we-call-it-communism-3/

If Acts Happened Today, Would We Call It Communism?

https://polymathchristian.wordpress.com/2026/07/12/if-acts-happened-today-would-we-call-it-communism-4/

If Acts Happened Today, Would We Call It Communism?

https://polymathchristian.wordpress.com/2026/07/12/if-acts-happened-today-would-we-call-it-communism/

The Disclosure: UFO Dumps, David Grusch, and the Pastor’s Secret Meeting

https://bourbonandrumpodcast.com/2026/05/22/the-disclosure-ufo-dumps-david-grusch-and-the-pastors-secret-meeting/

The Disclosure: UFO Dumps, David Grusch, and the Pastor’s Secret Meeting

https://bourbonandrumpodcast.com/2026/05/22/the-disclosure-ufo-dumps-david-grusch-and-the-pastors-secret-meeting/

Civil Discourse – Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi

By Joyce Vance, Feb 11, 2026

Writing this newsletter isn’t always easy. But it feels important to me, every day. If my work resonates with you and you want to support it, subscribing to Civil Discourse makes it possible for me to devote the time and resources it takes. Either way, I’m grateful that you’re here. Democracy is a participatory sport, and none of us can sit on the sidelines right now. Being well educated about what’s transpiring and sharing that knowledge with others is one of the most important things we can do.

Democrats in Congress are trying to get their branch of government to do its constitutional duty. As Congress continues to try and lumber to its feet, with just a few Republicans crossing over to work with Democrats on key issues—that’s how we got the Epstein Files Transparency Act in the first place—there is some good news to report.

Tuesday:

Asked if his agency had hired any pardoned January 6 defendants, ICE’s acting Director Todd Lyons was shockingly unprepared. He said he didn’t have “that information” in front of him but would get it.

Given how obvious it was that the question was coming, the lack of preparation seems deliberate. But Lyons’ follow-on comment was intriguing: He said that ICE takes assaults on law enforcement seriously, and he doubted anyone who did that on Jan 6 could pass a background check. Apparently, ICE takes assaults on law enforcement more seriously than the President, who pardoned the January 6 defendants.

New York Congressman Dan Goldman, a former federal prosecutor and good friend, wasn’t having any of the justifications and efforts to ignore, or at least walk past, what’s been happening on the ground in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

“If you don’t want to be called a fascist regime or secret police, then stop acting like one.”

“It’s long past time that you rein in your out-of-control agency and start following the law and the Constitution.”

Goldman asked Lyons about the guidance agents are given about asking people walking on American streets to show proof of citizenship. Lyons claimed that his agents conduct “targeted intelligence driven operations,” and that they “don’t walk around in the streets asking people about their American citizenship.”

Goldman was skeptical. “Really?” he responded. “So all of those individual American citizens who have been randomly asked are lying? Is that what you’re saying?”

That exchange prompted the Congressman to ask Lyons if he knew what other 20th Century regimes required people to show proof of citizenship in similar circumstances. Lyons responded that he did. “Sir, there has been various nefarious regimes that did that,” He told Goldman.

Goldman: Is Nazi Germany one?

Lyons: Yes. But I—

Goldman: Is the Soviet Union one?

Lyons: I-

Goldman: I’m asking the questions. Is the Soviet Union one?

Lyons: Yes sir, but I’m, I’m totally…this is the wrong type of questioning.

Goldman: I’ll tell you what the wrong type of questioning. Reclaiming my time.

Lyons: It’s not the men and women of ICE that are out there doing it every day. So to say that the men and women of ICE are Gestapos. Wrong.

After more back and forth, Goldman schooled the acting Director of ICE:

“The problem is, you have it backwards sir. People are simply making valid observations about your tactics, which are un-American and outright fascist. So I have a simple suggestion. If you don’t want to be called a fascist regime or secret police, then stop acting like one. People are simply just observing what they are seeing. And that’s why people are making those comments.

…I was a prosecutor for ten years, prosecuted mob bosses, organized crime, violent criminals, the actual “worst of the worst.” Not a single criminal law enforcement agent that I worked with wore a mask to conceal their identity. But your department, which is a civil law enforcement agency, is defending the use of masks by your agents because of a so-called rise in threats and assaults against your officers.”

…Now, why is that a problem Mr. Lyons? It’s a problem because the explanation that your agents are wearing masks because of fear of assaults or doxxing is outright bogus. You and your untrained, unqualified, unvetted, unidentified agents are intentionally terrorizing our cities and communities all over this country to avoid accountability for their excessive force and their lawless actions. That is why you’re wearing masks, so no one can hold you accountable and you know that the FBI is not going to because notwithstanding all the investigations all of you say are going on, the Department of Justice and the FBI has stated they are not investigating those two murders.

This is not the America I know and love. This is not the America my immigrant [family] came to and it’s long past time that you rein in your out-of-control agency and start following the law and the Constitution.”

There are some members of Congress who seem to have the knack for representing all of us, regardless of where we live. Dan Goldman is one of them.

Wednesday:

Today it was Pam Bondi’s turn. This was her first appearance before the House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing, which in and of itself tells you a lot about her respect for the Article I branch of government, 13 months into this administration. Bondi adopted a Trumpian persona, polite, sometimes veering into smarmy with Republicans; dismissive, rude, and downright insulting with Democrats.

But politicians signed up for this. Victims and survivors of horrific crimes didn’t. Washington state Representative Pramila Jayapal was first up for Democrats, and she brought the Epstein survivors with her. She joined me for a Substack Live earlier this evening—I’ll post our full conversation where she explains what she did and how she views Bondi’s approach to the hearing later tonight when the video is ready.

One of Bondi’s lowest moments, besides her use of a “burn book” of insults that she hurled at Democratic members of Congress, was the response to questions about why she hasn’t indicted anyone else who was involved in sex trafficking with Jeffrey Epstein. Her response? “The Dow is over 50,000 dollars.”

A judge would strike a response like that during witness testimony in court as non-responsive. And certainly the AG isn’t taking responsibility for the economy? It’s just so classically Trumpian that it would be laughable except that, because of the context, it isn’t. If you listen to her this bit, there’s a moment where she takes a swipe at Maryland’s Jamie Raskin, saying, “I don’t know why you’re laughing, I hear you’re a great stock trader, Raskin,” and then half swallowing a little chortle at her own cleverness, which came off to the room as intentional disrespect.

Early on, Bondi referred to herself as a career prosecutor. She said that she cares about victims and called Epstein “that monster.” Then she urged victims to come forward. But the irony, and as a prosecutor who handled these kinds of cases, she has to know it, is that victims won’t come forward to talk with the FBI, having seen how Epstein victims are being treated. Asked to acknowledge them repeatedly in today’s hearing, Bondi refused to apologize and arrange interviews with DOJ, something the survivors all signaled they’ve requested but have never been granted. She wouldn’t even turn around to look them in the eyes, to acknowledge and respect their presence.

Bondi compounded it by saying, later, that victims whose names weren’t redacted should contact DOJ to fix it. But their names & information shouldn’t have been exposed in the first place. It’s outrageous that Bondi thinks the burden should be on the survivors to let DOJ know it made a mistake and to get it fixed. DOJ is a massive, well-resourced law firm and it had a legal obligation to protect the victims. It was even provided with a list of names that needed to be redacted, and in some cases, they redacted one or a few, but not all of the victims’ names. It’s so careless that it’s hard to attribute it to mere negligence. Repeated errors of this magnitude, over time, take on the appearance of intentionality. And these are the kind of errors that make it clear to victims that if they come forward with information about the wrong people, their personal safety could be compromised.

Bondi’s Justice Department works for one client above all others, Donald Trump.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi

Civil Discourse – Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi

By Joyce Vance, Feb 11, 2026

Writing this newsletter isn’t always easy. But it feels important to me, every day. If my work resonates with you and you want to support it, subscribing to Civil Discourse makes it possible for me to devote the time and resources it takes. Either way, I’m grateful that you’re here. Democracy is a participatory sport, and none of us can sit on the sidelines right now. Being well educated about what’s transpiring and sharing that knowledge with others is one of the most important things we can do.

Democrats in Congress are trying to get their branch of government to do its constitutional duty. As Congress continues to try and lumber to its feet, with just a few Republicans crossing over to work with Democrats on key issues—that’s how we got the Epstein Files Transparency Act in the first place—there is some good news to report.

Tuesday:

Asked if his agency had hired any pardoned January 6 defendants, ICE’s acting Director Todd Lyons was shockingly unprepared. He said he didn’t have “that information” in front of him but would get it.

Given how obvious it was that the question was coming, the lack of preparation seems deliberate. But Lyons’ follow-on comment was intriguing: He said that ICE takes assaults on law enforcement seriously, and he doubted anyone who did that on Jan 6 could pass a background check. Apparently, ICE takes assaults on law enforcement more seriously than the President, who pardoned the January 6 defendants.

New York Congressman Dan Goldman, a former federal prosecutor and good friend, wasn’t having any of the justifications and efforts to ignore, or at least walk past, what’s been happening on the ground in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

“If you don’t want to be called a fascist regime or secret police, then stop acting like one.”

“It’s long past time that you rein in your out-of-control agency and start following the law and the Constitution.”

Goldman asked Lyons about the guidance agents are given about asking people walking on American streets to show proof of citizenship. Lyons claimed that his agents conduct “targeted intelligence driven operations,” and that they “don’t walk around in the streets asking people about their American citizenship.”

Goldman was skeptical. “Really?” he responded. “So all of those individual American citizens who have been randomly asked are lying? Is that what you’re saying?”

That exchange prompted the Congressman to ask Lyons if he knew what other 20th Century regimes required people to show proof of citizenship in similar circumstances. Lyons responded that he did. “Sir, there has been various nefarious regimes that did that,” He told Goldman.

Goldman: Is Nazi Germany one?

Lyons: Yes. But I—

Goldman: Is the Soviet Union one?

Lyons: I-

Goldman: I’m asking the questions. Is the Soviet Union one?

Lyons: Yes sir, but I’m, I’m totally…this is the wrong type of questioning.

Goldman: I’ll tell you what the wrong type of questioning. Reclaiming my time.

Lyons: It’s not the men and women of ICE that are out there doing it every day. So to say that the men and women of ICE are Gestapos. Wrong.

After more back and forth, Goldman schooled the acting Director of ICE:

“The problem is, you have it backwards sir. People are simply making valid observations about your tactics, which are un-American and outright fascist. So I have a simple suggestion. If you don’t want to be called a fascist regime or secret police, then stop acting like one. People are simply just observing what they are seeing. And that’s why people are making those comments.

…I was a prosecutor for ten years, prosecuted mob bosses, organized crime, violent criminals, the actual “worst of the worst.” Not a single criminal law enforcement agent that I worked with wore a mask to conceal their identity. But your department, which is a civil law enforcement agency, is defending the use of masks by your agents because of a so-called rise in threats and assaults against your officers.”

…Now, why is that a problem Mr. Lyons? It’s a problem because the explanation that your agents are wearing masks because of fear of assaults or doxxing is outright bogus. You and your untrained, unqualified, unvetted, unidentified agents are intentionally terrorizing our cities and communities all over this country to avoid accountability for their excessive force and their lawless actions. That is why you’re wearing masks, so no one can hold you accountable and you know that the FBI is not going to because notwithstanding all the investigations all of you say are going on, the Department of Justice and the FBI has stated they are not investigating those two murders.

This is not the America I know and love. This is not the America my immigrant [family] came to and it’s long past time that you rein in your out-of-control agency and start following the law and the Constitution.”

There are some members of Congress who seem to have the knack for representing all of us, regardless of where we live. Dan Goldman is one of them.

Wednesday:

Today it was Pam Bondi’s turn. This was her first appearance before the House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing, which in and of itself tells you a lot about her respect for the Article I branch of government, 13 months into this administration. Bondi adopted a Trumpian persona, polite, sometimes veering into smarmy with Republicans; dismissive, rude, and downright insulting with Democrats.

But politicians signed up for this. Victims and survivors of horrific crimes didn’t. Washington state Representative Pramila Jayapal was first up for Democrats, and she brought the Epstein survivors with her. She joined me for a Substack Live earlier this evening—I’ll post our full conversation where she explains what she did and how she views Bondi’s approach to the hearing later tonight when the video is ready.

One of Bondi’s lowest moments, besides her use of a “burn book” of insults that she hurled at Democratic members of Congress, was the response to questions about why she hasn’t indicted anyone else who was involved in sex trafficking with Jeffrey Epstein. Her response? “The Dow is over 50,000 dollars.”

A judge would strike a response like that during witness testimony in court as non-responsive. And certainly the AG isn’t taking responsibility for the economy? It’s just so classically Trumpian that it would be laughable except that, because of the context, it isn’t. If you listen to her this bit, there’s a moment where she takes a swipe at Maryland’s Jamie Raskin, saying, “I don’t know why you’re laughing, I hear you’re a great stock trader, Raskin,” and then half swallowing a little chortle at her own cleverness, which came off to the room as intentional disrespect.

Early on, Bondi referred to herself as a career prosecutor. She said that she cares about victims and called Epstein “that monster.” Then she urged victims to come forward. But the irony, and as a prosecutor who handled these kinds of cases, she has to know it, is that victims won’t come forward to talk with the FBI, having seen how Epstein victims are being treated. Asked to acknowledge them repeatedly in today’s hearing, Bondi refused to apologize and arrange interviews with DOJ, something the survivors all signaled they’ve requested but have never been granted. She wouldn’t even turn around to look them in the eyes, to acknowledge and respect their presence.

Bondi compounded it by saying, later, that victims whose names weren’t redacted should contact DOJ to fix it. But their names & information shouldn’t have been exposed in the first place. It’s outrageous that Bondi thinks the burden should be on the survivors to let DOJ know it made a mistake and to get it fixed. DOJ is a massive, well-resourced law firm and it had a legal obligation to protect the victims. It was even provided with a list of names that needed to be redacted, and in some cases, they redacted one or a few, but not all of the victims’ names. It’s so careless that it’s hard to attribute it to mere negligence. Repeated errors of this magnitude, over time, take on the appearance of intentionality. And these are the kind of errors that make it clear to victims that if they come forward with information about the wrong people, their personal safety could be compromised.

Bondi’s Justice Department works for one client above all others, Donald Trump.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi

We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis.

Also: No Kings, No Dictators.

By Joyce Vance, Feb 05, 2026

I wrote this piece, titled “Are We The Nazis Now?” back in October last year. There were so many awful things happening, mostly to immigrants, but by then, some Americans had started to protest their treatment. I was reminded of Anne Frank’s words:

“Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They’re allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then, they’re robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart; men, women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone.”

–Anne Frank

For anyone who had ever wondered how the Germans turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, we are living through the answer. We watched it start in real time. “Trump promised he’d deport violent criminals,” I wrote last October. “Instead, ICE is going after legal residents and terrorizing children. The message: if you’re an American citizen, don’t exercise your First Amendment rights unless you want to become a target too.” Unfortunately, those words proved correct.

I hope you’ll go back and reread the entire piece from October, because it traces what the administration and ICE were doing back then, and although it seems impossible we could ever forget any of it, so much has happened that some of the details get lost. That recent history is essential, because it gives us such a clear picture of the trajectory that has brought us to this moment. In October, ICE had just raided a Chicago apartment building, taking people including kids, outside, some zip tied, in the middle of the night. Immigrants were treated in dehumanizing ways. The administration’s gamble was that not enough Americans would care. It was just “illegals.”

But Americans were already under fire too. There was the ambulance driver who ICE agents threatened to arrest and to kill, claiming he tried to weaponize his vehicle against them, when he was just there to do his job. The administration was already warming up the engines. There was a long runway before ICE shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

In my piece, I asked, “We aren’t even better off in the ways Trump promised. Deporting school kids doesn’t make us safer. Americans don’t want the jobs that aren’t being done in immigrants’ absence. The Labor Department warned in ‘an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’

But beyond the absence of benefits from this administration’s mass deportations, it’s the absence of humanity we see around us that threatens us the most. People who aren’t criminals are thrown to the ground. People are treated with a lack of respect for their basic human dignity. Many of them are hard-working folks who want to be able to love this country and give back because of the opportunity it gives them and their families. Instead, a president who is the son of immigrants and has been married twice to immigrants has become the face of nationalism, using hate and horror to expand his control over people, both American citizens and immigrants, on American soil. Are we the Nazis now?”

There’s an answer to that question. We are not the Nazis. Definitely not. We’re proud of that. We want people to know.

From the massive rallies in freezing temperatures in Minneapolis to smaller ones across the country, like the below one in Maine, Americans are giving their answer to that question. We will not turn a blind eye, we will not acquiesce. We will not be Nazis.

Last Saturday, ABC reported, “Intensive care nurses immediately doubted the word of federal immigration officers when they arrived at a Minneapolis hospital with a Mexican immigrant who had broken bones in his face and skull.” Agents told hospital personnel the man, Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, had tried to flee and had run into a brick wall on purpose. But hospital personnel said his injuries were inconsistent with what ICE claimed.

Prior to his arrest, the man was fine. Four hours later, he was taken to a hospital emergency room. He had “swelling and bruising around his right eye and bleeding. A CT scan revealed at least eight skull fractures and life-threatening hemorrhages in at least five areas of his brain.” The reporter asked a board-certified forensic pathologist who worked as a medical examiner in Minnesota for more than 30 years whether she agreed with hospital employees’ conclusions the injuries weren’t the result of an intentional run at a wall. She responded, “one doesn’t have to be a physician to conclude that a person can’t get skull fractures on both the right and left sides of their head and from front to back by running themselves into a wall.”

One agent subsequently admitted to hospital employees that Castañeda Mondragón, who was arrested the day after Renee Good was killed, “got his (expletive) rocked” after they arrested him.

When he was first admitted to the hospital, Castañeda Mondragón was reportedly “alert and speaking, telling staff he was ‘dragged and mistreated by federal agents.’” But his condition deteriorated rapidly. By the following week, his condition was described as “minimally responsive and communicative, disoriented and heavily sedated.” Nonetheless, ICE agents insisted on shackling Castañeda Mondragón’s ankles to his bed with handcuffs to keep him from escaping. That despite the fact that he “was so disoriented he did not know what year it was and could not recall how he was injured.”

Castañeda Mondragón entered the country legally in 2022. He has no criminal history and started a company in Minnesota. Agents only became aware after they arrested him that he had overstayed his visa. A judge ordered his release and he is no longer in ICE custody, but his friends told the reporter he could no longer work and was at, perhaps, 20% of what he had been before. Hospital employees were surprised he was no longer receiving care.

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on his injuries.

That’s one more human being, damaged by this administration’s insistence of pursuing quotas and treating people like cattle. What started as a slow trickle is now a gusher, too many people impacted to tell all of their stories. But we should still share the ones we know and counter what the administration is trying to do: Normalize treating people as less than human just because they don’t have legal immigration status in the U.S.

We are not the Nazis. That means we have an obligation to say watchful and keep protesting. We have to loudly reject the people who are trying to take us there.

In October I wrote, “What’s certain is this: No matter where Donald Trump wants to take this country, you and I are not going along for the ride. On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that the No Kings rally on Saturday was a “hate-America” rally. He said the people attending would be “the pro-Hamas wing” and “the antifa people.” He’s wrong. We are, in the best tradition of America’s Greatest Generation, truly anti-fascist. And in 2025, anti-fascism begins at home, because we love this country and we believe in democracy. We’re ready.”

On March 28, the third No Kings rally will happen. You can sign up for updates here. Until then, we will continue to let Donald Trump know that we have no intention of letting him turn us into Nazis, that we will block his efforts to take the country there. That’s our job.

Editor’s Note: Here’s Joyce Vance’s October column, embedded below. –DrWeb

Are We the Nazis Now? by Joyce Vance

How do we meet this moment?

Continue/Read Original Article Here: We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis.

Also: No Kings, No Dictators.

By Joyce Vance, Feb 05, 2026

I wrote this piece, titled “Are We The Nazis Now?” back in October last year. There were so many awful things happening, mostly to immigrants, but by then, some Americans had started to protest their treatment. I was reminded of Anne Frank’s words:

“Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They’re allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then, they’re robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart; men, women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone.”

