Go get 'em, Katie

 

Trump's corrupt DOJ takes the cake

This is one of the most gobsmacking stories on this regime we've had yet - and that's saying a lot.

Resisting throught the courts

 

Courts resisting fascism

 

Fascism in the courts

 

Well, when you put it that way...

 

War on Americans

 It's coming from inside the house.

Who gets to decide when the government AI-bots are ready to start killing people without direct human oversight—the Pentagon or the AI companies?

This remarkable—some might say insane—question is at the center of a major standoff between the Defense Department and Anthropic, creator of the AI platform known as Claude. While the Pentagon has contracts with all the leading AI labs, Anthropic until this month was the only one contracted for AI use in classified settings: Claude was, for instance, reportedly involved in the operation to capture Nicolas Maduro.

[...]

But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has grown unhappy with two elements of the DoD’s contract with Anthropic. One, Anthropic won’t let its AI be used to conduct mass surveillance of Americans. Two, it won’t let the DoD use it to operate autonomous weapons systems that can identify, track, and kill targets without direct human involvement.

  The Bulwark

Can't wait for that one to go tits up and track Pete Hegseth. Like those cartoons where the heat-seeking missile turns around and follows Wile-E-Coyote unstead of the Roadrunner.

To the Defense Department, the idea that a contractor would be able to tie the military’s hands like this is outlandish; they should be permitted, they argue, to use AI they contract for “for all lawful purposes.”

Doesn't the Defense Department have its own AI platform? In the alternative, can't they use Elon's AI?

Hegseth could simply drop Anthropic’s contract over this, pivoting instead to any of the AI labs—OpenAI, Google Gemini, Elon Musk’s xAI—that aren’t insisting on these contractual sticking points. But he doesn’t really want to. After all, Claude is supposed to be the best, and at any rate it’s already integrated into lots of DoD systems. It’d be a hassle.

Hold fast, Claude.

Hegseth has issued Anthropic an ultimatum: Change your policy, or we’re going to start getting nasty.

Start?

The Defense Department is threatening to use the Defense Production Act to compel Anthropic to drop its usage requirements. Or it could go the exact opposite direction, declaring Anthropic a “supply chain risk”—which would not only eliminate DoD’s Anthropic contract, but also forbid any business that contracts with DoD from working with Anthropic in any way.

And...

The Trump administration on Friday ordered all U.S. agencies to stop using Anthropic’s artificial intelligence technology and imposed other major penalties, escalating an unusually public clash between the government and the company over AI safety [...] accusing it of endangering national security after CEO Dario Amodei refused to back down over concerns the company’s products could be used in ways that would violate its safeguards.

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said on social media.

Hegseth also deemed the company a “supply chain risk,” a designation typically stamped on foreign adversaries that could derail the company’s critical partnerships with other businesses.

  AP News

Vengeful, despicable assholes.

I hear you, man.

In a statement issued Friday evening, Anthropic said it would challenge what it called an unprecedented and legally unsound action “never before publicly applied to an American company.”

Anthropic had said it sought narrow assurances from the Pentagon that its AI chatbot Claude would not be used for mass surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons. The Pentagon said it was not interested in such uses and would only deploy the technology in legal ways, but it also insisted on access without any limitations.

Kudos to Anthropic for not taking the figleaf "assurance".

“No amount of intimidation or punishment from the Department of War will change our position on mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons,” the company said. “We will challenge any supply chain risk designation in court.”

Too bad major institutions in this country did not take the same principled stance against Trump's attempted domination.

Anthropic can afford to lose the contract. But the government’s actions posed broader risks at the peak of the company’s meteoric rise from a little-known computer science research lab in San Francisco to one of the world’s most valuable startups.

[...]

Hours after its competitor was punished, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced on Friday night that his company struck a deal with the Pentagon to supply its AI to classified military networks, potentially filling a gap created by Anthropic’s ouster.

