The Daily Populous Friday July 25th, 2025 night edition
Authored by talkingpointsmemo.com and submitted by Alert_Site5857

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli Under Pressure From Bondi

A major new development out of Los Angeles, where the LA Times reports that U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli has been no-billed by grand juries in some attempted prosecutions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protestors:

The three officials who spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity said prosecutors have struggled to get several protest-related cases past grand juries, which need only to find probable cause that a crime has been committed in order to move forward. That is a much lower bar than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for a criminal conviction.

But among the most damning revelations in the LA Times article is Essayli ordering a subordinate to ignore the DOJ’s Justice Manual:

On the overheard call, according to the three officials, Essayli, 39, told a subordinate to disregard the federal government’s “Justice Manual,” which directs prosecutors to bring only cases they can win at trial. Essayli barked that prosecutors should press on and secure indictments as directed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, according to the three officials.

The Trump administration targeted Los Angeles for heavy-handed immigration enforcement, including deploying the National Guard and active duty marines to the Democratic-run city, that set off mass protests and some street clashes with law enforcement.

Fired Immigration Judge: I Was Pressured To Dismiss Cases

An immigration judge fired by the Trump administration says he came under pressure to dismiss cases to facilitate the immediate detention of immigrants who had shown up in court, WBUR reports:

[George] Pappas said that in April, his assistant chief judge told him to grant motions to dismiss when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were at the courthouse. “If the case was dismissed, more likely than not, as soon as that person would exit the courtroom, he would be arrested by the ICE officers in the hallway,” he said.

Abrego Garcia Wins Two Key Court Rulings

As I reported yesterday, a federal judge in Tennessee ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia released from DOJ custody pending his criminal trial and a federal judge in Maryland said DHS can’t immediately detain him once he’s freed by DOJ. Abrego Garcia won’t be released right away because he’d asked for a 30-day delay in the effective date of his release, which was granted. District judges are holding the line against the worst of the Trump depredations.

Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found President Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship to be an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment and affirmed a nationwide injunction blocking its enforcement.

Career DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, who was fired by the Trump administration for being too candid and ethical in the major anti-immigration case, continues his blistering whistleblower tour with a NYT podcast interview (a transcript is also available for those too busy to listen).

Judge-Appointed USA Asserts Her Hold on Position

In a post on Linkedin, Desiree Grace, the career DOJ prosecutor appointed by federal judges to replace New Jersey acting U.S. attorney Alina Habba, asserted she will serve in the role despite claims from the Trump administration that it had fired her:

Yesterday the District Judges for the District of New Jersey selected me to serve as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. It will forever be the greatest honor that they selected me on merit, and I’m prepared to follow that Order and begin to serve in accordance with the law.

At the moment it’s not clear who leads the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office: Habba, whose 120-day term ends, depending on your math, at some point this week; or Grace, who the judges appointed to succeed Habba whenever the 120 days are up. It’s possible the administration will name someone else to the role, setting up dueling papacies, Avignon-style.

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump’s name appears in the investigative files related to the prosecution of his longtime friend Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney General Pam Bondi told him so in May, after she made it one of her first priorities to shift massive DOJ resources into reviewing the Epstein files.

A federal judge in Florida denied the Trump DOJ’s request to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts.

Three House GOPers defected to support a subpoena of the Justice Department for its Epstein files.

Expect more performative responses to the Epstein furor like this one: “The Justice Department announced on Wednesday the formation of a task force to look into unsubstantiated allegations by President Trump that President Barack Obama and his aides ordered an investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s connections to Russia to destroy Mr. Trump.”

Columbia Settles With Trump Admin for $200M

Under enormous financial and political pressure from the Trump administration, Columbia University entered into a $200 million settlement agreement with the federal government to resolve claims it violated anti-discrimination laws. In return, the Trump administration will restore the university’s federal funding.

The settlement marks an extraordinary federal intervention into the operation of a private university, is a template for future Trump administration shakedowns of higher education institutions, and may yet leave Columbia vulnerable to future Trump demands.