–Anne Frank

For anyone who had ever wondered how the Germans turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, we are living through the answer. We watched it start in real time. “Trump promised he’d deport violent criminals,” I wrote last October. “Instead, ICE is going after legal residents and terrorizing children. The message: if you’re an American citizen, don’t exercise your First Amendment rights unless you want to become a target too.” Unfortunately, those words proved correct.

I hope you’ll go back and reread the entire piece from October, because it traces what the administration and ICE were doing back then, and although it seems impossible we could ever forget any of it, so much has happened that some of the details get lost. That recent history is essential, because it gives us such a clear picture of the trajectory that has brought us to this moment. In October, ICE had just raided a Chicago apartment building, taking people including kids, outside, some zip tied, in the middle of the night. Immigrants were treated in dehumanizing ways. The administration’s gamble was that not enough Americans would care. It was just “illegals.”

But Americans were already under fire too. There was the ambulance driver who ICE agents threatened to arrest and to kill, claiming he tried to weaponize his vehicle against them, when he was just there to do his job. The administration was already warming up the engines. There was a long runway before ICE shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

In my piece, I asked, “We aren’t even better off in the ways Trump promised. Deporting school kids doesn’t make us safer. Americans don’t want the jobs that aren’t being done in immigrants’ absence. The Labor Department warned in ‘an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’

But beyond the absence of benefits from this administration’s mass deportations, it’s the absence of humanity we see around us that threatens us the most. People who aren’t criminals are thrown to the ground. People are treated with a lack of respect for their basic human dignity. Many of them are hard-working folks who want to be able to love this country and give back because of the opportunity it gives them and their families. Instead, a president who is the son of immigrants and has been married twice to immigrants has become the face of nationalism, using hate and horror to expand his control over people, both American citizens and immigrants, on American soil. Are we the Nazis now?”

There’s an answer to that question. We are not the Nazis. Definitely not. We’re proud of that. We want people to know.

From the massive rallies in freezing temperatures in Minneapolis to smaller ones across the country, like the below one in Maine, Americans are giving their answer to that question. We will not turn a blind eye, we will not acquiesce. We will not be Nazis.

Last Saturday, ABC reported, “Intensive care nurses immediately doubted the word of federal immigration officers when they arrived at a Minneapolis hospital with a Mexican immigrant who had broken bones in his face and skull.” Agents told hospital personnel the man, Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, had tried to flee and had run into a brick wall on purpose. But hospital personnel said his injuries were inconsistent with what ICE claimed.

Prior to his arrest, the man was fine. Four hours later, he was taken to a hospital emergency room. He had “swelling and bruising around his right eye and bleeding. A CT scan revealed at least eight skull fractures and life-threatening hemorrhages in at least five areas of his brain.” The reporter asked a board-certified forensic pathologist who worked as a medical examiner in Minnesota for more than 30 years whether she agreed with hospital employees’ conclusions the injuries weren’t the result of an intentional run at a wall. She responded, “one doesn’t have to be a physician to conclude that a person can’t get skull fractures on both the right and left sides of their head and from front to back by running themselves into a wall.”

One agent subsequently admitted to hospital employees that Castañeda Mondragón, who was arrested the day after Renee Good was killed, “got his (expletive) rocked” after they arrested him.

When he was first admitted to the hospital, Castañeda Mondragón was reportedly “alert and speaking, telling staff he was ‘dragged and mistreated by federal agents.’” But his condition deteriorated rapidly. By the following week, his condition was described as “minimally responsive and communicative, disoriented and heavily sedated.” Nonetheless, ICE agents insisted on shackling Castañeda Mondragón’s ankles to his bed with handcuffs to keep him from escaping. That despite the fact that he “was so disoriented he did not know what year it was and could not recall how he was injured.”

Castañeda Mondragón entered the country legally in 2022. He has no criminal history and started a company in Minnesota. Agents only became aware after they arrested him that he had overstayed his visa. A judge ordered his release and he is no longer in ICE custody, but his friends told the reporter he could no longer work and was at, perhaps, 20% of what he had been before. Hospital employees were surprised he was no longer receiving care.

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on his injuries.

That’s one more human being, damaged by this administration’s insistence of pursuing quotas and treating people like cattle. What started as a slow trickle is now a gusher, too many people impacted to tell all of their stories. But we should still share the ones we know and counter what the administration is trying to do: Normalize treating people as less than human just because they don’t have legal immigration status in the U.S.

We are not the Nazis. That means we have an obligation to say watchful and keep protesting. We have to loudly reject the people who are trying to take us there.

In October I wrote, “What’s certain is this: No matter where Donald Trump wants to take this country, you and I are not going along for the ride. On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that the No Kings rally on Saturday was a “hate-America” rally. He said the people attending would be “the pro-Hamas wing” and “the antifa people.” He’s wrong. We are, in the best tradition of America’s Greatest Generation, truly anti-fascist. And in 2025, anti-fascism begins at home, because we love this country and we believe in democracy. We’re ready.”

On March 28, the third No Kings rally will happen. You can sign up for updates here. Until then, we will continue to let Donald Trump know that we have no intention of letting him turn us into Nazis, that we will block his efforts to take the country there. That’s our job.

Editor’s Note: Here’s Joyce Vance’s October column, embedded below. –DrWeb

Are We the Nazis Now? by Joyce Vance

How do we meet this moment?

Continue/Read Original Article Here: We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis.

Also: No Kings, No Dictators.

By Joyce Vance, Feb 05, 2026

I wrote this piece, titled “Are We The Nazis Now?” back in October last year. There were so many awful things happening, mostly to immigrants, but by then, some Americans had started to protest their treatment. I was reminded of Anne Frank’s words:

“Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They’re allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then, they’re robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart; men, women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone.”

–Anne Frank

For anyone who had ever wondered how the Germans turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, we are living through the answer. We watched it start in real time. “Trump promised he’d deport violent criminals,” I wrote last October. “Instead, ICE is going after legal residents and terrorizing children. The message: if you’re an American citizen, don’t exercise your First Amendment rights unless you want to become a target too.” Unfortunately, those words proved correct.

I hope you’ll go back and reread the entire piece from October, because it traces what the administration and ICE were doing back then, and although it seems impossible we could ever forget any of it, so much has happened that some of the details get lost. That recent history is essential, because it gives us such a clear picture of the trajectory that has brought us to this moment. In October, ICE had just raided a Chicago apartment building, taking people including kids, outside, some zip tied, in the middle of the night. Immigrants were treated in dehumanizing ways. The administration’s gamble was that not enough Americans would care. It was just “illegals.”

But Americans were already under fire too. There was the ambulance driver who ICE agents threatened to arrest and to kill, claiming he tried to weaponize his vehicle against them, when he was just there to do his job. The administration was already warming up the engines. There was a long runway before ICE shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

In my piece, I asked, “We aren’t even better off in the ways Trump promised. Deporting school kids doesn’t make us safer. Americans don’t want the jobs that aren’t being done in immigrants’ absence. The Labor Department warned in ‘an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’

But beyond the absence of benefits from this administration’s mass deportations, it’s the absence of humanity we see around us that threatens us the most. People who aren’t criminals are thrown to the ground. People are treated with a lack of respect for their basic human dignity. Many of them are hard-working folks who want to be able to love this country and give back because of the opportunity it gives them and their families. Instead, a president who is the son of immigrants and has been married twice to immigrants has become the face of nationalism, using hate and horror to expand his control over people, both American citizens and immigrants, on American soil. Are we the Nazis now?”

There’s an answer to that question. We are not the Nazis. Definitely not. We’re proud of that. We want people to know.

From the massive rallies in freezing temperatures in Minneapolis to smaller ones across the country, like the below one in Maine, Americans are giving their answer to that question. We will not turn a blind eye, we will not acquiesce. We will not be Nazis.

Last Saturday, ABC reported, “Intensive care nurses immediately doubted the word of federal immigration officers when they arrived at a Minneapolis hospital with a Mexican immigrant who had broken bones in his face and skull.” Agents told hospital personnel the man, Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, had tried to flee and had run into a brick wall on purpose. But hospital personnel said his injuries were inconsistent with what ICE claimed.

Prior to his arrest, the man was fine. Four hours later, he was taken to a hospital emergency room. He had “swelling and bruising around his right eye and bleeding. A CT scan revealed at least eight skull fractures and life-threatening hemorrhages in at least five areas of his brain.” The reporter asked a board-certified forensic pathologist who worked as a medical examiner in Minnesota for more than 30 years whether she agreed with hospital employees’ conclusions the injuries weren’t the result of an intentional run at a wall. She responded, “one doesn’t have to be a physician to conclude that a person can’t get skull fractures on both the right and left sides of their head and from front to back by running themselves into a wall.”

One agent subsequently admitted to hospital employees that Castañeda Mondragón, who was arrested the day after Renee Good was killed, “got his (expletive) rocked” after they arrested him.

When he was first admitted to the hospital, Castañeda Mondragón was reportedly “alert and speaking, telling staff he was ‘dragged and mistreated by federal agents.’” But his condition deteriorated rapidly. By the following week, his condition was described as “minimally responsive and communicative, disoriented and heavily sedated.” Nonetheless, ICE agents insisted on shackling Castañeda Mondragón’s ankles to his bed with handcuffs to keep him from escaping. That despite the fact that he “was so disoriented he did not know what year it was and could not recall how he was injured.”

Castañeda Mondragón entered the country legally in 2022. He has no criminal history and started a company in Minnesota. Agents only became aware after they arrested him that he had overstayed his visa. A judge ordered his release and he is no longer in ICE custody, but his friends told the reporter he could no longer work and was at, perhaps, 20% of what he had been before. Hospital employees were surprised he was no longer receiving care.

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on his injuries.

That’s one more human being, damaged by this administration’s insistence of pursuing quotas and treating people like cattle. What started as a slow trickle is now a gusher, too many people impacted to tell all of their stories. But we should still share the ones we know and counter what the administration is trying to do: Normalize treating people as less than human just because they don’t have legal immigration status in the U.S.

We are not the Nazis. That means we have an obligation to say watchful and keep protesting. We have to loudly reject the people who are trying to take us there.

In October I wrote, “What’s certain is this: No matter where Donald Trump wants to take this country, you and I are not going along for the ride. On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that the No Kings rally on Saturday was a “hate-America” rally. He said the people attending would be “the pro-Hamas wing” and “the antifa people.” He’s wrong. We are, in the best tradition of America’s Greatest Generation, truly anti-fascist. And in 2025, anti-fascism begins at home, because we love this country and we believe in democracy. We’re ready.”

On March 28, the third No Kings rally will happen. You can sign up for updates here. Until then, we will continue to let Donald Trump know that we have no intention of letting him turn us into Nazis, that we will block his efforts to take the country there. That’s our job.

Editor’s Note: Here’s Joyce Vance’s October column, embedded below. –DrWeb

Are We the Nazis Now? by Joyce Vance

How do we meet this moment?

Continue/Read Original Article Here: We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis.

Also: No Kings, No Dictators.

By Joyce Vance, Feb 05, 2026

I wrote this piece, titled “Are We The Nazis Now?” back in October last year. There were so many awful things happening, mostly to immigrants, but by then, some Americans had started to protest their treatment. I was reminded of Anne Frank’s words:

“Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They’re allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then, they’re robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart; men, women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone.”

–Anne Frank

For anyone who had ever wondered how the Germans turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, we are living through the answer. We watched it start in real time. “Trump promised he’d deport violent criminals,” I wrote last October. “Instead, ICE is going after legal residents and terrorizing children. The message: if you’re an American citizen, don’t exercise your First Amendment rights unless you want to become a target too.” Unfortunately, those words proved correct.

I hope you’ll go back and reread the entire piece from October, because it traces what the administration and ICE were doing back then, and although it seems impossible we could ever forget any of it, so much has happened that some of the details get lost. That recent history is essential, because it gives us such a clear picture of the trajectory that has brought us to this moment. In October, ICE had just raided a Chicago apartment building, taking people including kids, outside, some zip tied, in the middle of the night. Immigrants were treated in dehumanizing ways. The administration’s gamble was that not enough Americans would care. It was just “illegals.”

But Americans were already under fire too. There was the ambulance driver who ICE agents threatened to arrest and to kill, claiming he tried to weaponize his vehicle against them, when he was just there to do his job. The administration was already warming up the engines. There was a long runway before ICE shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

In my piece, I asked, “We aren’t even better off in the ways Trump promised. Deporting school kids doesn’t make us safer. Americans don’t want the jobs that aren’t being done in immigrants’ absence. The Labor Department warned in ‘an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’

But beyond the absence of benefits from this administration’s mass deportations, it’s the absence of humanity we see around us that threatens us the most. People who aren’t criminals are thrown to the ground. People are treated with a lack of respect for their basic human dignity. Many of them are hard-working folks who want to be able to love this country and give back because of the opportunity it gives them and their families. Instead, a president who is the son of immigrants and has been married twice to immigrants has become the face of nationalism, using hate and horror to expand his control over people, both American citizens and immigrants, on American soil. Are we the Nazis now?”

There’s an answer to that question. We are not the Nazis. Definitely not. We’re proud of that. We want people to know.

From the massive rallies in freezing temperatures in Minneapolis to smaller ones across the country, like the below one in Maine, Americans are giving their answer to that question. We will not turn a blind eye, we will not acquiesce. We will not be Nazis.

Last Saturday, ABC reported, “Intensive care nurses immediately doubted the word of federal immigration officers when they arrived at a Minneapolis hospital with a Mexican immigrant who had broken bones in his face and skull.” Agents told hospital personnel the man, Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, had tried to flee and had run into a brick wall on purpose. But hospital personnel said his injuries were inconsistent with what ICE claimed.

Prior to his arrest, the man was fine. Four hours later, he was taken to a hospital emergency room. He had “swelling and bruising around his right eye and bleeding. A CT scan revealed at least eight skull fractures and life-threatening hemorrhages in at least five areas of his brain.” The reporter asked a board-certified forensic pathologist who worked as a medical examiner in Minnesota for more than 30 years whether she agreed with hospital employees’ conclusions the injuries weren’t the result of an intentional run at a wall. She responded, “one doesn’t have to be a physician to conclude that a person can’t get skull fractures on both the right and left sides of their head and from front to back by running themselves into a wall.”

One agent subsequently admitted to hospital employees that Castañeda Mondragón, who was arrested the day after Renee Good was killed, “got his (expletive) rocked” after they arrested him.

When he was first admitted to the hospital, Castañeda Mondragón was reportedly “alert and speaking, telling staff he was ‘dragged and mistreated by federal agents.’” But his condition deteriorated rapidly. By the following week, his condition was described as “minimally responsive and communicative, disoriented and heavily sedated.” Nonetheless, ICE agents insisted on shackling Castañeda Mondragón’s ankles to his bed with handcuffs to keep him from escaping. That despite the fact that he “was so disoriented he did not know what year it was and could not recall how he was injured.”

Castañeda Mondragón entered the country legally in 2022. He has no criminal history and started a company in Minnesota. Agents only became aware after they arrested him that he had overstayed his visa. A judge ordered his release and he is no longer in ICE custody, but his friends told the reporter he could no longer work and was at, perhaps, 20% of what he had been before. Hospital employees were surprised he was no longer receiving care.

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on his injuries.

That’s one more human being, damaged by this administration’s insistence of pursuing quotas and treating people like cattle. What started as a slow trickle is now a gusher, too many people impacted to tell all of their stories. But we should still share the ones we know and counter what the administration is trying to do: Normalize treating people as less than human just because they don’t have legal immigration status in the U.S.

We are not the Nazis. That means we have an obligation to say watchful and keep protesting. We have to loudly reject the people who are trying to take us there.

In October I wrote, “What’s certain is this: No matter where Donald Trump wants to take this country, you and I are not going along for the ride. On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that the No Kings rally on Saturday was a “hate-America” rally. He said the people attending would be “the pro-Hamas wing” and “the antifa people.” He’s wrong. We are, in the best tradition of America’s Greatest Generation, truly anti-fascist. And in 2025, anti-fascism begins at home, because we love this country and we believe in democracy. We’re ready.”

On March 28, the third No Kings rally will happen. You can sign up for updates here. Until then, we will continue to let Donald Trump know that we have no intention of letting him turn us into Nazis, that we will block his efforts to take the country there. That’s our job.

Editor’s Note: Here’s Joyce Vance’s October column, embedded below. –DrWeb

Are We the Nazis Now? by Joyce Vance

How do we meet this moment?

Continue/Read Original Article Here: We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discoure – ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant

By Joyce Vance, Jan 21, 2026

It’s been a long time since we took a night off. I honestly can’t remember the last time. But tonight I’m going to turn in early, after a long day. Before I do that, I wanted to flag one development with ICE for you.

I also want to leave you with some reason for optimism. You may have seen the news that ICE has now surged agents to Maine, predominantly to the cities of Portland and Lewiston, where there are large Somali immigrant communities. This is an echo of the focus on the Somali community in Minnesota.

Tonight, close to 1,000 people joined the mighty Maine ACLU for training on their legal rights and non-violent protest. It was an honor to get to participate in it. When we talk about community building and supporting democracy, this is what it’s all about: people committed to standing up for their rights and for their neighbors’ rights. There is training across the country that you can participate in to better educate yourself about your right to protest peacefully.

Now, the development: The Associated Press is reporting that it has seen a memo ICE is using for internal agent training that asserts “sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant.” The Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable search and seizure, has always been understood to require a warrant signed by a judge, not an administrative warrant signed by a DHS employee to enter a private residence or private areas of a business.

This new policy stance might explain some of the incidents that have been reported in Minnesota, where agents have made forcible entry into homes to remove people and put them into deportation proceedings without a judicial warrant. This sounds like what might have been at work when agents forcibly entered the home of a Hmong man in Minnesota who has been an American citizen for decades, and according to his statement, declined to produce a warrant and claimed he was subject to removal before forcing him out into the freezing cold in his underwear. It turned out that they got it wrong and were forced to release him a few hours later.

The AP reported that they witnessed ICE officers ramming through the front door of the home of a Liberian man in Minneapolis on Jan. 11 with only an administrative warrant, wearing heavy tactical gear and with their rifles drawn, which could also be a result of the new policy.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant

Civil Discoure – ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant

By Joyce Vance, Jan 21, 2026

It’s been a long time since we took a night off. I honestly can’t remember the last time. But tonight I’m going to turn in early, after a long day. Before I do that, I wanted to flag one development with ICE for you.

I also want to leave you with some reason for optimism. You may have seen the news that ICE has now surged agents to Maine, predominantly to the cities of Portland and Lewiston, where there are large Somali immigrant communities. This is an echo of the focus on the Somali community in Minnesota.

Tonight, close to 1,000 people joined the mighty Maine ACLU for training on their legal rights and non-violent protest. It was an honor to get to participate in it. When we talk about community building and supporting democracy, this is what it’s all about: people committed to standing up for their rights and for their neighbors’ rights. There is training across the country that you can participate in to better educate yourself about your right to protest peacefully.

Now, the development: The Associated Press is reporting that it has seen a memo ICE is using for internal agent training that asserts “sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant.” The Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable search and seizure, has always been understood to require a warrant signed by a judge, not an administrative warrant signed by a DHS employee to enter a private residence or private areas of a business.

This new policy stance might explain some of the incidents that have been reported in Minnesota, where agents have made forcible entry into homes to remove people and put them into deportation proceedings without a judicial warrant. This sounds like what might have been at work when agents forcibly entered the home of a Hmong man in Minnesota who has been an American citizen for decades, and according to his statement, declined to produce a warrant and claimed he was subject to removal before forcing him out into the freezing cold in his underwear. It turned out that they got it wrong and were forced to release him a few hours later.

The AP reported that they witnessed ICE officers ramming through the front door of the home of a Liberian man in Minneapolis on Jan. 11 with only an administrative warrant, wearing heavy tactical gear and with their rifles drawn, which could also be a result of the new policy.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant

Civil Discourse – It’s The Cynicism – Joyce Vance

It’s The Cynicism

By Joyce Vance, Jan 17, 2026

It seems to be everywhere you look, across the political spectrum. Far too many people don’t believe in anything anymore. They’ve lost faith in everything: our institutions, our values, and even each other. We’ve become a country of cynics.