But Altman said that the same red lines that were the sticking point in Anthropic’s dispute with the Pentagon are now enshrined in OpenAI’s new partnership.

“Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems,” Altman wrote, adding that the Defense Department “agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.”

  AP News

Let me guess. Altman was perfectly satisfied with DOD's "assurances".

Trump said Anthropic made a mistake trying to strong-arm the Pentagon. He wrote on Truth Social that most agencies must immediately stop using Anthropic’s AI but gave the Pentagon a six-month period to phase out the technology that is already embedded in military platforms.

“The United States of America will never allow a radical left, woke company to dictate how our great military fights and wins wars!” he wrote in all caps.

[...]

rump’s social media post said the company “better get their act together, and be helpful” during the phase-out period or there would be “major civil and criminal consequences to follow.”

So fucking sick of this asshole's ignorant rhetoric and petulant tantrums. And that's the least of our problems with him.

The president’s decision was preceded by hours of top Trump appointees from the Pentagon and the State Department taking to social media to criticize Anthropic, but their complaints posed contradictions.

Top Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said Anthropic’s unwillingness to go along with the military’s demands was “jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk.” Hegseth said the Pentagon “must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic.”

Yes, we've seen how this administration treats the law.

Hegseth’s choice to designate Anthropic a supply chain risk uses an administrative tool that has been designed for companies owned by U.S. adversaries to prevent them from selling products that are harmful to American interests.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, noted that this dynamic, “combined with inflammatory rhetoric attacking that company, raises serious concerns about whether national security decisions are being driven by careful analysis or political considerations.”

Gee, how could we possibly know?

The moves could benefit OpenAI’s ChatGPT as well as Elon Musk’s competing chatbot, Grok, which the Pentagon also plans to give access to classified military networks. It could serve as a warning to Google, which has a still-evolving contract to supply its AI tools to the military.

Grok has been so untainted by errors and horrors, so, good plans.

Musk sided with Trump’s administration, saying on his social media platform X that “Anthropic hates Western Civilization.”

JFC. MAGA mentality is killing us.

Retired Air Force Gen. Jack Shanahan, a former leader of the Pentagon’s AI initiatives, wrote on social media this week that the government “painting a bullseye on Anthropic garners spicy headlines, but everyone loses in the end.”

Shanahan said Claude is already being widely used across the government, including in classified settings, and Anthropic’s red lines were “reasonable.” He said the AI large language models that power chatbots like Claude, Grok and ChatGPT are also “not ready for prime time in national security settings,” particularly not for fully autonomous weapons.

What could possibly go wrong?

UPDATE 03/07/2026:

UPDATE 03/11/2026:

America, this is your president

 

Courts are finally getting sick of Trump ignoring their rulings

 

Let's see if anyone cares.

Getting closer to the Trump child rape case

 

Roger Sollenberger report on this is here:

Meanwhile in Georgia

 

1984 applies

 

 [...] 

It takes a long time for things to go through the courts, and I'm glad they eventually get some justice (in some cases), but the question now remains whether the Trump administration will actually follow the court's orders.  

Some good news

In a critical loss for the Justice Department, a federal grand jury on Tuesday refused to indict Democratic lawmakers who made a video reminding members of the military and intelligence community that they can refuse to carry out illegal orders.

  Mother Jones

Doesn't mean they'll drop it, but it's a good start.

The six Democrats featured in the 90-second clip are Sens. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) and Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (N.H.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.)—and they all served in the military or intelligence agencies. The indictment was sought by DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, who is a longtime ally of President Donald Trump and a former Fox News host.

Judge Box of Wine is what I hear her called sometimes.

The video, which was posted back in November, was met with an avalanche of threats and attempted retaliation from President Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and—now—Pirro and the DOJ.

[...]

In early January, Hegseth censured Kelly, alleging that the retired Navy combat pilot and astronaut had engaged in “seditious” conduct. Kelly quickly sued Hegseth for violating his constitutional rights.

