The Secret Document That Undercuts Trump's Deportation Policy

Programming note: Judge Michael Luttig, an old friend, has a major piece dropping soon about Trump and the rule of law, and Luttig will be my guest on Substack Live later this week to discuss it.

At 4 PM today, we’ll be talking to Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Lauren Harper, who will take us behind the scenes of how she obtained the declassified document that blew a hole in Trump’s legal justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act. 

BIG NEWS: Ed Martin, Trump’s Most Disturbing Nominee, Won’t Be U.S Attorney

Sen. Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican who occasionally breaks with the worst aspects of Trumpism, came out against the Jan. 6th enthusiast today and seems to have sealed Martin’s fate. (Punchbowl News)

 

 

Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of Tren de Aragua rests on his assertion that President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela is directing the criminal gang’s activities in the U.S. (Photo: Getty Images)

A Secret Intelligence Assessment Undercuts Trump, Vindicates Reporters

Trump’s March 15 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act said that Tren de Aragua “is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.” (Emphasis mine.)

The alleged connection of the gang to the government was crucial because the Alien Enemies Act seems to require a state link. No link, no rounding up of gang members and sending them to El Salvador under the 18th-century law.

But days after the proclamation, the Times reported that the intelligence community found no such connection between the Maduro government and TDA. The White House responded with denials, and the Justice Department responded with a criminal investigation into the leaks. 

In mid-April, the Post matched the Times reporting:

The National Intelligence Council, drawing on the acumen of the United States’ 18 intelligence agencies, determined in a secret assessment early this month that the Venezuelan government is not directing an invasion of the United States by the prison gang Tren de Aragua, a judgment that contradicts President Donald Trump’s public statements, according to people familiar with the matter.

Naturally, the White House said the newspaper was lying. Attorney General Pam Bondi used these reports as a predicate to overturn a longstanding internal DOJ policy protecting reporters from aggressive tactics in leak investigations.

You will be shocked to learn that it turns out that the White House was lying and the reporters were telling the truth.

Lauren Harper of the Freedom of the Press Foundation stepped in and obtained, via the Freedom of Information Act, a declassified version of an April 7 National Intelligence Council memo.

The document, which appears to be the one specifically mentioned in the Post’s article, is called “Venezuela: Examining Regime Ties to Tren de Aragua,” and it completely vindicates Charlie Savage and Julian E. Barnes at the Times and John Hudson and Warren P. Strobel at the Post.

Here’s the key section directly contradicting Trump’s claims:

 

 

So what was the administration’s response? Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, released a statement today decrying that “some in the media remain intent on twisting and manipulating intelligence assessments to undermine the president’s agenda.”

Just pure gaslighting, obfuscating, lying, and up-is-downism by the administration from start to finish here. 

Tune in to Substack Live at 4 PM to watch our conversation with Lauren Harper.

Trump Third Term Watch

This is where we are with this: the NYT feels it’s necessary to publish an editorial reminding everyone that Trump can’t run for a third term. I don’t blame them. This issue is not going away. On Sunday, Trump both downplayed talk of serving a third term and mused about doing it.

I have been loath to jump into the arcane constitutional debate about this issue. But something caught my eye this morning as I was reading the paper’s discussion of the relevant amendments over coffee, and I had a near spit-take:

The 22nd Amendment, to be specific, says no person shall be “elected” to the office of president more than twice, but it doesn’t say that no president shall serve more than twice. This has long led to an academic parlor game: Could a term-limited president run as a vice president and then be handed the Oval Office when his running mate resigns? Mr. Trump has said that is one method by which he might return as president.

But another amendment — the 12th — appears to rule out that possibility. Its final sentence declares that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States.” Together, the two amendments make clear that Mr. Trump’s time in office cannot extend beyond his current term.

Wait, what? Appears to rule out? So you’re saying there’s a chance?

The Times, in its scrupulousness, appears to be acknowledging that the issue is not actually settled and that the Constitutional pedants might have a point.

The pedants argue that the 12th Amendment’s mention of who is eligible and ineligible to be vice president simply refers back to Article II’s Qualifications Clause, which spells out the citizenship, age, and residency requirements to serve as president.

In this reading, the 12th Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with the 22nd Amendment’s prohibition against being elected to a third term, so Trump could be elected vice president and then serve as president if Vance (or whoever) resigned.  

There is much more support for this interpretation than you might think, and one has to assume that Trump is seriously considering the V.P. switcheroo plan he has previewed. Trump is a master of telegraphing his intentions well in advance. (H/t to Eric Zorn for many of the links above.)

Former Judges Condemn Arrest of Hannah Dugan

A group of more than 150 state and federal judges, including Michael Luttig and Nancy Gertner, sent a scathing letter to Pam Bondi condemning the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan:

This latest action is yet another attempt to intimidate and threaten the judiciary after a series of rulings by judges appointed by presidents of both parties holding the Trump Administration accountable for its countless violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States. On April 25, you called judges “deranged” and said that “[the Administration is] sending a very strong message” and that “we will come after you and we will prosecute you.” On April 28, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went so far as to say that the Trump Administration will not rule out arresting members of the United States Supreme Court.

The intent to intimidate Judge Dugan and the judiciary is clear from the circumstances of Judge Dugan’s arrest which took place seven days after the alleged offense. There was no emergency whatsoever; the administration could have easily issued a summons for Judge Dugan to appear before a court, as they would have done in other white collar cases. There is not an ounce of doubt that Judge Dugan would have appeared in court in response to a summons. Instead, the United States Department of Justice at your direction decided to create an embarrassing spectacle that included the FBI’s arrest and handcuffing of Judge Dugan and the Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, posting a photo of the perp walk on X. As you know well, the Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy that appears on the Justice Department’s website directs that DOJ personnel “should not voluntarily disclose a photograph of a defendant unless it serves a law enforcement function or unless the photograph is already part of the public record in the case.”

The circumstances of Judge Dugan’s arrest make it clear that it was nothing but an effort to threaten and intimidate the state and federal judiciaries into submitting to the Administration, instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws of the United States. This cynical effort undermines the rule of law and destroys the trust the American people have in the nation’s judges to administer justice in the courtrooms and in the halls of justice across the land.

This attempt to intimidate the judiciary will fail.

Read the full letter here.

Rand Paul Finds Some Spine 

Last week, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a professed libertarian who has had little to say about the many illiberal uses of state power that have been the hallmark of Trump’s second term, did speak out against Trump’s tariffs.

He followed up in an email to his supporters that caught my eye. He wrote that “tariffs are taxes” and that “only Congress—not the president—has the authority to impose taxes” and that “imposing them unilaterally under the guise of an ‘emergency’ is an abuse of executive power.” 

He even likened Trump to a king:

I support President Trump on many issues, but I will not support any president acting like a king. If we don’t reclaim Congress’s power to tax, we open the door to even greater abuses—Republican or Democrat.

Source-  https://www.telos.news/p/the-secret-document-that-undercuts?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2FSecret%20document&utm_medium=reader2