One of the first posts I saw this morning on social media was about a well-documented instance where a Minnesota family’s six children were hospitalized after their minivan filled with smoke and tear gas fired by federal agents. Below the news report, someone had dismissed it in the comments: “I don’t believe it.” That was it. No explanation, nothing that cast doubt on the reporting. Just a rejection.

A little bit further down, someone had written about diminishing confidence in the Justice Department. A commentator wrote, “Did anyone believe in that anyway?”

We have become a nation of skeptics, of cynics. We are jaded. It’s all around us.

In her essay, Truth and Politics, Hannah Arendt wrote, “The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.”

The President spews lies so constantly and so casually that it’s easy to understand how people can lose their bearings. It’s an assumption that Trump lies, not something unusual. That’s the President of the United States!

One manifestation of the lies we’ve become so inured to is the destruction of confidence in our elections. Trump has lied for so long about voter fraud, about non-citizens voting (the evidence does not back that claim up), about voting machines, about stolen elections, that it has permeated the national consciousness and even when people see through the lies, a miasma of distrust for the entire process remains. And of course, it’s not just elections.

Who benefits from a loss of faith in our institutions and in our ability to come out on the other end of this national nightmare with an intact republic? It’s not hard to see. It’s the man who enjoys upsetting the balance of power guarded by NATO because he wants to own Greenland. The man who tears down the East Wing. The man who won’t release the Epstein Files.

At this stage, Trump no longer cares if people believe his lies. He just needs the chaos they generate and the absence of shared truths, shared facts, in our country. People who can no longer discern what’s true from what’s false lose their moral compasses, like the agents who are now shooting at the people they took an oath to protect and serve. It all benefits a leader who wants to take authoritarian control of a democracy.

Giving up your belief in how things should be is dangerous.

I’m not suggesting everyone should have blind faith in our institutions, far from it at this point. But we need to be aware of what’s broken and needs mending without getting stuck on it. Instead of succumbing to cynicism, let’s stay focused on what we can do, even the small things.

Be kind, share joy. Register to vote and make sure everyone around you does, too. We know what this is going to take, but we have to stop the spread of cynicism around us. We’ve come too far in the last year to accept Trump’s success as inevitable.

In the coming week, we will mark the one-year anniversary of the second Trump administration. Find your own way to protest it. Donate to a food bank. Help a neighbor out, or help someone you’ve never met but have empathy for. Sign up to work at a polling place, or decide to run for office. There is so much that we can do. What we cannot afford to do is to let a man who thinks of no one but himself win.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: It’s The Cynicism – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

It’s The Cynicism by Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse – Don’t Take the Bait – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Don’t Take the Bait

By Joyce Vance, Jan 15, 2026

In the time of Trump, “Don’t take the bait” is a rule that’s almost as important as “Do not obey in advance.”

Following the shooting death of Renee Good and other incidents where agents played fast and loose with the rights of both American citizens and immigrants, ICE seems to be doing everything it can to be an accelerant to the tensions. Wednesday evening, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that federal agents were trying to arrest a man from Venezuela who was in the country illegally, when he fled from agents. She said he “began to resist and violently assault the officer,” and was joined by two other men who attacked the agent with a snow shovel and broom handle. McLaughlin said the agent feared for his life and shot the man they’d been trying to arrest in the leg.

There are obviously questions about this scenario, including how an agent ended up alone and whether a reasonable agent would have thought his life was at risk. As The New York Times put it, “The federal government’s narrative could not immediately be verified.” A crowd of about 200 people gathered after the shooting, and according to the police chief, engaged in illegal acts, including throwing fireworks at police. After agents from ICE’s sister agency, CBP, showed up in what the Times called a large, military-style vehicle, protesters “swarmed the vehicle and yelled and threw snowballs at agents.” Retreating agents fired tear gas-type canisters, and agents who arrived subsequently sprayed chemical agents against the protestors who moved toward them. A protester lobbed fireworks toward the agents as they left.

Agents could have de-escalated the tension at any point in these developments, but did not. That forces us to ask why—is there a deliberate effort to provoke protestors into acts of violence? We don’t know the answer to that question for certain, but a social media post by the president this morning gave some hint.

Trump threatened to use the “INSURRECTION ACT” due to attacks on “the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job.”

No surprise. We’ve always known he was looking for an excuse to do this. We’ve discussed insurrection act here before. I wrote to you about it back in April, in a piece that also discusses the importance and effectiveness of peaceful protest. “Trump might try to take advantage of minor incidents, or even plants who engage in violence, to impose the Insurrection Act and use the military to put a halt to Americans who are out on the streets exercising their First Amendment rights.”

So as difficult as it may become to show restraint, it’s essential that we don’t take Trump’s bait as we protest. If he’s going to impose the Insurrection Act, as he likely will at some point, we don’t want to give him any cover for it. Each of us can help by sharing this message with those around us and making sure they share it forward.

Here’s what you need to know about the Insurrection Act:

• Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. It explicitly outlaws using the armed forces to enforce the law within our borders, unless that action is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.
• Enter the Insurrection Act, which permits a president to deploy the military in American cities and on our streets in very narrow circumstances involving insurrection, rebellion, or extreme civil unrest.
• Even in those circumstances, the military can only be used for “emergency needs” towards the goal of reestablishing civilian control as quickly as possible. This is where lawsuits may come in, especially since governors and local leaders are not only not asking for federal intervention, but in the case of Minnesota, explicitly asking the feds to leave.
• Typically, the Act is only used at a Governor and/or local officials’ request. The exceptions to that are 60 years ago and come from the heart of the civil rights era, when presidents sent troops to states like Mississippi and Alabama to protect people’s lives and liberty, like college students integrating state universities, not sending troops in to traumatize a civilian population trying to peacefully exercise its First Amendment rights.
• But the Act’s language is broad and gives presidents plenty of discretion to, for instance, use the military to arrest American citizens engaged in protest, if a president calls what’s going on an insurrection, rebellion, or civil unrest. And in an 1827 case, Martin v. Mott, the Supreme Court ruled that it is up to the president to decide whether the Insurrection Act should be invoked and that the courts may not review his decision. Although more recently, courts have intimated that a president’s assessment needs to pass the smell test, we should still expect to see them give broad deference to his decisions.

There are reports that federal agents are unrepentant following Good’s death at the hands of one of their number. Minnesotan Patty O’Keefe, an American citizen, was arrested and detained by ICE. While they were transporting her, she says one of the agents said to her, “You’ve gotta stop obstructing us. That’s why that lesbian bitch is dead.”

NBC is reporting that in its rush to hire, ICE is deploying new agents to the field without adequate training. An AI program they were using flagged new hires with no law enforcement experience as trained agents and surged them out to offices. The article says this was the case with “many” of them. The president directed ICE to hire 10,000 new officers by the end of 2025 and offered new recruits $50,000 signing bonuses using money allocated to the agency by Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” DHS says those agents have been identified and are receiving training in the field.

It’s not just Minnesota. Geraldo Lunas Campos died at an ICE detention center in El Paso, Texas, on January 3. The Washington Post reports it has listened to a recording of a call between a staffer in the coroner’s office and Mr. Campos’ daughter, where she is told that pending the results of a toxicology report, “our doctor is believing that we’re going to be listing the manner of death as homicide.” At the time of his death, the agency said “staff observed him in distress,” but did not offer a cause of death. The Post reports that “a fellow detainee says he witnessed … Campos being choked to death by guards.” The El Paso facility is described as “a colossal makeshift tent encampment on the Mexican border.” Not only have the people being housed there reported “substandard conditions and physical abuse,” ICE inspectors found over 60 violations of federal standards for detaining migrants in just 50 days dating back to last September.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Don’t Take the Bait – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse – Don’t Take the Bait – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Don’t Take the Bait

By Joyce Vance, Jan 15, 2026

In the time of Trump, “Don’t take the bait” is a rule that’s almost as important as “Do not obey in advance.”

Following the shooting death of Renee Good and other incidents where agents played fast and loose with the rights of both American citizens and immigrants, ICE seems to be doing everything it can to be an accelerant to the tensions. Wednesday evening, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that federal agents were trying to arrest a man from Venezuela who was in the country illegally, when he fled from agents. She said he “began to resist and violently assault the officer,” and was joined by two other men who attacked the agent with a snow shovel and broom handle. McLaughlin said the agent feared for his life and shot the man they’d been trying to arrest in the leg.

There are obviously questions about this scenario, including how an agent ended up alone and whether a reasonable agent would have thought his life was at risk. As The New York Times put it, “The federal government’s narrative could not immediately be verified.” A crowd of about 200 people gathered after the shooting, and according to the police chief, engaged in illegal acts, including throwing fireworks at police. After agents from ICE’s sister agency, CBP, showed up in what the Times called a large, military-style vehicle, protesters “swarmed the vehicle and yelled and threw snowballs at agents.” Retreating agents fired tear gas-type canisters, and agents who arrived subsequently sprayed chemical agents against the protestors who moved toward them. A protester lobbed fireworks toward the agents as they left.

Agents could have de-escalated the tension at any point in these developments, but did not. That forces us to ask why—is there a deliberate effort to provoke protestors into acts of violence? We don’t know the answer to that question for certain, but a social media post by the president this morning gave some hint.

Trump threatened to use the “INSURRECTION ACT” due to attacks on “the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job.”

No surprise. We’ve always known he was looking for an excuse to do this. We’ve discussed insurrection act here before. I wrote to you about it back in April, in a piece that also discusses the importance and effectiveness of peaceful protest. “Trump might try to take advantage of minor incidents, or even plants who engage in violence, to impose the Insurrection Act and use the military to put a halt to Americans who are out on the streets exercising their First Amendment rights.”

So as difficult as it may become to show restraint, it’s essential that we don’t take Trump’s bait as we protest. If he’s going to impose the Insurrection Act, as he likely will at some point, we don’t want to give him any cover for it. Each of us can help by sharing this message with those around us and making sure they share it forward.

Here’s what you need to know about the Insurrection Act:

• Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. It explicitly outlaws using the armed forces to enforce the law within our borders, unless that action is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.
• Enter the Insurrection Act, which permits a president to deploy the military in American cities and on our streets in very narrow circumstances involving insurrection, rebellion, or extreme civil unrest.
• Even in those circumstances, the military can only be used for “emergency needs” towards the goal of reestablishing civilian control as quickly as possible. This is where lawsuits may come in, especially since governors and local leaders are not only not asking for federal intervention, but in the case of Minnesota, explicitly asking the feds to leave.
• Typically, the Act is only used at a Governor and/or local officials’ request. The exceptions to that are 60 years ago and come from the heart of the civil rights era, when presidents sent troops to states like Mississippi and Alabama to protect people’s lives and liberty, like college students integrating state universities, not sending troops in to traumatize a civilian population trying to peacefully exercise its First Amendment rights.
• But the Act’s language is broad and gives presidents plenty of discretion to, for instance, use the military to arrest American citizens engaged in protest, if a president calls what’s going on an insurrection, rebellion, or civil unrest. And in an 1827 case, Martin v. Mott, the Supreme Court ruled that it is up to the president to decide whether the Insurrection Act should be invoked and that the courts may not review his decision. Although more recently, courts have intimated that a president’s assessment needs to pass the smell test, we should still expect to see them give broad deference to his decisions.

There are reports that federal agents are unrepentant following Good’s death at the hands of one of their number. Minnesotan Patty O’Keefe, an American citizen, was arrested and detained by ICE. While they were transporting her, she says one of the agents said to her, “You’ve gotta stop obstructing us. That’s why that lesbian bitch is dead.”

NBC is reporting that in its rush to hire, ICE is deploying new agents to the field without adequate training. An AI program they were using flagged new hires with no law enforcement experience as trained agents and surged them out to offices. The article says this was the case with “many” of them. The president directed ICE to hire 10,000 new officers by the end of 2025 and offered new recruits $50,000 signing bonuses using money allocated to the agency by Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” DHS says those agents have been identified and are receiving training in the field.

It’s not just Minnesota. Geraldo Lunas Campos died at an ICE detention center in El Paso, Texas, on January 3. The Washington Post reports it has listened to a recording of a call between a staffer in the coroner’s office and Mr. Campos’ daughter, where she is told that pending the results of a toxicology report, “our doctor is believing that we’re going to be listing the manner of death as homicide.” At the time of his death, the agency said “staff observed him in distress,” but did not offer a cause of death. The Post reports that “a fellow detainee says he witnessed … Campos being choked to death by guards.” The El Paso facility is described as “a colossal makeshift tent encampment on the Mexican border.” Not only have the people being housed there reported “substandard conditions and physical abuse,” ICE inspectors found over 60 violations of federal standards for detaining migrants in just 50 days dating back to last September.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Don’t Take the Bait – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

By Joyce Vance, Jan 13, 2026

Protect and serve. That’s supposed to be the job.

What could be further from that than masked agents roaming American streets in packs, refusing to identify themselves, and terrorizing—there is no other word for it at this point—American citizens?

Early on, the excuse for wearing masks was that it was necessary to protect the agents. From what? There were reports that they were being doxxed, which no one in law enforcement likes to deal with. But they’re the ones assaulting and killing people, which is far more problematic. Back in July, the Acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, said that he did not encourage agents to use masks but would continue to let them wear them in the field “if that’s a tool they need to keep them and their families safe.” Now masks and gaiters are emblematic of ICE agents and their colleagues from CBP (Customs and Border Protection) doing immigration work in places like Minneapolis.

You don’t routinely see the FBI or U.S. Marshals out doing their jobs with masks on. There is literally no legitimate reason for ICE and Customs Border Patrol (CBP) to continue to operate this way during immigration “enforcement actions,” especially in light of the recent history of documented abuses. Anonymity accelerates that kind of behavior. It tells the agents they aren’t accountable for violating people’s civil rights.

There has been concern about the kind of people the administration is rushing into service in ICE and as deportation officers. Congressional Democrats are asking for information on whether hiring includes now-pardoned Jan. 6 defendants.

The overwhelming majority of federal law enforcement agents I worked with during my 25-year career at DOJ were men and women who were committed to following the law themselves while protecting their communities and prosecuting crimes. They believed citizens had constitutional rights. There’s no reason for the sudden change, a world where an agent shoots and kills a woman for no good reason, except that the current leadership in the White House and at DHS is willing to tolerate, if not encourage, what we’re now seeing. There are people ripped out of their cars, homes entered without a judicial warrant, agents who treat American citizens like they have no rights. This administration dishonors the service of the federal agents who spent their careers committed to constitutional policing.

Law enforcement officers are trained to de-escalate tense situations. Instead, we’re watching ICE agents act like the accelerant to a smoldering fire. The administration’s take on the failure of agents to behave like the good guys they’re supposed to be isn’t to put a stop to it. Instead, they revel in the Gestapo-like images of doors being busted down, school kids being knocked to the ground, and peaceful protesters being hit with pepper spray. So, it’s up to someone else to stop it.

The state of training at ICE is unclear, as new agents are rapidly hired and deployed. But what we’re seeing is troubling.

Some states have tried passing laws to prohibit masking.

California passed SB 627 (the “No Secret Police Act”) in late 2025, restricting law enforcement, including federal agents, from using extreme face coverings like ski masks during operations, effective Jan 1, 2026. There are logical exemptions to protect officer safety and the identity of undercover operatives. California Governor Gavin Newsom said at the time, “This is about the secret police. We’re not North Korea, Mr. President. We’re not the Soviet Union. This is the United States of America.”

The language of the bill explains that “facial coverings limit the visibility of facial expressions, which are essential components of nonverbal communication. In high-stress or emotionally charged interactions, the inability to read an officer’s expression may lead to misinterpretation of tone or intent, increasing the risk of conflict escalation” and that “the visibility of an officer’s face is vital for promoting transparency, facilitating communication, and building trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.” It also points out that “when officers are not readily identifiable, it increases the risk of impersonation by unauthorized individuals, which further undermines public trust, endangers public safety, and hinders legitimate law enforcement operations.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

By Joyce Vance, Jan 13, 2026

Protect and serve. That’s supposed to be the job.

What could be further from that than masked agents roaming American streets in packs, refusing to identify themselves, and terrorizing—there is no other word for it at this point—American citizens?

Early on, the excuse for wearing masks was that it was necessary to protect the agents. From what? There were reports that they were being doxxed, which no one in law enforcement likes to deal with. But they’re the ones assaulting and killing people, which is far more problematic. Back in July, the Acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, said that he did not encourage agents to use masks but would continue to let them wear them in the field “if that’s a tool they need to keep them and their families safe.” Now masks and gaiters are emblematic of ICE agents and their colleagues from CBP (Customs and Border Protection) doing immigration work in places like Minneapolis.

You don’t routinely see the FBI or U.S. Marshals out doing their jobs with masks on. There is literally no legitimate reason for ICE and Customs Border Patrol (CBP) to continue to operate this way during immigration “enforcement actions,” especially in light of the recent history of documented abuses. Anonymity accelerates that kind of behavior. It tells the agents they aren’t accountable for violating people’s civil rights.

There has been concern about the kind of people the administration is rushing into service in ICE and as deportation officers. Congressional Democrats are asking for information on whether hiring includes now-pardoned Jan. 6 defendants.

The overwhelming majority of federal law enforcement agents I worked with during my 25-year career at DOJ were men and women who were committed to following the law themselves while protecting their communities and prosecuting crimes. They believed citizens had constitutional rights. There’s no reason for the sudden change, a world where an agent shoots and kills a woman for no good reason, except that the current leadership in the White House and at DHS is willing to tolerate, if not encourage, what we’re now seeing. There are people ripped out of their cars, homes entered without a judicial warrant, agents who treat American citizens like they have no rights. This administration dishonors the service of the federal agents who spent their careers committed to constitutional policing.

Law enforcement officers are trained to de-escalate tense situations. Instead, we’re watching ICE agents act like the accelerant to a smoldering fire. The administration’s take on the failure of agents to behave like the good guys they’re supposed to be isn’t to put a stop to it. Instead, they revel in the Gestapo-like images of doors being busted down, school kids being knocked to the ground, and peaceful protesters being hit with pepper spray. So, it’s up to someone else to stop it.

The state of training at ICE is unclear, as new agents are rapidly hired and deployed. But what we’re seeing is troubling.

Some states have tried passing laws to prohibit masking.

California passed SB 627 (the “No Secret Police Act”) in late 2025, restricting law enforcement, including federal agents, from using extreme face coverings like ski masks during operations, effective Jan 1, 2026. There are logical exemptions to protect officer safety and the identity of undercover operatives. California Governor Gavin Newsom said at the time, “This is about the secret police. We’re not North Korea, Mr. President. We’re not the Soviet Union. This is the United States of America.”

The language of the bill explains that “facial coverings limit the visibility of facial expressions, which are essential components of nonverbal communication. In high-stress or emotionally charged interactions, the inability to read an officer’s expression may lead to misinterpretation of tone or intent, increasing the risk of conflict escalation” and that “the visibility of an officer’s face is vital for promoting transparency, facilitating communication, and building trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.” It also points out that “when officers are not readily identifiable, it increases the risk of impersonation by unauthorized individuals, which further undermines public trust, endangers public safety, and hinders legitimate law enforcement operations.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

Civil Discourse – The Dangerous Revision Of Jan 6 History On The Official WH Website – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Dangerous Revision Of Jan 6 History On The Official WH Website

By Joyce Vance, Jan 06, 2026

As I wrote to you last night, five years on from January 6, Donald Trump is trying to rewrite the history of the insurrection. The White House published a new website today, detailing their version of the timeline of the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. He accuses Democrats, pictured in black and white across the top of the page along with Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, of promoting a “gaslighting narrative” of the day’s events.

The new page starts with the claim that, “President Trump took decisive action to pardon January 6 defendants who were unfairly targeted, overcharged, and used as political examples. They were not protected by the leaders who failed them. They were punished to cover incompetence.” It goes on to assert that his pardons ended “years of harsh solitary confinement, denied due process, and family separation for exercising their First Amendment rights.” The website fails to acknowledge that these criminal defendants were charged by grand juries, convicted at trial, or in many cases, convicted after they pled guilty, and had full appeal rights.

Trump concludes: “The Democrats masterfully reversed reality after January 6, branding peaceful patriotic protesters as ‘insurrectionists’ and framing the event as a violent coup attempt orchestrated by Trump—despite no evidence of armed rebellion or intent to overthrow the government. In truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection,” which the website says was the certification of the 2020 election that the White House describes as “fraud-ridden” and for allegedly “weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters.” The courts resoundingly rejected Trump’s claims of a stolen election, with even the Supreme Court ruling against him.