Some reactions from Columbia University faculty:

Suresh Naidu: “[T]his deal is unlikely to end the attacks. The federal government, and this administration, is simply too powerful and too arbitrary to be credibly bargained with. Do we really think this arrangement, however destructive of academic autonomy it is, will prevent the Trump administration from stopping the money again? Anyone who thinks the administration will mutely walk away after the ink is dry needs to look at both the past behavior of autocratic regimes in general and this administration’s in particular.”

David Pozen: “Deals like Columbia’s enhance the power of presidents and their allies within targeted universities; sideline Congress, the courts, and most faculty; and sow fear and uncertainty throughout civil society. They are fundamentally inconsistent with the logic of academic freedom.”

SCOTUS Again Signs Off on Trump Purges

Over a dissent from the three liberal justices, the Roberts Court allowed President Trump to fire the three Democratic members of the previously independent Consumer Product Safety Commission.

A couple of months ago, the major concern was what would happen when Trump defied the courts. A more complicated picture is now emerging. One that mixes quiet but unmistakable defiance of court decisions by the Trump administration with encouragement from the six Republican-appointed Justices who sit atop the judicial branch. This is an arguably worse scenario, since it provides a veneer of legalism even as it replaces the rule of law with rule by law, where Trump is allowed to determine the nature of that law. The emerging pattern is that the Trump administration is checked by the lower courts, slow-walks compliance, and sometimes asks SCOTUS for help, which they usually provide via poorly reasoned opinions or no opinions at all. The Supreme Court often does not feel the need to explain what are effectively constitutional amendments that rebalance the separation of powers, feeding perceptions of the court as a partisan actor.

Hegseth Probe Turns Up Damaging New Evidence

The Pentagon’s independent watchdog has received evidence that messages from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Signal account previewing a U.S. bombing campaign in Yemen were derived from a classified email labeled “SECRET/NOFORN,” people familiar with the matter said. The revelation appears to contradict long-standing claims by the Trump administration that no classified information was divulged in unclassified group chats that critics have called a significant security breach.

Only the Best People: Paul Ingrassia Edition

“Paul Ingrassia’s nomination to head the Office of Special Counsel is at risk because of his history of scorched-earth rhetoric and extremist associations,” the WaPo reports.

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

CockBrother on July 24th, 2025 at 15:29 UTC »

> told a subordinate to disregard the federal government’s “Justice Manual,” which directs prosecutors to bring only cases they can win at trial.

In other words, they want these people in the very expen$ive court system to hurt them financially and mentally regardless of whether they have a case.

StoppableHulk on July 24th, 2025 at 15:14 UTC »

JURY NULLIFICATION IS YOUR RIGHT.

You do not have to vote to convict anyone. No matter what the judge or lawyer says. You are fully entitled to vote your conscience when it comes to serving on a jury.

If you feel the law is unjust, if you feel the punishment is unjust, you are allowed to vote not to convict. No matter what the evidence is. No matter what the judge tells you.

In this country, there is NO consequences for ANY memeber of a jury for voting one way or another. YOu cannot "get it wrong."

You are fully, totally, and completely empowered to vote in any way you so choose, for any reason you so choose.

Congress can pass all the bullshit ass laws it wants, PResidents can issue totalitarian dictates all they'd like. But the jury still retains the most fundamental, core power in this country, and you can wield that power.

That's why Republicans hate our court system, that's why they stack the judiciary. They want to dictate to you. They want to force you to always be aligned with them. But on a jury, you can tell them to go fuck themselves adn there's not a fucking thing they can do about it.

I know we all roll our eyes at jury duty. But understand that it is your ultimate power to counteract unjust laws to be able to sit on a jury and refuse to convict.

Remind every single person you know about Jury Nullification - the ability for a jury to vote however they want. To nullify a law if they feel it is unjust, unfair, or for any reason at all.

Skipspik2 on July 24th, 2025 at 15:08 UTC »

"LA Grand Juries Are respecting the law and not Indicting ICE Protestors without bases" There, fixed the headtitle for your talkingpointsmemo.