Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

🚨Hearing on going in case where Plaintiffs seeking Preliminary Injunction to stop RIF of employees in DHS. 1/

2/ Here is case: courtlistener.com/docket/6993865…

3/ Judge is literally holding a hearing to decide whether Trump Administration office is properly managing the department, with questioning concerning how offices operate.

4/ Witness for Trump notes one of DHS's job of reviewing complaints is redundant because complaints were filed with another office.

5/ It sounds like Judge Reyes is interrupting and drilling witness, as opposed to leaving to Plaintiffs' attorneys.

6/ LOL: Attorney asks government witness why he couldn't find reports & witness says the documents weren't maintained in way I would normally see documents maintained.

7/ OMgosh: When asked what was asked witness says what worked, what didn't, how could they approve. Judge Reyes interrupts and said: "Did they say you should fire everyone?"

8/ Trump's witness is great. He is methodical, reasonable, and professional explaining how the offices work/don't work. They do "a lot" of public relations marketing...very expensive. "Office of Public Affairs."
Judge: Can you give me an example
Witness: Much is duplicative, such as "stakeholder" briefing.
Judge: Can you give me a real example.
Witness: Discussion of x, and they give conflicting guidance.
Judge: Can you give me an example of that.
Witness: Travel to hague $$$$.
Witness: Plan is to perform statutory duties of office. I am developing plans. Refocus on statutory function and staffing model.

9/ Judge: Give me an example
Witness: We know how many cases come in, how many people had worked on cases, so we hire for that.
Judge: Help me understand. The intent was to terminate.
Witness: No. Not to terminate office.
Judge: How long did it take to come to conclusion these office need to have be fired? What analysis? who did anaylsis?
Witness: Don't know who did, how it did analysis.
Judge: You don't know anything but you're last manstanding. Everyone was told fired. Who decided this was best approach. Who came up with brilliant idea best idea was to fire everyone, stop work, and still pay them?
Witness: By secretary.
Judge: Whose analysis? Would any analysis make sense?
Witness: That is standard practice for RIF.
Judge: That's just for one or two people, right.
ME: NO YOU IDIOT it is RIF.
Judge: Who is helping you?
ME: What happen to Plaintiffs' attorney? Oh, right that's Judge Reyes.

10/ Judge: Trying to find bare minimum.
Witness: No. Also deciding value of discretionary.
Judge: Has anything of value of discretionary?
Witness: Yes.
Judge: What?
Witness: Advisors to general counsel
Judge: who
Government objects saying deliberative counsel.

11/ Judge: After analysis that wasn't done...that we don't know was done? Who did analysis that best to fire everyone and then restart?
Witness: I don't know.
Judge: Given any documents that discuss an analysis that give a reason for the decision? How did you get put in the position? Did anyone give you a briefing?
Witness: Yes, got a briefing. I was told to figure out most efficient way to perform statutory functions. No papers.
Judge shuts up and plaintiffs' attorney starts.

12/ Witness: had 3 and ballooned to 118 in 2 year.
Others 20 or so doubled to 40 in last 2 or 3 years.
Hard to track way HR is reported.
THIS IS FRICKIN' NUTS!

13/ Witness: required by statute to have one omnibusman in every state but that was NEVER done.
Holy cow!
Currently 5 executives doing job.
Judge: So there would be money for omnibusman in every state if you take the DC ones and put in state?
Witness: Many contractors do the jobs and currently working and primarily focused on the course case work. 10 contracts 10 M.
Judge: No plans to end. Deliberatively recommended they continue.
Witness: Some canceled. I previously worked in contractors and I know what they should and shouldn't look like. there were many duplicative. And I ended those.

16/ Weird. My line just clicked and I couldn't hear anything. I called back and it said I was entering the meeting but no sound. I wonder if the court screwed up and left the testimony on the line. If so, it was a good thing for transparency because it revealed how thoughtful Trump Administration is being, how much waste there is, and how biased judge is!!! I'm staying on line to see what develops!