The website turns to the blame game—trying to foist off responsibility for January 6 on Nancy Pelosi and Democrats—and offers a timeline that emphasizes Trump’s call for peaceful protest.

A video taken by Pelosi’s daughter is included for the stunning proposition that she accepted blame for the attack on the Capitol. It’s selectively edited video and a debunked claim, indeed, an insincere one for the man who ignored pleas for help from members of his own party and watched the chaos unfold on television when he could have put a stop to it. As Pelosi’s office put it at the time, “Numerous independent fact-checkers have confirmed again and again that Speaker Pelosi did not plan her own assassination on January 6th.” But there it is, on the White House’s official website.

In a speech this morning at the House GOP retreat, held at the newly renamed “Trump Kennedy Center,” Trump, referring to the speech he gave on the Ellipse five years ago, alleged that “the news never reported the words ‘walk or march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol.’” As far as I recall, those words were widely reported, along with everything else the president said and tweeted at the time, in full context. Trump’s claim that he called for an entirely peaceful protest that day is offset by Jack Smith’s recent testimony that the evidence he compiled established Trump’s complicity. “The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit.”

Read the full transcript of Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6, 2021, here [https://www.rev.com/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6] and make your own assessment. The full context is important, especially with the president installing a sanitized version on the White House website, a slanted version that includes the word he was doubtless encouraged to insert about peacefulness, for the obvious reason that the speech was one that otherwise exhorted the crowd to take action. “We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved,” the president told the crowd in the first seconds of his address.

Trump also said:

• “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.”
• “By the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? … There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.”
• [The crowd then breaks in, chanting, “Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!” Trump does not discourage this.]
• “We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women … You have to show strength, and you have to be strong … We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections.”
• “Looking out at all the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future. Well, I have to say we have to be a little bit careful. That’s a nice statement, but we have to be a little careful with that statement. If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country, because it’s illegal when the votes are illegal, when the way they got there is illegal, when the States that vote are given false and fraudulent information.”
• “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give … The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

This morning, Nancy Pelosi tweeted, “We must speak plainly: January 6th was an attempted coup. It was an effort to nullify millions of lawful votes and subvert the will of the American people. But the attack failed because of the courage of public servants who gave proof through the night that our flag was still there by refusing to bend to pressure, threats, or intimidation. On that day, the Constitution held and we kept the Republic.”

Trump is trying to take it away again, this time with a rewrite of history that is worthy of George Orwell’s 1984. Our job as citizens is clear. We have to remain committed and refuse to let that happen. Facts are powerful. If the truth wasn’t so damaging, Trump wouldn’t be going to this much trouble to rewrite it. That he has public resources and a president’s bully pulpit to do it with is shameful and dangerous.

Last night I wrote to you about the Virginia museum curator, Bill Martin, who insisted on exhibits that put on display a shameful history of teaching fourth graders in the state that slavery was a good time with happy slaves, a gross misrepresentation of reality. Mr. Martin stood for the truth and dislodged and exposed that narrative so it could not be reinstated. We have to do that with Trump’s newest effort to rewrite the history of January 6. Trump may temporarily control government websites and museums, but we control the public narrative on the ground—we are everywhere across the country.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Dangerous Revision Of Jan 6 History On The Official WH Website

Civil Discourse – Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning

By Joyce Vance, Jan 03, 2026

This morning, Donald Trump explained, in a rambling press conference along with others in his administration, that the overnight strike in Venezuela was executed to arrest President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. In other words, it’s not the kind of new hostilities, if you buy the administration’s line, that would require notice to or a declaration from Congress.

This approach, although it’s what I suggested in this morning’s post we should expect, leaves me with a major question: if the U.S. was just going in to Venezuela to arrest a defendant in a criminal case, which has now been done, why is it necessary to stick around to run the country? That is exactly what Trump said this morning that we’d be doing. “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition,” the President said.

Senator Chuck Schumer tweeted: “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans. The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

Tomorrow morning at 11:30 a.m. ET, I’ll host a Substack Live with Jake Sullivan, who served as Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor from 2021 to 2025, and Jon Finer, Biden’s Deputy National Security Advisor. We’ll answer your questions about what comes next. Make sure you’re subscribed to Civil Discourse to get a notice when we go live—a free subscription will work for that. And leave any questions you have for us in the comments. Jake and Jon have a fantastic new podcast, The Long Game, that drops every Friday.

Leave a comment

The new indictment:

The superseding indictment against Maduro, Flores, and four others was unsealed this morning. It contains three counts and a hefty amount of narrative. It is, as prosecutors say, a speaking indictment:

• Count One: Narcoterrorism Conspiracy; Title 21, United States Code, Section 960a; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3238
• Count Two: Cocaine Importation Conspiracy; Title 21, United States Code, Section 963; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3238
• Count Three: Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(c)(l)(A), 924(c)(l)(B)(ii), 3238, and 2
• Count Four: Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(0) and 3238

You can read the superseding indictment here. It’s signed by Trump’s new U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, which means it was obtained no earlier than August of this year. It involves fewer defendants than the original 2020 indictment, which named 15 defendants, including Maduro. That could mean that some of the original defendants have become cooperators. We don’t know the details yet, but we will likely learn more in the course of detention hearings, which should follow shortly on the heels of the arraignment.

The superseding indictment adds additional allegations against Maduro and names his wife as a defendant for the first time. The basis for the indictment remains the same: Maduro and his co-defendants used government power to protect and promote drug trafficking crimes. The government alleges that “This cycle of narcotics-based corruption lines the pockets of Venezuelan officials and their families while also benefiting violent narco-terrorists who operate with impunity on Venezuelan soil and who help produce, protect, and transport tons of cocaine to the United States.”

To prevail on the “narcoterrorism” count (that label doesn’t appear in the statute), the government will have to prove that the defendants trafficked in illegal drugs, “knowing or intending to provide, directly or indirectly, anything of pecuniary value to any person or organization that has engaged or engages in terrorist activity.” This begs the same question raised by Trump’s earlier efforts to deport Venezuelans, who he claimed were part of the Tren de Aragua gang (it turned out many of them weren’t), and the justification for so-called kinetic strikes that have killed more than 100 people to date. The administration’s justification is that drug cartels are terrorist forces attacking the United States. Now we’ll see how that holds up in court.

Even if the government prevails on the legal argument, the indictment doesn’t offer much insight into how the government intends to tie Maduro to Tren de Aragua and other cartels and gangs. It offers more detail about FARC activity from 2018 and 2019. But prosecutors aren’t required to reveal all of their evidence in an indictment, simply enough to put a defendant on notice of the charges they have to defend against. Assessment of the strength of the government’s case will have to wait until defense lawyers file preliminary motions.

Maduro could be facing life in prison if he is convicted. The two drug counts carry a maximum sentence of life in prison, and mandatory minimum sentences of 20 years on Count One and 10 years on Count 2. The firearm charges carry a 30-year minimum prison term.

Will Congress do anything?

A Senatevotewill take place next week on a bipartisan war powers resolution to block Trump from engaging in further hostilities against Venezuela. It was already in the works, but there will be an increased sense of urgency around it now. Along with Schumer, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, and California Senator Adam Schiff, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul has signed on as a co-sponsor. The resolution is privileged, which means Senate Majority Leader John Thune will not be able to prevent it from coming to the floor. The resolution only needs a simple majority to pass the Senate.

Delaware Democrat Chris Coons, the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Defense Appropriations, issued a statement that read, “This military action is the next stage in President Trump’s incoherent and arguably illegal Venezuela operation. In recent briefings to Congress, senior administration officials said they were focused on combatting (sic) drug trafficking, not regime change, and made clear they had no plan for what would happen if Maduro was removed or overthrown. This was clearly false, and furthermore, a military operation to capture and overthrow a president – even an illegitimate one – is an act of war that must be authorized by Congress. Not only has the Trump administration not sought congressional approval, they did not even notify members of either party in Congress until after the strike had concluded. Protecting democracy should not be done through illegal means.”

Editor’s Note: The featured image at top was generated by WP AI. Below is also the embedded column/article for easy access. –DrWeb

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next by Joyce Vance

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning Read on Substack

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next by Joyce Vance

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning

Civil Discourse – Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning

By Joyce Vance, Jan 03, 2026

This morning, Donald Trump explained, in a rambling press conference along with others in his administration, that the overnight strike in Venezuela was executed to arrest President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. In other words, it’s not the kind of new hostilities, if you buy the administration’s line, that would require notice to or a declaration from Congress.

This approach, although it’s what I suggested in this morning’s post we should expect, leaves me with a major question: if the U.S. was just going in to Venezuela to arrest a defendant in a criminal case, which has now been done, why is it necessary to stick around to run the country? That is exactly what Trump said this morning that we’d be doing. “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition,” the President said.

Senator Chuck Schumer tweeted: “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans. The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

Tomorrow morning at 11:30 a.m. ET, I’ll host a Substack Live with Jake Sullivan, who served as Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor from 2021 to 2025, and Jon Finer, Biden’s Deputy National Security Advisor. We’ll answer your questions about what comes next. Make sure you’re subscribed to Civil Discourse to get a notice when we go live—a free subscription will work for that. And leave any questions you have for us in the comments. Jake and Jon have a fantastic new podcast, The Long Game, that drops every Friday.

Leave a comment

The new indictment:

The superseding indictment against Maduro, Flores, and four others was unsealed this morning. It contains three counts and a hefty amount of narrative. It is, as prosecutors say, a speaking indictment:

• Count One: Narcoterrorism Conspiracy; Title 21, United States Code, Section 960a; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3238
• Count Two: Cocaine Importation Conspiracy; Title 21, United States Code, Section 963; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3238
• Count Three: Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(c)(l)(A), 924(c)(l)(B)(ii), 3238, and 2
• Count Four: Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(0) and 3238

You can read the superseding indictment here. It’s signed by Trump’s new U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, which means it was obtained no earlier than August of this year. It involves fewer defendants than the original 2020 indictment, which named 15 defendants, including Maduro. That could mean that some of the original defendants have become cooperators. We don’t know the details yet, but we will likely learn more in the course of detention hearings, which should follow shortly on the heels of the arraignment.

The superseding indictment adds additional allegations against Maduro and names his wife as a defendant for the first time. The basis for the indictment remains the same: Maduro and his co-defendants used government power to protect and promote drug trafficking crimes. The government alleges that “This cycle of narcotics-based corruption lines the pockets of Venezuelan officials and their families while also benefiting violent narco-terrorists who operate with impunity on Venezuelan soil and who help produce, protect, and transport tons of cocaine to the United States.”

To prevail on the “narcoterrorism” count (that label doesn’t appear in the statute), the government will have to prove that the defendants trafficked in illegal drugs, “knowing or intending to provide, directly or indirectly, anything of pecuniary value to any person or organization that has engaged or engages in terrorist activity.” This begs the same question raised by Trump’s earlier efforts to deport Venezuelans, who he claimed were part of the Tren de Aragua gang (it turned out many of them weren’t), and the justification for so-called kinetic strikes that have killed more than 100 people to date. The administration’s justification is that drug cartels are terrorist forces attacking the United States. Now we’ll see how that holds up in court.

Even if the government prevails on the legal argument, the indictment doesn’t offer much insight into how the government intends to tie Maduro to Tren de Aragua and other cartels and gangs. It offers more detail about FARC activity from 2018 and 2019. But prosecutors aren’t required to reveal all of their evidence in an indictment, simply enough to put a defendant on notice of the charges they have to defend against. Assessment of the strength of the government’s case will have to wait until defense lawyers file preliminary motions.

Maduro could be facing life in prison if he is convicted. The two drug counts carry a maximum sentence of life in prison, and mandatory minimum sentences of 20 years on Count One and 10 years on Count 2. The firearm charges carry a 30-year minimum prison term.

Will Congress do anything?

A Senatevotewill take place next week on a bipartisan war powers resolution to block Trump from engaging in further hostilities against Venezuela. It was already in the works, but there will be an increased sense of urgency around it now. Along with Schumer, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, and California Senator Adam Schiff, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul has signed on as a co-sponsor. The resolution is privileged, which means Senate Majority Leader John Thune will not be able to prevent it from coming to the floor. The resolution only needs a simple majority to pass the Senate.

Delaware Democrat Chris Coons, the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Defense Appropriations, issued a statement that read, “This military action is the next stage in President Trump’s incoherent and arguably illegal Venezuela operation. In recent briefings to Congress, senior administration officials said they were focused on combatting (sic) drug trafficking, not regime change, and made clear they had no plan for what would happen if Maduro was removed or overthrown. This was clearly false, and furthermore, a military operation to capture and overthrow a president – even an illegitimate one – is an act of war that must be authorized by Congress. Not only has the Trump administration not sought congressional approval, they did not even notify members of either party in Congress until after the strike had concluded. Protecting democracy should not be done through illegal means.”

Editor’s Note: The featured image at top was generated by WP AI. Below is also the embedded column/article for easy access. –DrWeb

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next by Joyce Vance

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning Read on Substack

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next by Joyce Vance

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning

Civil Discourse – The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary

By Joyce Vance, Jan 02, 2026

As is the custom, on the last day of the year, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a report on the state of the federal judiciary. Formally titled “2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” it starts with this picture.

I don’t mean to nitpick, or maybe I do. Either way, it’s an odd choice. A fancy, empty room. History, devoid of humanity.

I’m sympathetic to the position the Chief Justice is in. It’s not his job to play politics, and restraint is usually the general order of business. But the past year has not been a normal one. The Chief Justice’s year-end report treats it as though it has been.

The past decade has made it clear that our institutions are only as strong as the people in them. That makes this photo a startling choice for a report about the judiciary, albeit likely unintentional. But it’s a marker for what has become increasingly clear: that the majority on this Court has failed to show up in a moment when their institutional voice is desperately needed. The Court has been either unwilling or incapable of meeting the challenge to democracy that Donald Trump poses.

The Court has important cases to decide over the next few months. The National Guard ruling over the holiday was a bright spot where the Court temporarily told Trump no. But there are a number of highly significant cases on presidential powers, immigration, gerrymandering and voting rights, and more, still to come this term.

The Chief Justice’s report takes the form of an essay about American history, followed by statistics about the Court and its work. You can read the full report here.

Civil cases where the administration is a defendant were up a whopping 9% in 2025, according to the Chief Justice.

Roberts begins with the story of Thomas Paine and the publication of Common Sense (interestingly enough, a book I delved into at some length in my book Giving Up Is Unforgivable). He writes, “Paine advanced several key points. A government’s purpose is to serve the people. The colonists should view themselves as a distinctive people—Americans, not British subjects. The colonies had reached ‘that peculiar time which never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into a government.’ And, in view of the foregoing propositions, as an independent nation, the colonists would ‘have it in our power to begin the world over again.’”

This explains Roberts’ choice of illustration—the empty room is the Assembly Room at Independence Hall, the place where the Founding Fathers met and approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

Roberts spends some time, without any comment about what it might mean, on the notion of patriotism and treason: “The brave patriots who crafted and approved the definitive statement of American independence pledged to support each other and their new nation with ‘our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.’ They understood that the British would view their words and actions as treason. As Franklin reportedly warned, ‘[W]e must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.’” It’s a quote that, absent any context or explanation, can mean all things to all people. A mark of how carefully this Chief Justice continues to navigate the political moment in a survival-oriented fashion, rather than taking a stand and doing something to keep the Republic.

He goes on to heap praise on the sentence in the Declaration of Independence’s preamble that he says, “articulates the theory of American government in a single passage that has been hailed as ‘the greatest sentence ever crafted by human hand.’” “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.” The Chief Justice writes that this sentence, “enunciated the American creed, a national mission statement, even though it quite obviously captured an ideal rather than a reality, given that the vast majority of the 56 signers of the Declaration (even Franklin) enslaved other humans at some point in their lives.”

Then, the Chief Justice goes down a legal rabbit hole, discussing how many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers, many of whom went on to become judges, including Supreme Court Justices. Some of them turned out to be of questionable character, like James Wilson, who spent much of his life trying to evade his debtors. Roberts dwells on Justice Samuel Chase, whose impeachment I also discuss in my book. The Chief Justice makes the same point that I do: the complaints against Chase involved political disagreement with his judicial decisions. But he was not convicted on the articles of impeachment, because disagreeing with a judge’s decisions isn’t a basis for removal from office. The decision forms the basis of the judiciary’s independence and ability to rule on the cases before them based on the facts and the law, without fear of political interference. Again, Roberts recites the incident without drawing any conclusions, perhaps leaving it to judges across the country to infer that he supports them. But at a time when the country needed a resounding defense of judicial independence in the face of criticism by this administration, it simply didn’t get it from the Chief Justice. The moment requires something more than bland understatement.

The Chief Justice touched on some of the most important issues the judiciary faces today, without ever getting to the point. Reading the report, you wouldn’t know that the judiciary has been, quite frankly, under attack by this president. He writes as though he bears no responsibility for handing over unprecedented power to the president, to say nothing of the delay and ultimate grant of immunity from criminal prosecution that facilitated Trump’s return to office. Roberts acknowledges none of that. Instead, he lauds judicial independence, without ever saying that it’s only necessary for him to do so because the president and his minions are challenging judges whose decisions they dislike, as though that’s how this is supposed to work. “The Declaration charged that George III ‘has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.’ The Constitution corrected this flaw, granting life tenure and salary protection to safeguard the independence of federal judges and ensure their ability to serve as a counter-majoritarian check on the political branches. This arrangement, now in place for 236 years, has served the country well.”

The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary by Joyce Vance

Continue/Read Original Article: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-chief-justices-report-on-the

Civil Discourse – Redacted: Donald & Jeffrey – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Redacted: Donald & Jeffrey

By Joyce Vance, Dec 20, 2025

Redacted: Donald & Jeffrey by Joyce Vance

Editor’s Note: Above are links and information about the new post from Joyce. Below is a brief excerpt and the insights are alarming. Thank you Joyce.. — DrWeb

Once again, I’m apologizing at the top of a longer-than-I’d-like-it-to-be Saturday night column. Nonetheless, whether you’re just getting in from a holiday party or waking up early for a busy day (or perhaps late, given ongoing festivities), I hope you’ll take a moment to work your way through all of it. [Joyce]

Don’t mistake two of this week’s attention-getter stories, Trump renaming the Kennedy Center in his own honor and the unveiling of unpresidential plaques at the White House deriding Presidents Obama and Biden, for anything other than what they are. They are clickbait, designed to foment outrage. An effort to distract us from the main event, the Justice Department’s failure to release the Epstein files, which Congress required it to do by last Friday in the Epstein Files Transparency Act. –Joyce Vance, Civil Discourse, 2025

There are no surprises here. Republicans were willing to let the government shutdown linger to avoid reopening and the inevitable passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Even after the shutdown ended, House Speaker Mike Johnson delayed swearing in newly elected Arizona Democratic Representative Adelita Grijalva for 50 days after her September 2025 special election because she was the vote that would put the discharge petition for the Act in motion. They may have voted for the bill, but that was only after public pressure had made its passage, and the consequences for members who didn’t vote for it, all but inevitable.

So while there are lots of pictures of President Clinton, there are very few of Trump, and reporting that one that was initially released was clawed back. By the end of the day, the AP was reporting 16 items had been removed from the released documents. There is page after page of redaction, and also redactions on documents that look interesting but have all possible meaning and context removed. It’s not exactly full-throated compliance with a law called the “Transparency Act.”

Part of DOJ’s release of Epstein Documents on Friday.

None of this is surprising. Not DOJ’s failure to comply with the law—Friday was the deadline Congress set for turning over the files, not a start date, which was how DOJ treated it. Not DOJ’s failure to release material that would give the survivors more insight into the crimes committed against them and who was responsible. That’s important for survivors, not just so that they can understand and heal, but because they’ve had to fight to be believed, and they have been so easily cast aside.

There was one instance in the release that illustrates this. Maria Farmer had reported in 1996 that Epstein stole nude photos of her sisters Annie, then 16, and a younger sister who was 12 at the time. Among the documents released Friday is one that confirms she was telling the truth. She came forward despite Epstein’s threats of harm to her. She was broadly disbelieved.