And, yesterday, a judge ruled in that case.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon (a George W Bush nominee) ruled that Pentagon officials not only violated Kelly’s First Amendment free speech rights, but they also “threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.” The judge invoked an old-fashioned rebuke -- “Horsefeathers!” -- in response to the government’s claim that Kelly is trying to exempt himself from the rules of military justice.

[...]

Leon’s order prohibits the Pentagon from implementing or enforcing Kelly’s punishment while his lawsuit is pending. The judge instructed the parties to provide him with an update in 30 days.

[...]

[A] Washington grand jury declined to indict the lawmakers over the video.

[...]

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin has said she has been told the Justice Department could seek a new indictment as soon as Friday. Kelly and Slotkin said at a news conference Wednesday that they are keeping all legal options on the table regarding potentially suing the administration.

[...]

[DOD chief Pete] Hegseth said Kelly’s censure was “a necessary process step” to proceedings that could result in a demotion from the senator’s retired rank of captain and subsequent reduction in retirement pay.

[...]

Hegseth said the government will appeal Leon’s decision. “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain,’” he posted on his X account, referring to Kelly by his rank at retirement.

  AP News

What a dunce.

The Pentagon began investigating Kelly in late November, citing a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court-martial or other punishment. Hegseth has said Kelly was the only one of the six lawmakers to be investigated because he is the only one who formally retired from the military and still falls under the Pentagon’s jurisdiction.

[...]

[Judge] Leon said that Kelly “is likely to succeed on the merits” of his free speech claim. “He has also shown irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities fall decidedly in his favor.”

UPDATE 02/24/2026:

 

Getting ready for SCOTUS on tariffs

 

When the Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing over President Donald Trump’s tariffs, a similarly rapid resolution seemed possible.

After all, Trump’s lawyers told the court that speed was of the essence on an issue central to the Republican president’s economic agenda. They pointed to a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that the “longer a final ruling is delayed, the greater the risk of economic disruption.”

But nearly three months have elapsed since arguments in the closely watched case, and the court isn’t scheduled to meet in public for more than three weeks.

  AP News

That was published January 28, and we still have no ruling on Trump's ability to level global tariffs.

A decision upholding the tariffs would cement an expansive new exercise of presidential power and preserve a cornerstone of Trump’s agenda that economists estimate could boost some U.S. manufacturing in the long run but cost American families an average of more than $1,700 this year alone in higher prices.

[...]

If the tariffs are invalidated, the U.S. government could owe tens of billions of dollars of refunds to businesses that have paid them. Such an outcome could also eliminate a primary bargaining chip that Trump has used in negotiations with other countries.

  ABC

Is that RICO?

In this case, the ACLU’s attorneys argue that federal officers worked closely with the county sheriff and city police officers to terrorize families at the racetrack raid, and were therefore part of a conspiracy.

The conspiracy argument has succeeded before—most prominently, after federal officers conspired with state officers to murder Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton in Chicago in 1969. It also was used to sue over an immigration raid in Tennessee during Trump’s first term. But ACLU attorney Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, who is working on the Idaho case, told me she hasn’t seen it tried during Trump’s second term, and that the outcome of the case could have implications far beyond this small Idaho town: All across the country, the Trump administration is collaborating closely with state and local police to carry out its mass-deportation agenda.

  Mother Jones

This looks like a lawsuit to watch closely.

Will the government goons obey THIS judge?

 

UPDATE 01/30/2026:

Court wants ICE head to appear

 UPDATE 05:50 pm:

Trump losing in court

And...

Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally approved the deportation of five student activists last year after receiving memos largely describing their participation in pro-Palestinian protests and their writings about the war in Gaza, according to internal government documents unsealed by a federal judge on Thursday.

The documents reveal new details about how the Trump administration decided to target the activists, who were all foreign students visible in campus protests. They had been in the United States legally but were arrested and threatened with deportation last spring.

[...]

Judge William G. Young, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, ruled last year that the Trump administration had illegally targeted the students for deportation based on their speech — in particular their opposition to the Israeli government and its military operations in Gaza.