The highlighted portion of the document reads: “Epstein stole the photos and negatives and is believed to have sold the pictures to potential buyers. Epstein at one time requested REDACTED to take pictures of young girls at swimming pools. Epstein is now threatening REDACTED that if she tells anyone about the photos he will burn her house down”

Also lacking in the release was anything that clarified Donald Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. There were plenty of salacious photos of Bill Clinton—interesting in light of Trump Chief of Staff Susie Wiles’ admission to Vanity Fair that Trump wrongly claimed the files implicated the former president in visits to Epstein Island. But there is nothing that helps us better understand Trump’s involvement. Wiles acknowledged that Trump “was on [Epstein’s] plane … he’s on the manifest. They were, you know, sort of young, single, whatever — I know it’s a passé word but sort of young, single playboys together.” Trump has denied any wrongdoing but is apparently unwilling to release materials that would bear that out if it’s the case.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/redacted-donald-and-jeffrey

Civil Discourse – Five Questions: Live with The Librarians – Joyce Vance

If you missed us live this afternoon, here’s the recording of tonight’s edition of “Five Questions With”—a special live interview with the producer and director of the movie The Librarians, in place of our usual written interview.

You can tell it’s a special film about a special kind of hero from the way Kim lovingly discusses how she came to make the film and the Librarians whose stories are woven throughout. I won’t spoil our conversation, just watch it! And Kim provides information about how you can watch it at the end.

Have a wonderful last weekend of Hanukkah/weekend before Christmas and anything else you may celebrate. I hope you find a little magic this weekend.

We’re in this together, Joyce

Five Questions: Live with The Librarians by Joyce Vance

A recording of my conversation with director & producer Kim Snyder

Continue/Read View Original: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/five-questions-live-with-the-librarians

Civil Discourse – Five Questions: Live with The Librarians – Joyce Vance

If you missed us live this afternoon, here’s the recording of tonight’s edition of “Five Questions With”—a special live interview with the producer and director of the movie The Librarians, in place of our usual written interview.

You can tell it’s a special film about a special kind of hero from the way Kim lovingly discusses how she came to make the film and the Librarians whose stories are woven throughout. I won’t spoil our conversation, just watch it! And Kim provides information about how you can watch it at the end.

Have a wonderful last weekend of Hanukkah/weekend before Christmas and anything else you may celebrate. I hope you find a little magic this weekend.

We’re in this together, Joyce

Five Questions: Live with The Librarians by Joyce Vance

A recording of my conversation with director & producer Kim Snyder

Continue/Read View Original: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/five-questions-live-with-the-librarians

Civil Discourse – Monday in Court and Beyond – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Monday in Court and Beyond

By Joyce Vance, Dec 08, 2025

Your paid subscription makes Civil Discourse possible—independent, informed analysis in a moment when noise can drown out reason. Join a community that refuses to give up on democracy—or on understanding it. –Joyce Vance

Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter earlier this year. She sued.

In a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that Congress could put limits on the president’s authority to remove certain executive branch officials. That longstanding precedent has been on a collision course with Donald Trump’s quest for maximal power for as long as he’s been in office. Today, a Court that has been very sympathetic to Trump heard argument in Slaughter’s case.

The type of executive branch positions at stake are appointments to high-ranking positions in quasi-independent federal agencies like the FTC and others, including the Federal Reserve. The top line question is whether presidents can fire them in the absence of misconduct. We discussed the backstory to Humphrey’s Executor here, back in March. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired an FTC Commissioner, writing to him that “your mind and my mind [don’t] go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.” The Court held that Congress intended to restrict a president’s power of removal to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and that Roosevelt couldn’t dismiss Humphrey simply because they were of different minds on policy.

That precedent is about as on-point as they come. It suggests that Slaughter, who had done nothing wrong, should win her case. She was advised of her termination in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

But our tea leaf reading at the start of the term, which concluded that the Court would weigh in for Trump, appears to have been on target. We based that analysis on the fact that the Court declined to stay Slaughter’s dismissal from the FTC until it could hear the case. If there had been a majority, or something close to it, inclined to follow Humphrey’s Executor and rein Trump in, the Court would have prevented the firing from taking effect until it could hear the case. The fact that they allowed her dismissal to take effect implied the Court was prepared to undo the precedent that would have prohibited it. Oral argument bore out that conclusion.

Justice Kagan went straight to the heart of the matter when Solicitor General John Sauer argued the government’s case. She pointed out that “the central proposition of your brief” was that the Vesting Clause of the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little difficult to see how you stop,” Justice Kagan said. Sauer talked over her and around her, but never disagreed. The government’s position, even though it didn’t go this far today, is that everything that happens in the executive branch is at the president’s pleasure. Everything. That could include matters like who DOJ indicts, what businesses the EPA regulates, and all sorts of individualized decisions that are currently made by people with expertise, guided by long-standing practices and ethical constraints.

“To that point, when Justice Kagan asked whether a decision against Slaughter would apply to other similarly situated agencies, Sauer ducked. He told her the Court could just “reserve” making a decision on other agencies because those cases were not in front of the Court today. Justice Kagan responded that “logic has consequences,” and that even if the Court dropped a footnote saying it wasn’t deciding other cases as Sauer suggested, it would just be a dodge; it wouldn’t mean anything for future cases, where the government would be free to argue for an unprecedented level of control in the hands of the president, using Slaughter as support, if the Court decides it in the manner the government requested.” Joyce Vance’s Quote…

Justice Sotomayor said to Sauer, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Justice Alito invited Sauer to respond. “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.” Justice Sotomayor ultimately responded, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” There was silence for a moment. Then Sauer hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

We don’t know precisely how the Court will rule, but the Chief Justice tipped his hand a bit, saying “the precedent” had “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today,” and claiming that the FTC back then was different, and “had very little, if any executive power,” suggesting different rules might apply today for an agency that had become more powerful. It’s the sophistic kind of reasoning we have seen before when the Roberts Court twists itself into pretzel logic so that it can reverse longstanding precedent—while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort.

A decision in this case is likely to come at the end of the term, late next June or the first week in July, although it could come at any time. It is likely to be one of the most consequential of this term.

A lot more happened today that is worthy of our attention. But because there is so much of it, instead of trying to cover it all, I’ll flag some of the most important developments here, and you can read further on any of them that interest you. We will take them up in more detail as they develop.

• ProPublica, widely regarded as a highly credible source of independent investigative journalism (they broke the story on Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting vacation travels and other favors from conservative power players) reported today that some of Trump’s mortgages match his description of mortgage fraud, according to records they reviewed. While living in New York, he claimed two 1993 real estate purchases made within two months of each other in Florida would both become his principal residence. The report says: “The Trump administration has argued that Fed board member Lisa Cook may have committed mortgage fraud by declaring more than one primary residence on her loans. We found Trump once did the very thing he called ‘deceitful and potentially criminal.’” Trump has accused multiple political adversaries of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence, and that appears to be the rationale behind federal criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and California Representative Eric Swalwell, and others, although there are at best flimsy facts to support the allegations.
• Twelve former FBI agents sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, along with others, alleging “unlawful retaliation” because they were fired for kneeling in response to protests in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd’s murder. The lawsuit is based on First Amendment violations and also points out the wisdom of the plaintiffs’ decision to kneel with the crowd: “As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Monday in Court and Beyond

#1935 #ChiefJusticeRoberts #CivilDiscourse #December82025 #DOJ #FBIAgents #FederalTradeCommission #FiredForKneeling #FTCCommissioner #HumphreySExecutor #JohnSauer #JoyceVance #JusticeAlito #JusticeKagan #JusticeSotomayor #MortgageFraudByTrump #ProPublica #RebeccaSlaughter #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

Civil Discourse – Monday in Court and Beyond – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Monday in Court and Beyond

By Joyce Vance, Dec 08, 2025

Your paid subscription makes Civil Discourse possible—independent, informed analysis in a moment when noise can drown out reason. Join a community that refuses to give up on democracy—or on understanding it. –Joyce Vance

Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter earlier this year. She sued.

In a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that Congress could put limits on the president’s authority to remove certain executive branch officials. That longstanding precedent has been on a collision course with Donald Trump’s quest for maximal power for as long as he’s been in office. Today, a Court that has been very sympathetic to Trump heard argument in Slaughter’s case.

The type of executive branch positions at stake are appointments to high-ranking positions in quasi-independent federal agencies like the FTC and others, including the Federal Reserve. The top line question is whether presidents can fire them in the absence of misconduct. We discussed the backstory to Humphrey’s Executor here, back in March. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired an FTC Commissioner, writing to him that “your mind and my mind [don’t] go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.” The Court held that Congress intended to restrict a president’s power of removal to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and that Roosevelt couldn’t dismiss Humphrey simply because they were of different minds on policy.

That precedent is about as on-point as they come. It suggests that Slaughter, who had done nothing wrong, should win her case. She was advised of her termination in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

But our tea leaf reading at the start of the term, which concluded that the Court would weigh in for Trump, appears to have been on target. We based that analysis on the fact that the Court declined to stay Slaughter’s dismissal from the FTC until it could hear the case. If there had been a majority, or something close to it, inclined to follow Humphrey’s Executor and rein Trump in, the Court would have prevented the firing from taking effect until it could hear the case. The fact that they allowed her dismissal to take effect implied the Court was prepared to undo the precedent that would have prohibited it. Oral argument bore out that conclusion.

Justice Kagan went straight to the heart of the matter when Solicitor General John Sauer argued the government’s case. She pointed out that “the central proposition of your brief” was that the Vesting Clause of the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little difficult to see how you stop,” Justice Kagan said. Sauer talked over her and around her, but never disagreed. The government’s position, even though it didn’t go this far today, is that everything that happens in the executive branch is at the president’s pleasure. Everything. That could include matters like who DOJ indicts, what businesses the EPA regulates, and all sorts of individualized decisions that are currently made by people with expertise, guided by long-standing practices and ethical constraints.

“To that point, when Justice Kagan asked whether a decision against Slaughter would apply to other similarly situated agencies, Sauer ducked. He told her the Court could just “reserve” making a decision on other agencies because those cases were not in front of the Court today. Justice Kagan responded that “logic has consequences,” and that even if the Court dropped a footnote saying it wasn’t deciding other cases as Sauer suggested, it would just be a dodge; it wouldn’t mean anything for future cases, where the government would be free to argue for an unprecedented level of control in the hands of the president, using Slaughter as support, if the Court decides it in the manner the government requested.” Joyce Vance’s Quote…

Justice Sotomayor said to Sauer, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Justice Alito invited Sauer to respond. “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.” Justice Sotomayor ultimately responded, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” There was silence for a moment. Then Sauer hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

We don’t know precisely how the Court will rule, but the Chief Justice tipped his hand a bit, saying “the precedent” had “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today,” and claiming that the FTC back then was different, and “had very little, if any executive power,” suggesting different rules might apply today for an agency that had become more powerful. It’s the sophistic kind of reasoning we have seen before when the Roberts Court twists itself into pretzel logic so that it can reverse longstanding precedent—while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort.

A decision in this case is likely to come at the end of the term, late next June or the first week in July, although it could come at any time. It is likely to be one of the most consequential of this term.

A lot more happened today that is worthy of our attention. But because there is so much of it, instead of trying to cover it all, I’ll flag some of the most important developments here, and you can read further on any of them that interest you. We will take them up in more detail as they develop.

• ProPublica, widely regarded as a highly credible source of independent investigative journalism (they broke the story on Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting vacation travels and other favors from conservative power players) reported today that some of Trump’s mortgages match his description of mortgage fraud, according to records they reviewed. While living in New York, he claimed two 1993 real estate purchases made within two months of each other in Florida would both become his principal residence. The report says: “The Trump administration has argued that Fed board member Lisa Cook may have committed mortgage fraud by declaring more than one primary residence on her loans. We found Trump once did the very thing he called ‘deceitful and potentially criminal.’” Trump has accused multiple political adversaries of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence, and that appears to be the rationale behind federal criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and California Representative Eric Swalwell, and others, although there are at best flimsy facts to support the allegations.
• Twelve former FBI agents sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, along with others, alleging “unlawful retaliation” because they were fired for kneeling in response to protests in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd’s murder. The lawsuit is based on First Amendment violations and also points out the wisdom of the plaintiffs’ decision to kneel with the crowd: “As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Monday in Court and Beyond

#1935 #ChiefJusticeRoberts #CivilDiscourse #December82025 #DOJ #FBIAgents #FederalTradeCommission #FiredForKneeling #FTCCommissioner #HumphreySExecutor #JohnSauer #JoyceVance #JusticeAlito #JusticeKagan #JusticeSotomayor #MortgageFraudByTrump #ProPublica #RebeccaSlaughter #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

Civil Discourse – Understanding The Lethal U.S. Strike On A Boat Allegedly Being Used For “Narcoterrorism” – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Understanding The Lethal U.S. Strike On A Boat Allegedly Being Used For “Narcoterrorism” by Joyce Vance

My Conversation with NYU Law Prof Ryan Goodman

Read on Substack

Transcript (see online edition, link at endRy)…

Ryan Goodman joined me this morning for a live chat to help us understand the legal issues and the law surrounding Friday’s report in the Washington Post that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave verbal instructions to “kill everybody” in advance of the September 2 attack on a boat in the Caribbean. The administration has maintained that the vessel was being used for narcoterrorism. Other reports have suggested that people being trafficked were on board.

The report was enough to generate bipartisan support in both houses of Congress for oversight. Yes, you read that sentence correctly.

This morning’s conversation sets the table for understanding the investigation that’s about to occur. Ryan and I lay out the law and the basic questions that will need to be answered, like whether this is a non-international armed conflict, as the White House maintains, or something else and how that decision impacts the law that applies to determine whether it was a crime to kill the survivors of the initial attack on September 2.

This conversation builds on my post Saturday evening, which you may want to review because it outlines the facts the Washington Post reported and some legal basics. It also relates back to the post I wrote after six Democratic members of Congress made a video reminding members of the military and intelligence communities that they should not obey illegal orders. At the time, Trump dismissed them as seditious, reposting a Truth Social poster who suggested George Washington would have hanged the six. Military and FBI investigations were opened. As we discussed, they were accurately stating the law, and the issue is one of the country, not partisan politics.

We’re in this together, Joyce

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Understanding The Lethal U.S. Strike On A Boat Allegedly Being Used For “Narcoterrorism”

#killEverybody #boat #caribbean #civilDiscourse #joyceVance #legalIssues #lethalStrike #liveChat #narcoterrorism #newYorkUniversity #nyu #peteHegseth #ryanGoodman #september22025 #substack #understanding

Civil Discourse – The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come

By Joyce Vance, Nov 29, 2025

“You must refuse illegal orders.” That’s what was said in the video made by six Democratic members of Congress. Trump accused them of seditious behavior. The FBI launched an investigation.

Then, on Black Friday, the Washington Post ran with an exclusive story about the September 2, 2025, attack on a boat allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean, the first of a series of attacks that have involved strikes on at least 23 boats to date. The Post reported that in advance of the strike, “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive,according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. ‘The order was to kill everybody.’”

That’s what the special operations commander overseeing the attack did. After the initial hit, live drone feed showed two survivors clinging to the wreckage. The commander “ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions … The two men were blown apart in the water.” The video Trump released later that day did not include the second strike.

The Post quoted Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who had advised special operations on the illegality of the order: “Even if the U.S. were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat’s occupants if they were no longer able to fight ‘would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime.’”

My colleague Ryan Goodman, Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the founding co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, an online forum focused on U.S. national security law and policy, will join us Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. EST for an in-depth Substack live discussion of the issues raised here. Mark your calendars now and make sure you have the Substack App downloaded so you can join us for cutting edge legal analysis on this most important of issues. Ryan has been tracking these strikes and their legal implications since they first began. After the story broke in the Washington Post, he tweeted, “Textbook war crime/extrajudicial killing.”

Earlier this month, The Guardian reported that Britain had stopped sharing intelligence on Caribbean drug running with the United States “amid concerns information supplied may be used to engage in lethal military strikes by American forces.” They specified that the cooperation was “paused shortly after the US began a campaign of lethal strikes in September,” but there was no explicit mention of the order Hegseth issued as the cause.

Friday evening at 5:42 p.m., Hegseth tweeted:

“As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.

As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’ The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.

The Biden administration preferred the kid gloves approach, allowing millions of people — including dangerous cartels and unvetted Afghans — to flood our communities with drugs and violence. The Trump administration has sealed the border and gone on offense against narco-terrorists. Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them.

Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.

Our warriors in SOUTHCOM put their lives on the line every day to protect the Homeland from narco-terrorists — and I will ALWAYS have their back.”

Hegseth did not deny that two defenseless people were killed. We still do not know what, if anything, they were guilty of. Certainly, as they clung to the wreckage of a boat in the ocean, they did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. The lawful thing to do would have been to rescue and prosecute the men. Instead, per Hegseth’s instruction, they were executed.

Hegseth doubled down a few moments later, tweeting, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.”

The Pentagon Spokesman, Seth Parnell, tweeted, “We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday. These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth. Fake News is the enemy of the people.”

But shortly after the story ran in The Post, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, issued a joint statement with the Committee’s top Democrat, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, vowing “vigorous oversight” of Hegseth’s “kill them all” order. They wrote, “The Committee has directed inquires to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to the circumstances.”

By Saturday night, there was a growing call for, if not accountability, investigation, including by both House and Senate Republicans. The Washington Post wrote, “In a rare split with the Trump administration, GOP-led panels in the House and Senate say they want a full accounting in the September military attack.” Saturday night, Democratic Senator Ed Markey tweeted, “Pete Hegseth is a war criminal and should be fired immediately.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come

#killEverybody #caribbean #civilDiscourse #democraticCongressMembers #edMarkley #joyceVance #moment #narcoTerrorists #peteHegseth #pickASide #senateArmedServiceCommittee #senatorWicker #theWashingtonPost #unlawfulKilling

Civil Discourse – The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come

By Joyce Vance, Nov 29, 2025

“You must refuse illegal orders.” That’s what was said in the video made by six Democratic members of Congress. Trump accused them of seditious behavior. The FBI launched an investigation.

Then, on Black Friday, the Washington Post ran with an exclusive story about the September 2, 2025, attack on a boat allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean, the first of a series of attacks that have involved strikes on at least 23 boats to date. The Post reported that in advance of the strike, “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive,according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. ‘The order was to kill everybody.’”

That’s what the special operations commander overseeing the attack did. After the initial hit, live drone feed showed two survivors clinging to the wreckage. The commander “ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions … The two men were blown apart in the water.” The video Trump released later that day did not include the second strike.

The Post quoted Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who had advised special operations on the illegality of the order: “Even if the U.S. were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat’s occupants if they were no longer able to fight ‘would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime.’”

My colleague Ryan Goodman, Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the founding co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, an online forum focused on U.S. national security law and policy, will join us Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. EST for an in-depth Substack live discussion of the issues raised here. Mark your calendars now and make sure you have the Substack App downloaded so you can join us for cutting edge legal analysis on this most important of issues. Ryan has been tracking these strikes and their legal implications since they first began. After the story broke in the Washington Post, he tweeted, “Textbook war crime/extrajudicial killing.”

Earlier this month, The Guardian reported that Britain had stopped sharing intelligence on Caribbean drug running with the United States “amid concerns information supplied may be used to engage in lethal military strikes by American forces.” They specified that the cooperation was “paused shortly after the US began a campaign of lethal strikes in September,” but there was no explicit mention of the order Hegseth issued as the cause.

Friday evening at 5:42 p.m., Hegseth tweeted:

“As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.

As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’ The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.

The Biden administration preferred the kid gloves approach, allowing millions of people — including dangerous cartels and unvetted Afghans — to flood our communities with drugs and violence. The Trump administration has sealed the border and gone on offense against narco-terrorists. Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them.

Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.

Our warriors in SOUTHCOM put their lives on the line every day to protect the Homeland from narco-terrorists — and I will ALWAYS have their back.”

Hegseth did not deny that two defenseless people were killed. We still do not know what, if anything, they were guilty of. Certainly, as they clung to the wreckage of a boat in the ocean, they did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. The lawful thing to do would have been to rescue and prosecute the men. Instead, per Hegseth’s instruction, they were executed.

Hegseth doubled down a few moments later, tweeting, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.”

The Pentagon Spokesman, Seth Parnell, tweeted, “We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday. These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth. Fake News is the enemy of the people.”

But shortly after the story ran in The Post, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, issued a joint statement with the Committee’s top Democrat, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, vowing “vigorous oversight” of Hegseth’s “kill them all” order. They wrote, “The Committee has directed inquires to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to the circumstances.”

By Saturday night, there was a growing call for, if not accountability, investigation, including by both House and Senate Republicans. The Washington Post wrote, “In a rare split with the Trump administration, GOP-led panels in the House and Senate say they want a full accounting in the September military attack.” Saturday night, Democratic Senator Ed Markey tweeted, “Pete Hegseth is a war criminal and should be fired immediately.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come

#KillEverybody #Caribbean #CivilDiscourse #DemocraticCongressMembers #EdMarkley #JoyceVance #Moment #NarcoTerrorists #PeteHegseth #PickASide #SenateArmedServiceCommittee #SenatorWicker #TheWashingtonPost #UnlawfulKilling

Civil Discourse – Fresh Air – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, Fresh Air

By Joyce Vance, Nov 26, 2025

If you need something to listen to on your Thanksgiving travels, I had the absolute pleasure of joining Terry Gross, one of the hosts of NPR‘s Fresh Air, for a chat about current events and my book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable.

At first, I was starstruck talking with Terry, but she was so nice that it was easy to relax and have the sort of conversation you would have with an old friend, serious but also a lot of fun. You can listen in here.

Fresh Air by Joyce Vance

Read on Substack

Happy day before Thanksgiving!

We’re in this together, Joyce

See Also: https://www.npr.org/2025/11/25/nx-s1-5619202/a-former-u-s-attorney-offers-a-manual-for-keeping-a-democracy

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Fresh Air – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#AManualForKeepingDemocracy #Book #CivilDiscourse #FormerUSAttorney #FreshAir #GivingUpIsUnforgivable #HappyThanksgiving #JoyceVance #LegalAnalyst #MSNOW #MSNBC #November252025 #Substack #TerryGross #WeReInThisTogether

Civil Discourse – What Happens When The Government Loses Its Credibility – The Comey Prosecution – Joyce Vance

What Happens When The Government Loses Its Credibility – The Comey Prosecution

By Joyce Vance, Nov 17, 2025

This is one of those long posts we occasionally have when a judge files a highly significant order. My apologies for starting the week off like this, but it’s a significant decision in a very important case. Understanding the details is critical to seeing the significance of a matter like this. Thanks for being here with me and understanding that.

It’s been a day of ping-pong in court in the Comey case, with pleadings and rulings volleying back and forth all day long concerning whether the government is required to turn over transcripts from grand jury proceedings. Grand jury transcripts are sealed to protect the integrity of investigations, and it’s extremely rare for a judge to make them available to a defendant. But that’s exactly what’s happening in the prosecution of the former FBI director. That’s because there are credible allegations of misconduct before the grand jury.

Misconduct is a word that can cover a lot of ground. We’ve been discussing some of it, like vindictive or selective prosecutions, which violate constitutional guarantees of due process. Prosecutors possess enormous power over people’s lives, and that power is too great to allow abuse of it to go unaddressed. People’s lives hang in the balance—if prosecutors can abuse their powers, innocent people can go to prison. Now, amplify the idea of abuse of power with a president who is directing the Justice Department to punish his enemies and reward his friends, and you have a sense of just how serious this moment is.

So, the issues involved here are incredibly important for the future of our democracy, but it becomes something of a muddle when the news reports you see are about dueling pleadings. A critically significant situation starts to feel picayune. We can’t afford to let that happen, so tonight, we’ll spend our time together dissecting what’s happening and its meaning. Last week I wrote to you that “there are strict rules governing prosecutors’ interactions with grand jurors and it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that someone with no prosecutorial experience could have transgressed them.” That turns out to have been on point.

The verdict is in on the maiden grand jury performance of Lindsey Halligan, the insurance lawyer Trump picked to replace an experienced prosecutor who refused to indict the Comey case because there wasn’t evidence to support it. The Judge found plenty to find fault with.

To understand what happened today, we need to know how we got here. The government wanted to use evidence from another proceeding in this case, but some of that evidence was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The government asked the Judge to permit them to use a “filter team” to evaluate the evidence to decide what the prosecutors in this case could use without violating the privilege. There are two judges involved: District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is hearing the case, and Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who is hearing some of the discovery disputes. In the course of the proceedings before Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick, problems came to light involving Halligan’s presentation to the grand jury and Comey’s lawyers filed a motion asking for disclosure of the grand jury minutes, in part because “the agent who served as a witness in the proceedings may have been exposed to Mr. Comey’s privileged communications with his attorneys and thus may have conveyed that information to the grand jury.” (If you want to know more about the filter team dispute after you’ve read tonight’s post, the dense procedural history of the case is laid out here).

Editor’s Note: Featured image at top is from WP AI.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: What Happens When The Government Loses Its Credibility: The Comey Prosecution

#civilDiscourse #credibility #federalGovernment #joyceVance #lies #losesCredibility #propaganda #theComeyProsecution #truth

Civil Discourse – Prosecuting Comey – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, Prosecuting Comey

By Joyce Vance, Nov 13, 2025

Today, in Alexandria, Virginia, a senior federal judge from South Carolina, Cameron Currie, heard oral argument on consolidated motions filed by former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James in their separate criminal prosecutions. Both of them filed motions challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s insurance-lawyer-turned-U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s role in their prosecution. Here’s what you need to know ahead of what Judge Currie said would be a pre-Thanksgiving decision:

The motions are being heard by Judge Currie, who was appointed by the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit (where Virginia and South Carolina are both located), since it would be problematic to have a judge from the same district where a U.S. attorney has been putatively installed consider whether the appointment was proper.

It’s reassuring to know that some people still care about ethics and conflicts of interest.

Appearing for the Justice Department, attorney Henry Whitaker told the court that any questions about the appointment of Halligan involved, at worst, mere paperwork errors. Whitaker was the Florida Solicitor General until earlier this year. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas after law school and worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the first Trump administration.

Perhaps anticipating problems with the validity of Halligan’s appointment, Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to back-bless the indictments, filing that she had reviewed the grand jury proceedings. But the Judge pointed out this morning that wasn’t possible because they hadn’t been fully transcribed. And, while every attorney general would likely have loved to possess a magic wand that would permit them to fix errors after the fact, that’s not how any of this works. Prosecutors must follow the rules, which are in place to ensure that defendants’ rights are protected and justice is done. Cases are dismissed when they make procedural errors, in part to protect them and in part to deter prosecutors from making future errors. If ever an attorney general needed that sort of a reminder from the courts, it’s this one.

Politico characterized the hearing this way: “A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Thursday about whether a federal prosecutor handpicked by President Donald Trump to bring criminal cases against his political rivals was legally appointed to the role.”

We all know the history by now. Trump’s handpicked appointee to be U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, longtime, highly regarded prosecutor Erik Siebert, concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict either Comey or James. His removal and replacement with Halligan followed. Along the way, Trump stumbled, publicly posting what looked like a text message meant for Attorney General Pam Bondi:

“JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW”

Bondi, apparently persuaded, put Halligan in place, and Halligan promptly indicted Comey, just barely ahead of the expiration of the statute of limitations, following up with the indictment of James.

The allegations that her appointment is improper have to do with the technicalities of the Vacancies Reform Act, which allows a president to replace a vacant U.S. attorney with an appointee for 120 days, after which the district court appoints an acting U.S. attorney until a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed nominee is put in place. Halligan’s predecessor had already been in place for 120 days when he was removed to make way for Halligan. But the government seems to be suggesting that it can swap out different people for sequential 120-day terms under the law. The defendants’ lawyers argued that if the government can continue making these interim appointments, it could perpetually avoid the constitutional requirement that the Senate confirm U.S. attorney nominees. That would give a president an open invitation to install unqualified loyalists instead of professional prosecutors for these important positions. Under the extreme facts of this case, the defendants have asked the Judge to dismiss the prosecutions with prejudice to deter future maneuvering like this.

Read more: Civil Discourse – Prosecuting Comey – Joyce Vance

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Prosecuting Comey – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #america #books #civilDiscourse #donaldTrump #education #health #history #jamesComey #joyceVance #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #prosecutingComey #resistance #science #substack #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Civil Discourse – Prosecuting Comey – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, Prosecuting Comey

By Joyce Vance, Nov 13, 2025

Today, in Alexandria, Virginia, a senior federal judge from South Carolina, Cameron Currie, heard oral argument on consolidated motions filed by former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James in their separate criminal prosecutions. Both of them filed motions challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s insurance-lawyer-turned-U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s role in their prosecution. Here’s what you need to know ahead of what Judge Currie said would be a pre-Thanksgiving decision:

The motions are being heard by Judge Currie, who was appointed by the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit (where Virginia and South Carolina are both located), since it would be problematic to have a judge from the same district where a U.S. attorney has been putatively installed consider whether the appointment was proper.

It’s reassuring to know that some people still care about ethics and conflicts of interest.

Appearing for the Justice Department, attorney Henry Whitaker told the court that any questions about the appointment of Halligan involved, at worst, mere paperwork errors. Whitaker was the Florida Solicitor General until earlier this year. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas after law school and worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the first Trump administration.

Perhaps anticipating problems with the validity of Halligan’s appointment, Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to back-bless the indictments, filing that she had reviewed the grand jury proceedings. But the Judge pointed out this morning that wasn’t possible because they hadn’t been fully transcribed. And, while every attorney general would likely have loved to possess a magic wand that would permit them to fix errors after the fact, that’s not how any of this works. Prosecutors must follow the rules, which are in place to ensure that defendants’ rights are protected and justice is done. Cases are dismissed when they make procedural errors, in part to protect them and in part to deter prosecutors from making future errors. If ever an attorney general needed that sort of a reminder from the courts, it’s this one.

Politico characterized the hearing this way: “A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Thursday about whether a federal prosecutor handpicked by President Donald Trump to bring criminal cases against his political rivals was legally appointed to the role.”

We all know the history by now. Trump’s handpicked appointee to be U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, longtime, highly regarded prosecutor Erik Siebert, concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict either Comey or James. His removal and replacement with Halligan followed. Along the way, Trump stumbled, publicly posting what looked like a text message meant for Attorney General Pam Bondi:

“JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW”

Bondi, apparently persuaded, put Halligan in place, and Halligan promptly indicted Comey, just barely ahead of the expiration of the statute of limitations, following up with the indictment of James.

The allegations that her appointment is improper have to do with the technicalities of the Vacancies Reform Act, which allows a president to replace a vacant U.S. attorney with an appointee for 120 days, after which the district court appoints an acting U.S. attorney until a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed nominee is put in place. Halligan’s predecessor had already been in place for 120 days when he was removed to make way for Halligan. But the government seems to be suggesting that it can swap out different people for sequential 120-day terms under the law. The defendants’ lawyers argued that if the government can continue making these interim appointments, it could perpetually avoid the constitutional requirement that the Senate confirm U.S. attorney nominees. That would give a president an open invitation to install unqualified loyalists instead of professional prosecutors for these important positions. Under the extreme facts of this case, the defendants have asked the Judge to dismiss the prosecutions with prejudice to deter future maneuvering like this.

Read more: Civil Discourse – Prosecuting Comey – Joyce Vance

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Prosecuting Comey – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #america #books #civilDiscourse #donaldTrump #education #health #history #jamesComey #joyceVance #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #prosecutingComey #resistance #science #substack #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Civil Discourse – But his emails… – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, But His Emails…

By Joyce Vance, Nov 12, 2025

Before he was elected in 2016, Donald Trump bragged about grabbing women by the pu**y and barging into rooms of partially dressed young pageant contestants. A jury concluded he assaulted E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room. So nothing that’s in the Epstein emails is a surprise. It’s confirmation.

The emails, documents obtained from Epstein’s estate, were released today by House Democrats. Meanwhile, the swearing in of Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva of Arizona, after a record-busting 50-day wait, means that there are enough signatures for the discharge petition the House will use to direct the Justice Department to turn over the Epstein case files to them.

Among the emails Epstein wrote, there is one from back in 2011, when there would have been little incentive to fabricate details about Trump, to his now-convicted coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, stating that Trump “spent hours at my house” with one of Epstein’s victims. Although the name is redacted in emails released by Democrats, House Republicans, apparently unconcerned with protecting confidential victim information, say it was Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who committed suicide earlier this year. Giuffre had said Trump never abused her. We may never learn the truth. It’s impossible to discredit an email between Epstein and Maxwell written all those years ago with no expectation it would ever come to light. More recent comments—those by victims who might fear retaliation and those by convicted felons seeking favorable treatment—could have been made in a situation where there was an interest in shading the truth, unlike this older email. “He has never once been mentioned,” Epstein said in 2011, referring to Trump.

Given everything we know about Donald Trump, everything he himself has said about girls and women, it’s hard to envision what innocent behavior he would have been engaged in for “hours” spent with a victim of abuse at the scene of the crime—Epstein’s home, where sexual abuse was rampant.

In a 2019 email with a journalist, Epstein claimed that Trump “knew about the girls” because he “asked [G]hislaine to stop.” That could be a reference to reports that Maxwell acquired girls who worked for Trump in locker rooms and elsewhere on the premises at Mar-a-Lago for Epstein and others.

The House obtained these emails and others that Republicans released later in the day from Epstein’s estate. They are not the full FBI file that Congressional Democrats are trying to secure, with assistance from some Republicans who remember the president’s campaign promise to release the files.

Trump himself seems to have forgotten those promises. “These stories are nothing more than bad-faith efforts to distract from President Trump’s historic accomplishments, and any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from the government opening back up again,” according to Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt. Note what this isn’t. It is not a denial.

In 2002, Trump told New York Magazine: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

After Representative Grijalva was sworn in at 4:00 p.m. today, she voted on the Epstein discharge petition almost immediately. Speaker Mike Johnson, having just called the House back into session following the end of the shutdown, told reporters he would bring a resolution to release the Epstein files to a vote on the House floor next week.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: But His Emails… – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #america #civilDiscourse #donaldTrump #education #epsteinFiles #health #hisEmails #history #jeffreyEpstein #joyceVance #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #reading #resistance #substack #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Civil Discourse – But his emails… – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, But His Emails…

By Joyce Vance, Nov 12, 2025

Before he was elected in 2016, Donald Trump bragged about grabbing women by the pu**y and barging into rooms of partially dressed young pageant contestants. A jury concluded he assaulted E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room. So nothing that’s in the Epstein emails is a surprise. It’s confirmation.

The emails, documents obtained from Epstein’s estate, were released today by House Democrats. Meanwhile, the swearing in of Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva of Arizona, after a record-busting 50-day wait, means that there are enough signatures for the discharge petition the House will use to direct the Justice Department to turn over the Epstein case files to them.

Among the emails Epstein wrote, there is one from back in 2011, when there would have been little incentive to fabricate details about Trump, to his now-convicted coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, stating that Trump “spent hours at my house” with one of Epstein’s victims. Although the name is redacted in emails released by Democrats, House Republicans, apparently unconcerned with protecting confidential victim information, say it was Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who committed suicide earlier this year. Giuffre had said Trump never abused her. We may never learn the truth. It’s impossible to discredit an email between Epstein and Maxwell written all those years ago with no expectation it would ever come to light. More recent comments—those by victims who might fear retaliation and those by convicted felons seeking favorable treatment—could have been made in a situation where there was an interest in shading the truth, unlike this older email. “He has never once been mentioned,” Epstein said in 2011, referring to Trump.

Given everything we know about Donald Trump, everything he himself has said about girls and women, it’s hard to envision what innocent behavior he would have been engaged in for “hours” spent with a victim of abuse at the scene of the crime—Epstein’s home, where sexual abuse was rampant.

In a 2019 email with a journalist, Epstein claimed that Trump “knew about the girls” because he “asked [G]hislaine to stop.” That could be a reference to reports that Maxwell acquired girls who worked for Trump in locker rooms and elsewhere on the premises at Mar-a-Lago for Epstein and others.

The House obtained these emails and others that Republicans released later in the day from Epstein’s estate. They are not the full FBI file that Congressional Democrats are trying to secure, with assistance from some Republicans who remember the president’s campaign promise to release the files.

Trump himself seems to have forgotten those promises. “These stories are nothing more than bad-faith efforts to distract from President Trump’s historic accomplishments, and any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from the government opening back up again,” according to Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt. Note what this isn’t. It is not a denial.

In 2002, Trump told New York Magazine: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

After Representative Grijalva was sworn in at 4:00 p.m. today, she voted on the Epstein discharge petition almost immediately. Speaker Mike Johnson, having just called the House back into session following the end of the shutdown, told reporters he would bring a resolution to release the Epstein files to a vote on the House floor next week.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: But His Emails… – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #america #civilDiscourse #donaldTrump #education #epsteinFiles #health #hisEmails #history #jeffreyEpstein #joyceVance #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #reading #resistance #substack #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Good News – A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

By Joyce Vance, Nov 01, 2025

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Good News – A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

In March, Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS.” Predictably, it was designed to do anything but that. Its goal was to make it more difficult to register to vote.

In April, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a senior judge in the District of Columbia, issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily prevented key parts of the executive order from going into effect while the litigation moved forward. The key problem Judge Kollar-Kotelly observed was that Trump was trying to usurp the power the Constitution affords to the states and Congress to run elections.

Friday, the Judge granted summary judgment in parts of the case, entering a permanent injunction that prevents the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from implementing the worst provision of Trump’s executive order: one that purported to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The measure was designed to suppress voter participation in elections; a solution in search of a problem. It’s akin to the poll taxes used in the South before the Supreme Court put an end to them. Trump’s plan would require people to jump through expensive hoops to acquire proof of birth and costly forms of identification, like passports. At least 21 million Americans don’t have that kind of proof readily available. Only 51% of Americans have passports, which cost adults applying for the first time a $165.00 fee, not to mention assembling the documents you need, getting a photograph of yourself, and making it to an appointment. The problem is especially acute for young people and students who live away from home, and whose documents are with their parents, if they have them at all.

The Judge wrote, “The Constitution’s allocation of authority over federal elections between Congress and the States may not be intuitive. But it is no accident,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Instead, this design was the product of carefully considered compromises among our Constitution’s Framers.” Those compromisers were part of the attention to avoid rule by a king-a dictator.

Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to claim he has powers the Constitution does not give to the president. And this is especially dangerous when it comes to voting, given his track record. We the people must have the right to choose their leaders, not the other way around.

Tonight, another federal district judge stood up for the rule of law and for democracy, telling a power hungry president, “No.”

If you’re looking for something you can do to support the judiciary in this moment where district court judges are bravely standing for the rule of law even though they know that means the president could target them, let them know you support them. Send the Judge and others a postcard, like we do to encourage voters to participate in elections, and thank her for standing for the Constitution and the rule of law. It may seem like a small thing, but the judiciary deserves our support and our thanks for what they are doing. Let’s be visible and involved. Let’s make sure the courts know we are paying attention.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Good News: A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #JoyceVance #Judge #JudgeColleenKollarKotelly #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #ProofOfCitizenship #RegisterToVote #Resistance #Science #Substack #SuppressVoting #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpSAttempt #UnitedStates

Good News – A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

By Joyce Vance, Nov 01, 2025

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Good News – A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

In March, Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS.” Predictably, it was designed to do anything but that. Its goal was to make it more difficult to register to vote.

In April, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a senior judge in the District of Columbia, issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily prevented key parts of the executive order from going into effect while the litigation moved forward. The key problem Judge Kollar-Kotelly observed was that Trump was trying to usurp the power the Constitution affords to the states and Congress to run elections.

Friday, the Judge granted summary judgment in parts of the case, entering a permanent injunction that prevents the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from implementing the worst provision of Trump’s executive order: one that purported to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The measure was designed to suppress voter participation in elections; a solution in search of a problem. It’s akin to the poll taxes used in the South before the Supreme Court put an end to them. Trump’s plan would require people to jump through expensive hoops to acquire proof of birth and costly forms of identification, like passports. At least 21 million Americans don’t have that kind of proof readily available. Only 51% of Americans have passports, which cost adults applying for the first time a $165.00 fee, not to mention assembling the documents you need, getting a photograph of yourself, and making it to an appointment. The problem is especially acute for young people and students who live away from home, and whose documents are with their parents, if they have them at all.