[...]

[The documents] also show that officials privately anticipated the possibility that the deportations might not hold up in court because much of the conduct highlighted could be seen as protected speech.

[...]

In one set of documents with the referrals, officials acknowledged that almost no grounds existed for deporting the students other than a rarely used 1952 law that says the secretary of state may deem noncitizens deportable for reasons related to foreign policy.

[...]

In justifying the attempt to deport the students, Mr. Rubio and other administration officials repeatedly asserted that they had supported terrorist organizations.

[...]

The students have denied that charge. They sued over their arrests, and judges last year ordered each of them released, citing concerns that their arrests had been based on protected speech.

The case before Judge Young, brought by two national academic organizations, argued more broadly that the arrests had chilled academic speech on the nation’s college campuses. Judge Young agreed, describing the behavior of Mr. Rubio and Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, as an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to “pick off” a few students with an eye to “violating” the free speech rights of thousands of noncitizen scholars.

  NYT

Heads up SCOTUS

A federal court ruled Thursday that Virginia’s lifetime voting ban for people with certain felony convictions violates federal law — a landmark decision that could restore voting rights to hundreds of thousands of Virginians, especially Black residents long targeted by the ban.

U.S. District Court Judge John Gibney, appointed by former President Barack Obama, ruled that Virginia’s constitution unlawfully strips voting rights far beyond what Congress allowed when it readmitted the state to the Union after the Civil War.

  Democracy Docket

Renee Good report

With a state investigation ongoing, Good’s family hired Romanucci & Blandin, the same law firm that represented George Floyd’s family.

[...]

A Fire Department report released on Friday revealed that Good had four bullet wounds in her chest, arm and head and paramedics found her with an “inconsistent” and “irregular” pulse, raising questions of criminal liability under the state’s Good Samaritan law.

[...]

As protests show no signs of ebbing, the state of Minnesota and city of Minneapolis filed a federal lawsuit declaring: “Operation Metro Surge is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities.”

The American Civil Liberties Union scored a legal victory in a separate lawsuit, resulting in a federal judge blocking law enforcement from retaliating against the protesters.

  All Rise News

Who's going to enforce that?

“There is no sign that this operation is winding down — indeed, it appears to still be ramping up,” U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez wrote.

The same judge set out a briefing schedule in the lawsuit brought by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, which seeks a ruling that the federal surge in the Twin Cities to be “unconstitutional and unlawful.”

[...]

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon ordered 1,500 active-duty soldiers to prepare for possible deployment to Minnesota.

[...]

“There is a huge cost: You look illegitimate, and it's a use of force that the Founders of the country never wanted,” University of Massachusetts at Amherst professor Jamie Rowen noted in an interview. Whether Trump knows it or not, he can’t afford it.

He knows it. His internal polling is showing the same thing as public polling.

Trump previously tried to justify the deployment of troops in U.S. cities through a different legal justification, Title 10, only to be defeated all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Judge Kate M. Menendez ordered agents not to retaliate against people “engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity,” and not to use pepper spray or other “crowd dispersal tools” in retaliation for protected speech. The judge also said agents could not stop or detain protesters in vehicles who were not “forcibly obstructing or interfering with” agents.

[...]

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement responding to the injunction that “D.H.S. is taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters.”

She said agents had faced assaults, had fireworks launched at them and had the tires of their vehicles slashed. She added that despite “grave threats,” agents had “followed their training and used the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves, the public and federal property.”

[...]

Judge Menendez’s order applies only to federal agents in Minnesota who are participating in that campaign.

[...]

The injunction did not include explicit protections for recording of agents or other provisions sought by the plaintiffs.

[...]

In Illinois, where immigration agents amassed for several weeks last year, a federal judge issued a sweeping injunction that placed several limits on how agents could use force and interact with protesters. An appellate court later blocked that ruling, calling it too broad and too prescriptive.