The Judge wrote, “The Constitution’s allocation of authority over federal elections between Congress and the States may not be intuitive. But it is no accident,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Instead, this design was the product of carefully considered compromises among our Constitution’s Framers.” Those compromisers were part of the attention to avoid rule by a king-a dictator.

Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to claim he has powers the Constitution does not give to the president. And this is especially dangerous when it comes to voting, given his track record. We the people must have the right to choose their leaders, not the other way around.

Tonight, another federal district judge stood up for the rule of law and for democracy, telling a power hungry president, “No.”

If you’re looking for something you can do to support the judiciary in this moment where district court judges are bravely standing for the rule of law even though they know that means the president could target them, let them know you support them. Send the Judge and others a postcard, like we do to encourage voters to participate in elections, and thank her for standing for the Constitution and the rule of law. It may seem like a small thing, but the judiciary deserves our support and our thanks for what they are doing. Let’s be visible and involved. Let’s make sure the courts know we are paying attention.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Good News: A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #JoyceVance #Judge #JudgeColleenKollarKotelly #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #ProofOfCitizenship #RegisterToVote #Resistance #Science #Substack #SuppressVoting #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpSAttempt #UnitedStates

Jack Smith Speaks – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Jack Smith Speaks

By Joyce Vance, Oct 14, 2025

You have choices about where you get your news and analysis. I’m grateful you’ve chosen to read Civil Discourse. If you value clear, independent insight into the law and our democracy, I hope you’ll consider a paid subscription. Your support makes the newsletter possible. Thank you for being here with me.

ABC reported today that the House Judiciary Committee wants to have former special counsel Jack Smith testify—behind closed doors—about investigating the Mar-a-Lago, January 6, and Donald Trump. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the Committee, wants an interview by October 28. He is calling for Smith to turn over documents and communications too.

Why now? Last week, there was reporting (very unsurprising to anyone who has ever investigated a federal case) that Smith’s probe obtained phone records regarding a number of Republican lawmakers as part of the January 6 case investigation. Jordan wrote to Smith, “As the Committee continues its oversight, your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri complained that “The F.B.I. tapped my phone.” He said he’d been wiretapped.

Not so fast, though. Obtaining phone records means getting call information—that can mean which phone number called which other phone number, when, and possibly, how long the call lasted. It’s easy to understand why prosecutors would want that information in virtually any case they’re investigating.

Here, given reports that Trump had numerous calls leading up to and on January 6 (for instance, one with brand new Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville), it would be surprising if they hadn’t done so. The New York Times reported that “The calls were scrutinized because at the time, prosecutors were trying to identify relevant communications between the president and his inner circle with members of Congress on the key days surrounding the violence.”

Call information, which frequently produces investigative leads, is acquired routinely by investigators. But it is not the same thing as a wiretap, which lets law enforcement listen in on a target’s phone calls. To get a wiretap, prosecutors and agents have to get an order from a federal judge in compliance with the strict requirements of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. They have to establish probable cause and show that less intrusive investigative methods were tried and failed. A wiretap only lasts for 30 days, and prosecutors must go back to the judge, with fresh proof, in order to reup the wiretap for an additional 30 days.

Jordan’s allegation that this is the weaponization of the DOJ should fall on deaf ears. Jack Smith was investigating one of the most serious situations our country has ever faced—an effort to interfere with the smooth transfer of power between two American administrations, with involvement by the outgoing president who had lost the election—using routine investigative techniques. Jordan and other Republicans should be able to differentiate between that and wiretaps, since these are statutory creatures and Congress sets the requirements for when they can be used.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Jack Smith Speaks – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #GOP #Health #History #JackSmith #January6AttackOnUSCapitol #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #RuleOfLaw #Science #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpPoliticalEnemy #UnitedStates

Jack Smith Speaks – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Jack Smith Speaks

By Joyce Vance, Oct 14, 2025

You have choices about where you get your news and analysis. I’m grateful you’ve chosen to read Civil Discourse. If you value clear, independent insight into the law and our democracy, I hope you’ll consider a paid subscription. Your support makes the newsletter possible. Thank you for being here with me.

ABC reported today that the House Judiciary Committee wants to have former special counsel Jack Smith testify—behind closed doors—about investigating the Mar-a-Lago, January 6, and Donald Trump. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the Committee, wants an interview by October 28. He is calling for Smith to turn over documents and communications too.

Why now? Last week, there was reporting (very unsurprising to anyone who has ever investigated a federal case) that Smith’s probe obtained phone records regarding a number of Republican lawmakers as part of the January 6 case investigation. Jordan wrote to Smith, “As the Committee continues its oversight, your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri complained that “The F.B.I. tapped my phone.” He said he’d been wiretapped.

Not so fast, though. Obtaining phone records means getting call information—that can mean which phone number called which other phone number, when, and possibly, how long the call lasted. It’s easy to understand why prosecutors would want that information in virtually any case they’re investigating.

Here, given reports that Trump had numerous calls leading up to and on January 6 (for instance, one with brand new Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville), it would be surprising if they hadn’t done so. The New York Times reported that “The calls were scrutinized because at the time, prosecutors were trying to identify relevant communications between the president and his inner circle with members of Congress on the key days surrounding the violence.”

Call information, which frequently produces investigative leads, is acquired routinely by investigators. But it is not the same thing as a wiretap, which lets law enforcement listen in on a target’s phone calls. To get a wiretap, prosecutors and agents have to get an order from a federal judge in compliance with the strict requirements of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. They have to establish probable cause and show that less intrusive investigative methods were tried and failed. A wiretap only lasts for 30 days, and prosecutors must go back to the judge, with fresh proof, in order to reup the wiretap for an additional 30 days.

Jordan’s allegation that this is the weaponization of the DOJ should fall on deaf ears. Jack Smith was investigating one of the most serious situations our country has ever faced—an effort to interfere with the smooth transfer of power between two American administrations, with involvement by the outgoing president who had lost the election—using routine investigative techniques. Jordan and other Republicans should be able to differentiate between that and wiretaps, since these are statutory creatures and Congress sets the requirements for when they can be used.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Jack Smith Speaks – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #GOP #Health #History #JackSmith #January6AttackOnUSCapitol #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #RuleOfLaw #Science #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpPoliticalEnemy #UnitedStates

Civil Discourse – Are We the Nazis Now? -Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Are We the Nazis Now?

How do we meet this moment?

By Joyce Vance, Oct 13, 2025

It’s hard to watch. People being treated like they are less than human because of their perceived immigration status. Like this six-year-old girl.

In early October, federal agents with Border Patrol, the FBI, and ATF arrested 37 people in a raid on a Chicago apartment building at 7500 S. South Shore Drive. They banged on residents’ doors overnight, according to a report in the Chicago Sun Times, “pulling men, women and children from their apartments, some of them naked, residents and witnesses said.” A witness said she saw “agents dragging residents, including kids, out of the building without any clothes on and into U-Haul vans,” and that “kids were separated from their mothers.” DHS claimed the neighborhood was “a location known to be frequented by Tren de Aragua members and their associates,” but offered no evidence in support and didn’t confirm that any of those arrested were members of the Venezuelan gang.

Earlier this month, at West Loop Elementary School in Chicago, Illinois, ICE was forced to release two sisters it pulled out of their car at a school pick up, because they have legal status under DACA. But that didn’t stop the masked agents, captured on video by a quick-thinking teacher, from surrounding the car and smashing its windows before dragging the two out. One of the sisters cried out her name and where she lived to bystanders, an apparent effort to prevent being “disappeared” into ICE custody.

Are We the Nazis Now? by Joyce Vance

How do we meet this moment?

Read on Substack

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Are We the Nazis Now? – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #America #AnneFrank #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #ImmigrantChildren #ImmigrationAndCustomsEnforcementICE_ #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Nazis #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #TreatmentByICE #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Civil Discourse – Are We the Nazis Now? -Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Are We the Nazis Now?

How do we meet this moment?

By Joyce Vance, Oct 13, 2025

It’s hard to watch. People being treated like they are less than human because of their perceived immigration status. Like this six-year-old girl.

In early October, federal agents with Border Patrol, the FBI, and ATF arrested 37 people in a raid on a Chicago apartment building at 7500 S. South Shore Drive. They banged on residents’ doors overnight, according to a report in the Chicago Sun Times, “pulling men, women and children from their apartments, some of them naked, residents and witnesses said.” A witness said she saw “agents dragging residents, including kids, out of the building without any clothes on and into U-Haul vans,” and that “kids were separated from their mothers.” DHS claimed the neighborhood was “a location known to be frequented by Tren de Aragua members and their associates,” but offered no evidence in support and didn’t confirm that any of those arrested were members of the Venezuelan gang.

Earlier this month, at West Loop Elementary School in Chicago, Illinois, ICE was forced to release two sisters it pulled out of their car at a school pick up, because they have legal status under DACA. But that didn’t stop the masked agents, captured on video by a quick-thinking teacher, from surrounding the car and smashing its windows before dragging the two out. One of the sisters cried out her name and where she lived to bystanders, an apparent effort to prevent being “disappeared” into ICE custody.

Are We the Nazis Now? by Joyce Vance

How do we meet this moment?

Read on Substack

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Are We the Nazis Now? – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #America #AnneFrank #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #ImmigrantChildren #ImmigrationAndCustomsEnforcementICE_ #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Nazis #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #TreatmentByICE #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Civil Discourse – Project 2025: Taking on the Constitution – Joyce Vance

Another Saturday night in America. I remember when Saturdays were our nights off. That’s not the case right now. These developments are urgent, and it’s more important than ever that we continue to pay attention. If you aren’t already a subscriber, please consider becoming one. Your paid subscriptions help me devote the time and resources necessary to write the newsletter.

ICE rounded up parents and kids, including some American citizens, and herded them, some naked and zip-tied, into the streets, around 1 a.m. in Chicago last Tuesday. Today, there is video from Portland and Colorado showing what appears to be ICE agents attacking and tear-gassing peaceful protestors. In Chicago, agents appear to attack a man who is not threatening them, leg-sweeping him to the ground, something agents are trained not to do because it has the potential to be debilitating.

The violence is condoned, in fact directed, by the Department of Homeland Security, the agency ICE is a part of.

DHS’s Twitter feed is replete with posts claiming “more arrests of anarchists” despite the absence of any evidence of anarchy. Anyone who is looking is seeing American citizens protesting overreach by the government. It is love of country, not anarchy. DHS retweeted a post that said, “Federal agents aren’t tolerating rioting outside the ICE facility and are making prompt arrests of the far-left extremists who gathered outside to besiege the building.”

Apparently, having ICE on the streets isn’t enough for Trump, who is demanding that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker use the National Guard for law enforcement. If he won’t, Trump says he’ll federalize troops. Governor Pritzker tweeted, “I want to be clear: there is no need for military troops on the ground in the State of Illinois.”

Tonight, a federal judge in Oregon who was appointed by Donald Trump during his first term in office ruled he could not federalize the National Guard in that state. It’s a 14-day temporary injunction, but the Judge ruled the state of Oregon had shown it had a strong chance of success on the merits, would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and that the balance of equities and public interest were in its favor.

The administration argued, as it did in California when it deployed Guard troops and has elsewhere in multiple contexts that no court can “second guess” the president’s decisions. Judge Karin Immergut wrote that although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the California National Guard case, held that a president’s decisions are entitled to “a great level of deference,” that “is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground” before rejecting the administration’s claim that it was necessary to federalize the Oregon Guard to protect ICE facilities. This insistence on the courts’ ability to engage in judicial review of presidential decision-making is essential to preserving the balance of the Constitution created between the three branches of government.

“The President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guardsmen further support that his determination was not ‘conceived in good faith’ or ‘in the face of the emergency and directly related to the quelling of the disorder or the prevention of its continuance,” the Judge wrote in an opinion that is very narrowly tailored to discuss the facts and the law in this case without straying from them. “Despite the ‘minimal activity’ outside the Portland ICE facility in the days preceding September 27, 2025 … President Trump directed Secretary Hegseth ‘to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.’”

Judge Immergut concludes, with one of the most powerful judicial condemnations we’ve seen yet of the administration’s transparent excuses for sending the military against Americans, that: “this country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. ‘That tradition has deep roots in our history and found early expression, for example, in … the constitutional provisions for civilian control of the military’ … This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.”

But Stephen Miller still blames it all on a “growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country.” There is absolutely no evidence that movement exists.

Trump’s use of military force continues outside of the country as well. On Friday, he conducted the fourth strike on a boat in the Caribbean, claiming drug traffickers were on it. Four people on board were killed.

The government shutdown is no closer to an end. Trump is using the shutdown, which he provoked by refusing to negotiate with Democrats, to shut down entire government offices, like DOJ’s Community Relations Service, which we discussed last night, while threatening to fire government employees. If he does that, it will leave him with vacancies he can fill with loyalists.

Friday night, the largest federal employees union sued the Department of Education, accusing it of violating the First Amendment by placing partisan language into the out-of-office emails that are automatically sent from accounts of non-essential employees for as long as they are furloughed.

We studied Project 2025 together here at Civil Discourse, from the earliest moment it was made available publicly on the Heritage Foundation’s website. Much of what this administration is doing will sound familiar to those with even passing familiarity with that plan, which Trump disavowed during the campaign.

As the details of the plan came to light during the campaign and the public was repelled, Trump distanced himself from it. But we discussed why he couldn’t be believed when he said it wasn’t his plan, and of course, now, he is embracing it. All of the developments we are seeing signal that Project 2025 is in full swing.

Trump is touting the work of Russ Vought, one of the primary architects of Project 2025, while his shutdown reorganization of government is underway. Project 2025 never disappeared. Vought has been implementing it since day one of this administration. (If you’ve got time to go back and read one of our earlier posts, this is a good one.)

In addition to vowing to fire federal employees during the shutdown—expect lawsuits if this happens, as it’s strictly illegal—Vought is also behind cutting infrastructure funds for blue states including the Green New Deal. It’s partisan politics, not government, and Trump is behind it: “Republicans must use this opportunity of Democrat forced closure to clear out dead wood, waste, and fraud. Billions of Dollars can be saved. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Project 2025 was always the plan. Now they’re using the shutdown to push harder and cast blame on Democrats for anything that goes wrong. They told us they would do this before the election. This was always the 2.0 plan for America.

Friday night, Trump’s pinned tweet showed him cackling with a Trump 2028 hat prominently placed on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Believe them when they tell you who they are.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Editor’s Note: I rarely, and to honor Joyce and Subtack folks, include a whole post from her, but this one is very important. Please read and understand this blueprint is guiding Trump for changing America in very wrong ways. We’re in this together.

Project 2025: Taking on the Constitution by Joyce Vance

Read on Substack

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Project 2025: Taking on the Constitution

#2025 #America #Chicago #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Illinois #IllinoisGovernor #JBPritzker #JoyceVance #JudgeImmergut #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Oregon #Politics #Portland #Project2025 #Resistance #Science #StephenMiller #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Civil Discourse – Project 2025: Taking on the Constitution – Joyce Vance

Another Saturday night in America. I remember when Saturdays were our nights off. That’s not the case right now. These developments are urgent, and it’s more important than ever that we continue to pay attention. If you aren’t already a subscriber, please consider becoming one. Your paid subscriptions help me devote the time and resources necessary to write the newsletter.

ICE rounded up parents and kids, including some American citizens, and herded them, some naked and zip-tied, into the streets, around 1 a.m. in Chicago last Tuesday. Today, there is video from Portland and Colorado showing what appears to be ICE agents attacking and tear-gassing peaceful protestors. In Chicago, agents appear to attack a man who is not threatening them, leg-sweeping him to the ground, something agents are trained not to do because it has the potential to be debilitating.

The violence is condoned, in fact directed, by the Department of Homeland Security, the agency ICE is a part of.

DHS’s Twitter feed is replete with posts claiming “more arrests of anarchists” despite the absence of any evidence of anarchy. Anyone who is looking is seeing American citizens protesting overreach by the government. It is love of country, not anarchy. DHS retweeted a post that said, “Federal agents aren’t tolerating rioting outside the ICE facility and are making prompt arrests of the far-left extremists who gathered outside to besiege the building.”

Apparently, having ICE on the streets isn’t enough for Trump, who is demanding that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker use the National Guard for law enforcement. If he won’t, Trump says he’ll federalize troops. Governor Pritzker tweeted, “I want to be clear: there is no need for military troops on the ground in the State of Illinois.”

Tonight, a federal judge in Oregon who was appointed by Donald Trump during his first term in office ruled he could not federalize the National Guard in that state. It’s a 14-day temporary injunction, but the Judge ruled the state of Oregon had shown it had a strong chance of success on the merits, would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and that the balance of equities and public interest were in its favor.

The administration argued, as it did in California when it deployed Guard troops and has elsewhere in multiple contexts that no court can “second guess” the president’s decisions. Judge Karin Immergut wrote that although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the California National Guard case, held that a president’s decisions are entitled to “a great level of deference,” that “is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground” before rejecting the administration’s claim that it was necessary to federalize the Oregon Guard to protect ICE facilities. This insistence on the courts’ ability to engage in judicial review of presidential decision-making is essential to preserving the balance of the Constitution created between the three branches of government.

“The President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guardsmen further support that his determination was not ‘conceived in good faith’ or ‘in the face of the emergency and directly related to the quelling of the disorder or the prevention of its continuance,” the Judge wrote in an opinion that is very narrowly tailored to discuss the facts and the law in this case without straying from them. “Despite the ‘minimal activity’ outside the Portland ICE facility in the days preceding September 27, 2025 … President Trump directed Secretary Hegseth ‘to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.’”

Judge Immergut concludes, with one of the most powerful judicial condemnations we’ve seen yet of the administration’s transparent excuses for sending the military against Americans, that: “this country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. ‘That tradition has deep roots in our history and found early expression, for example, in … the constitutional provisions for civilian control of the military’ … This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.”

But Stephen Miller still blames it all on a “growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country.” There is absolutely no evidence that movement exists.

Trump’s use of military force continues outside of the country as well. On Friday, he conducted the fourth strike on a boat in the Caribbean, claiming drug traffickers were on it. Four people on board were killed.

The government shutdown is no closer to an end. Trump is using the shutdown, which he provoked by refusing to negotiate with Democrats, to shut down entire government offices, like DOJ’s Community Relations Service, which we discussed last night, while threatening to fire government employees. If he does that, it will leave him with vacancies he can fill with loyalists.

Friday night, the largest federal employees union sued the Department of Education, accusing it of violating the First Amendment by placing partisan language into the out-of-office emails that are automatically sent from accounts of non-essential employees for as long as they are furloughed.

We studied Project 2025 together here at Civil Discourse, from the earliest moment it was made available publicly on the Heritage Foundation’s website. Much of what this administration is doing will sound familiar to those with even passing familiarity with that plan, which Trump disavowed during the campaign.

As the details of the plan came to light during the campaign and the public was repelled, Trump distanced himself from it. But we discussed why he couldn’t be believed when he said it wasn’t his plan, and of course, now, he is embracing it. All of the developments we are seeing signal that Project 2025 is in full swing.

Trump is touting the work of Russ Vought, one of the primary architects of Project 2025, while his shutdown reorganization of government is underway. Project 2025 never disappeared. Vought has been implementing it since day one of this administration. (If you’ve got time to go back and read one of our earlier posts, this is a good one.)

In addition to vowing to fire federal employees during the shutdown—expect lawsuits if this happens, as it’s strictly illegal—Vought is also behind cutting infrastructure funds for blue states including the Green New Deal. It’s partisan politics, not government, and Trump is behind it: “Republicans must use this opportunity of Democrat forced closure to clear out dead wood, waste, and fraud. Billions of Dollars can be saved. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Project 2025 was always the plan. Now they’re using the shutdown to push harder and cast blame on Democrats for anything that goes wrong. They told us they would do this before the election. This was always the 2.0 plan for America.

Friday night, Trump’s pinned tweet showed him cackling with a Trump 2028 hat prominently placed on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Believe them when they tell you who they are.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Editor’s Note: I rarely, and to honor Joyce and Subtack folks, include a whole post from her, but this one is very important. Please read and understand this blueprint is guiding Trump for changing America in very wrong ways. We’re in this together.

Project 2025: Taking on the Constitution by Joyce Vance

Read on Substack

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Project 2025: Taking on the Constitution

#2025 #America #Chicago #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Illinois #IllinoisGovernor #JBPritzker #JoyceVance #JudgeImmergut #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Oregon #Politics #Portland #Project2025 #Resistance #Science #StephenMiller #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Civil Discourse – A Note About the Comey Case – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

A Note About the Comey Case

By Joyce Vance, Oct 02, 2025

In the wake of the Comey indictment, The Washington Post is reporting tonight that “Lawyers inside the high-profile U.S. attorney’s office [for the Eastern District of Virginia] prosecuting former FBI director James B. Comey are unnerved by what they see as an unprecedented push by President Donald Trump to inject politics into their staffing and charging decisions … a strategy they say could jeopardize national security investigations.” Two longtime prosecutors in the office were fired within days after Erik Siebert, the Trump nominee to be U.S. attorney who declined to indict Comey because the evidence wasn’t there, was replaced by Trump loyalist Lindsey Halligan. Halligan, a former insurance lawyer, has no prosecutorial experience.

The two prosecutors who were fired are:

• Maya D. Song, the former U.S. attorney’s first assistant, the second in command for the U.S. attorney. She was first demoted and then fired.
• Michael P. Ben’Ary, the chief of the office’s national security unit.

Both, it turns out, seem to have been targeted because of their association with Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general during the Biden administration, who served as the head of DOJ’s National Security Division during part of the Obama administration. That’s how petty this is. And it’s also dangerous. The Eastern District of Virginia plays an outsized role when it comes to terrorism investigations and prosecutions. One out of every five terrorism prosecutions have been filed in Eastern Virginia since DOJ started tracking these crimes in fiscal year 1995. Firing people with expertise and institutional knowledge in this area makes no sense. It’s pure appeasement for Trump and his allies on social media who attack people they view as political enemies and demand that they be canceled.

In the days following the indictment, there were additional revelations about the charges against Comey. That’s unusual. Normally, you read an indictment and you know up front what the defendant is being charged with. In fact, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require the indictment to be a plain statement of the crime or crimes, and due process prohibits trial by surprise.

For the first 24 hours after the indictment became public, there was a widespread assumption that the false statement the government accused former FBI Director of making involved Andy McCabe, his number two at the Bureau, and whether he’d authorized him to be an anonymous source. Then came reporting that McCabe was never interviewed by prosecutors during the investigation and didn’t testify before the grand jury. Subsequently, there was reporting that the indictment involves a different individual named Daniel Richman, a friend of Comey’s who is a professor at Columbia Law School.

When I first wrote to you about the indictment, we noted that Comey’s lawyers would likely ask for a bill of particulars, a request that the judge force the government to specify the details underlying an indictment that is vague or deficient. This one certainly seems to be.

I wrote about the problems with the indictment for the Brennan Center in a piece out today, which I hope you’ll take a look at after you finish up here! I wrote, “Halligan may have obtained the indictment the president wanted, but it reflects the flawed process that produced it. Grand jurors rejected one count in the proposed indictment, reportedly involving an additional false statement, which happens very rarely. It’s not a good sign for the strength of the government’s evidence. It’s one thing to get a grand jury to indict. Getting a conviction is an entirely different matter.” A lot is going on in this case, and the utter irregularity and disregard for the rule of law the president is directing the Justice Department to act with, combined with a complicit attorney general, is something we cannot afford to lose sight of.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A Note About the Comey Case

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #JoyceVance #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Live with Joyce Vance and Katie Phang #CivilDiscourse
https://podcastaddict.com/civil-discourse-with-joyce-vance-podcast/episode/207589085

Civil Discourse – Ignore The Distractions -Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Ignore The Distractions

By Joyce Vance, Sep 23, 2025

Trump is in full distraction mode. Remember the Epstein files?

But there’s also a new crisis he needs to distract from, one that could easily fly under the radar screen. It’s the firing of the interim U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia because he refused to indict a case that Trump wanted indicted against one of his political enemies. Trump is in the process of installing his new nominee, Lindsey Halligan, a real estate lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, but presumably plenty of loyalty to the president.

Authoritarian leaders in other countries jail their opponents. They use politically motivated, trumped-up charges to jail their opponents, to suppress dissent among their people, and to consolidate their power. Journalists and pro-democracy advocates are frequent targets. This abuse of prosecution power is a hallmark of political repression.

I spoke out on NPR yesterday. If you missed it, I hope you’ll listen now, or read the transcript.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5546841, Transcript from NPR interview.

If Trump’s ability to control the Justice Department isn’t checked in this moment, we’ve hit a dangerous red line for democracy. We cannot afford to let this moment pass without raising our voices and continuing to do so. Other important developments are taking place, but we cannot let this one die with the news cycle. Too much is at stake.

Who might Trump demand prosecution of if he gets away with this? It could be former FBI Director James Comey, who the New York Times reports is now under consideration by the office Halligan now heads. It could be senators, state attorneys general, or governors who confront Trump. It could be any of us, and that’s the point, that’s the essential danger of the moment. It could be any of us.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Editor’s Note: Thank you, Joyce. We fight together, got your back!

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Ignore The Distractions – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Civil Discourse – The Pentagon’s Attack on Free Speech Doesn’t Have To Work – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Pentagon’s Attack on Free Speech Doesn’t Have To Work

Joyce Vance

Sep 22, 2025

When it comes to things the government can’t do without violating the First Amendment, imposing prior restraints on what the media can report is near the top of the list, absent a compelling rationale. That’s what the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers case, New York Times v. U.S., was about.

But that’s exactly what the Trump administration is doing at the Pentagon. Under a new policy, journalists could be required to sign a document pledging that they will not gather or use any information that has not been formally authorized for release—even if it isn’t classified. The long-standing practice at the Pentagon permitted journalists to move freely through the hallways, gathering unclassified information from both military and civilian sources. The new policy restricts their movement, confining them to a specific space and requiring them to be escorted to other parts of the building. Pete Hegseth’s Department of Defense has said that journalists who violate the new policy are at risk of losing their press credentials.

It’s not difficult to see what’s going on here. The administration wants to control what does and doesn’t get reported on, violating the tradition of journalism in this country that comes to us directly from the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. They’re also shutting down criminal investigations like the one reportedly looking into a $50,000 cash bribe to immigration czar Tom Homan and indefinitely suspending annual reports on food insecurity. It’s the tightest control on information the country has experienced in peacetime in the modern era. Because it involves placing a prior restraint on what journalists can report, it looks like a clear violation of the First Amendment.

By now, we know how this administration works. In their search to expand presidential power, they seize upon a time-honored norm and then try to challenge it in the courts. Just today, the Supreme Court took another step towards burying Humphrey’s Executor, the FDR administration case that until now has prevented presidents from firing appointees to quasi-independent boards like the Federal Trade Commission. There is no reason to believe the administration isn’t prepared to take this to the Supreme Court—perhaps arguing that the scope of information should be protected because it’s intrinsic to national security.

The First Amendment protects the press’s right to expose government deception and hold officials accountable, sometimes even when dealing with classified or controversial information. In other words, when Donald Trump objects to reporting about him that is negative, when he sues media outlets that are critical of him, he’s infringing on speech that is plainly protected by the First Amendment. That’s what has made it so disturbing to watch some news outlets voluntarily cave in to his demands before litigation can even get underway. Bending the knee may have made business deals that required government approval possible, but it is contrary to what the First Amendment requires of them, and at least arguably, contrary to their obligation to the public.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: (1) The Pentagon’s Attack on Free Speech Doesn’t Have To Work

#2025 #America #Attack #Censorship #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech #Health #History #Journalists #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Pentagon #Politics #ReportingNews #Science #UnitedStates

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance – Sunday Morning Wrap-Up

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Sunday Morning Wrap-Up

By Joyce Vance, Sep 14, 2025

This was a week punctuated by the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which seemed to sweep all the other news we’d been following off the table.

Debates about political violence and the First Amendment emerged rapidly. In one of the key pieces I wrote this week, I reacted to the violent murder in real time, arguing that political violence is never the answer, even for those who, like me, reject Kirk’s views as repugnant.

If you missed that piece on Wednesday, I hope you’ll read it now.

If you missed any of this week’s other columns, here’s your weekly wrap-up:

• The Week Ahead: We looked at some remarkable comments by a key advisor to Chief Justice Roberts, reviewed Trump’s threat to go into Chicago with the National Guard (he’s since reconsidered and now seems to be looking at Memphis, a blue dot in a red state, and hence an easier target for expanding his use of police powers), and discussed an issue that dropped almost entirely off the radar screen in the wake of Kirk’s murder, Trump’s failure to release the Epstein files.
• Substack Live with Heather Cox Richardson: Monday, I got together for an almost hour-long chat with the eminent (and incredibly fun) historian who writes Letters from an American, and I left feeling both smarter and more certain than ever that as Americans, we can use our history and traditions to outlast the foes of democracy we are facing. The prescription is hard work, no sugar coating, lots of commitment.
• Affirmed: E. Jean Carroll Case: The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the $83.3 million verdict Carroll won in her defamation case against Trump; the one where he denied he’d sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room and denigrated her as “not his type,” although in a deposition, he subsequently misidentifed a photo of her at the time as his second wife, Marla Maples. The court wrote a lengthy opinion. This piece summarizes key points to be aware of as the appeal moves towards the Supreme Court, which can choose to hear the case or let the lower court’s opinion stand.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Sunday Morning Wrap-Up – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #PoliticalViews #Politics #Resistance #Science #Substack #SundayWrapup #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Charlie Kirk’s death can be a turning point. It’s time to double down on civil discourse

To strengthen our democracy, we must deliberately step out of our bubbles.

@dallasnews

🆓🔗: https://archive.ph/JZdal

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2025/09/12/charlie-kirks-death-can-be-a-turning-point-its-time-to-double-down-on-civil-discourse/

#Dallas #USPol #Civics #CivilDiscourse #MariWoodlief #PR

On Charlie Kirk and Saving Civil Society

https://calnewport.com/on-charlie-kirk-and-saving-civil-society/

#HackerNews #CharlieKirk #SavingCivilSociety #CivilDiscourse #SocialIssues #ThoughtLeadership

Civil Discourse – The American Dictator – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The American Dictator

By Joyce Vance, Sep 06, 2025

Tonight, we have the specter of an American president trying to take control of an American city for thinly veiled political reasons.

Not for the first time, or even the second, but for the third. This time, Donald Trump lacks even the veneer of justification he asserted in Los Angeles, when he claimed anti-ICE protests were out of control. He lacks the unique status he holds in D.C. as the head of the National Guard, which gives him greater latitude to act than anywhere else in the country.

“I love the smell of deportations in the morning,” Trump posted on Truth Social Saturday morning, an off-base reference to the famous line in the Vietnam film Apocalypse Now, “I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.” “Chicago about to find out why it’s called the DEPARTMENT OF WAR, followed by three helicopters. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker was quick to point out “This is not a joke. This is not normal.”

In Chicago, Trump will be the invader if he moves in. His claims of rampant crime that state and local authorities can’t handle are undercut by statistics that show serious crime is decreasing, although no one is pretending it’s not a problem. But under our system of federalism, it’s a problem that is left to the states, which have the police power, to resolve.

The Tenth Amendment provides that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” That includes the general police power, which is reserved to the states, because the Constitution does not specify it as a power of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment is the core tenet of federalism, which Republicans used to claim they believed in, offering it up as a reason for the federal government to stay out of all sorts of things far more benign than a federal takeover of a major American city.

The term police powers refers to a broad and somewhat amorphous governmental regulatory power. In 1954, in Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court characterized it as involving “[p]ublic safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order,” while noting that “[a]n attempt to define [police power’s] reach or trace its outer limits is fruitless.” In other words, the power reserved to the states in this regard is broad, certainly encompassing Donald Trump’s newfound desire to have the federal government fight crime in the states—something better done by providing support and grant funding, and letting states and localities do their constitutionally assigned job.

But Donald Trump wants to be a dictator. And it isn’t limited to just his first day in office, as he once said on the campaign trail, not that anyone paying attention believed that bogus claim. Illinois’ Governor isn’t having any of it, calling out Trump for what, in essence, is a threat to go to war with an American city. That sort of plain spoken truth is essential. We can no longer afford to try and make nice with a president who so cavalierly talks about taking over Democratic cities, and only Democratic cities, despite the fact that many red state cities, like my home, Birmingham, Alabama, have crime issues too. We know what Trump is doing. We know next year’s elections are coming. We understand the context for this effort to assert the authority to seize control, at will.

Continue/Read Original Article: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-american-dictator

The American Dictator by Joyce Vance

Read on Substack

#2025 #America #AmericanDictator #CivilDiscourse #Dictator #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #StatesRights #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration

#Quotes #Memes #JosephJoubert #CivilDiscourse
https://adeaconsmusing.ca/

Civil Discourse – Forgetting the Survivors – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Forgetting the Survivors

By Joyce Vance, Sep 01, 2025

Everyone but the survivors—the people who deserve it the most—seems to be the focus of the renewed interest in Jeffrey Epstein. Politics, prurience, and curiosity about which political and pop culture figures might be mentioned in the files have dominated media coverage while people on both sides of the aisle clamor for the release of information gathered by the government as it prepared to prosecute Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

This week, some of the survivors will meet privately with members of the House Oversight Committee, and there may be some public testimony. The survivors have been critical of the administration’s handling of the situation, but no one seems to be listening to them. Imagine having been victimized by these people and then having to listen to the shameful “interview” by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who let Maxwell whitewash her conduct.

Blanche, who was not on the prosecution team that tried the case, failed to challenge Maxwell, who was convicted by a jury of sex trafficking, when she claimed she never saw “underage women” (many of us would call them “girls”) being abused. Blanche even fed her lines when she faltered.

No one should be surprised that a convicted criminal, sentenced to 20 years in prison, would claim she never did anything wrong—especially when her conviction is still on appeal and the government is holding out the prospect of transfer to a much more hospitable prison setting than the one she was in. What’s appalling is that no one at the Justice Department or in the administration seems to have considered the survivors when they released the video and the transcript, or, for that matter, when they gave Maxwell favorable treatment, moving her from a federal prison in Florida to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas just days after the interview with Blanche.

The Justice Department, which the Bureau of Prisons is a component of, offered no explanation for the unprecedented transfer of a convicted sex offender, but it seemed to come in exchange for saying Donald Trump hadn’t done anything criminal.

“Trump was always very cordial and very kind to me. And I just want to say that I find — I — I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the President now. And I like him, and I’ve always liked him. So that is the sum and substance of my entire relationship with him,” Maxwell said in the interview. Trump couldn’t have asked for anything better. Maxwell seems to have understood the importance of playing to the audience of one when you want something.

The Trump Justice Department has not spoken with any of the survivors as part of its review of the prosecutions. Maxwell’s trial took place during the Biden administration. The lead trial lawyer, coincidentally, was former FBI Director Jim Comey’s daughter, Maurene. She was fired by the Trump administration in July, with no reason given.

On Wednesday, there will be a nonpartisan rally on The Hill in Washington, D.C., participated in by groups that work to end human trafficking and to support survivors.

Rachel Foster, a cofounder of World Without Exploitation, an advocacy group for survivors of trafficking, explained why the rally on Wednesday is so important, why the focus should be on survivors, and what this repeated victimization is doing to them: “That is the focus of our coming together on Wednesday — to listen to those who were exploited by Epstein and Maxwell and have suffered decades long harm. These women have been omitted and silenced for too long. They are gathering to speak out about what justice means to them, and it’s not leniency or a pardon for the one perpetrator who has been held accountable for the egregious and predatory crimes she committed.”

Former federal prosecutor and Westchester County DA Mimi Rocah put it like this, “the real victims—over 1,000 by this DOJ’s own statement—have been further traumatized by allowing Maxwell this platform to spew her falsehoods. And, just as important, some of the most important cases that federal prosecutors bring–sex trafficking and child sexual enticement and abuse cases—will no doubt be jeopardized. Because who would trust a DOJ that orchestrates such a travesty of justice.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Forgetting the Survivors

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Epstein #Forgetting #Health #History #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Rally #Resistance #Science #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Trump Is Trying to Fire Lisa Cook and Purge the US Government. Can The Majority Stop Him? with Joyce Vance

Trump Is Trying to Fire Lisa Cook and Purge the US Government. Can The Majority Stop Him? with Joyce Vance

on Substack, for a live chat, where we assessed the state of our democracy in light of recent news. Despite the tough month we’re having, Waj’s questions gave me the opportunity to highlight what Trump doesn’t want you to know—the areas where democracy is still working, with guardrails in place.

Trump wants us to crown him king, obeying in advance, to help him complete his desecration of democracy. Don’t do it! Fight back with knowledge.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump Is Trying to Fire Lisa Cook and Purge the US Government. Can The Majority Stop Him? with Joyce Vance

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #FiringLisaCook #Health #History #JoyceVance #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Purge #Resistance #Science #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Civil Discourse – When The President Becomes The Police – Joyce Vance

By Joyce Vance, Aug 11, 2025

The Posse Comitatus Act reserves the police power to the states, prohibiting the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement absent truly compelling circumstances. This principle can be extended to the National Guard when a president federalizes a state’s troops. That’s the very issue that Judge Charles Breyer is considering in Newsom v. Trump this week: whether Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles crossed the line into domestic law enforcement.

But when Donald Trump declared a public safety emergency in Washington, D.C. this morning, taking control of the Metropolitan Police and announcing his intent to bring the National Guard in to help, the rules that apply everywhere else were not in play. The situation in Washington is unique, and it’s important for us to understand what it is and what it isn’t.

It’s deeply concerning that Trump’s predication for seizing control in the District—allegedly out of control crime—are a lie. I shared the statistics with you last night, which show that crime is actually decreasing in the District of Columbia. But because the D.C. Home Rule Act allows the president to take control of the Metropolitan Police Department for 30 days in an emergency, and because the law doesn’t carefully define what qualifies as an emergency, Trump will likely get his 30 days. That conclusion was reinforced during D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s press conference, where she called Trump’s federal takeover of the D.C. police department “unsettling and unprecedented,” but did not threaten to sue. City officials have likely looked at the law and concluded Trump has enough room under the vague rule to get away with using false pretenses to take over the police.

Time and again, Trump shows his willingness to grab and abuse power, and each instance makes the next more likely. But if he wants to seize control of law enforcement in other cities, he will have to use different legal authorities, such as the Insurrection Act, which, so far, has apparently been too politically fraught. Existing rules made it easier for Trump to act in Washington than in other cities, and this playbook cannot be readily duplicated elsewhere. In other words, as bad as this is, there’s a silver lining.

Here’s the legal landscape that permits Trump to control the police and the Guard:

Police: § 1-207.40 of the Code of the District of Columbia allows a president to take control of the Metropolitan Police Force for federal purposes in an emergency. To keep control for more than 48 hours, he must notify the chair and the ranking member of the Committees on the District of Columbia in Congress. Trump has already done this. That means he can hold onto control for 30 days, but no longer, unless Congress authorizes it. If you tuned into

Steve Vladeck’s and my Substack Live conversation tonight, you know that we both believe congressional Democrats could filibuster to prevent that from happening.

So why do it if it’s only for 30 days? Perhaps Trump is indeed looking to push the boundaries of presidential power even further than he has before. Or perhaps he’s hoping 30 days will be enough to distract the public from his Jeffrey Epstein problem. Either way, Attorney General Pam Bondi is running the police for 30 days, and we’ll be watching.

D.C. National Guard: Unlike state national guards, the D.C. Guard falls under the president’s purview, so he has no need to federalize it like he did in California to deploy troops for federal purposes. DOJ has historically taken the position that the D.C. National Guard’s unique status means it is “non-federal,” and is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, which leaves Trump free to use it for direct law enforcement purposes inside of the city. The Guard in D.C. is relatively small compared to state forces. In California, Trump ultimately federalized about 4,000 troops. In all of D.C., there are fewer than 2500 soldiers and airmen in total.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: When The President Becomes The Police

Original article: View source

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #FederalizePolice #Health #History #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #Science #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates #WashingtonDC