NEW: Erez Reuveni, the DOJ lawyer fired for his honesty in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, tells Congress that Emil Bove suggested the DOJ respond to any court orders blocking the CECOT deportations with "fuck you."
He also says DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign lied to Judge Boasberg.
Reuveni accuses Drew Ensign, the DOJ lawyer appearing for the Trump admin in the Alien Enemies Act case, of lying to Judge Boasberg on March 15 when he said he didn't know planes were taking off.
He says Ensign was at a meeting the day before when the flight were planned!
Reuveni says that on March 15 he was emailing DHS updates telling them that Judge Boasberg was ordering DHS to halt the flights.
His supervisor, August Flentje, noted Bove's "fuck you" line and joked Reuveni might be fired for telling DHS not to violate the order.
Reuveni notes that he repeatedly told DHS throughout the night of March 15 that they had to follow court orders. Even Drew Ensign agreed Judge Boasberg's order required them to turn the planes around.
Emil Bove intervened and ordered DHS to ignore that interpretation.
Reuveni's whistelblower account also says that senior DOJ leadership directly ordered DHS not to comply with Judge Boasberg's order to report as to what happened with the flights.
Relevant to yesterday, Reuveni also accuses senior DOJ leadership of defying the D.V.D. court order, with the DOJ refusing to distribute nationwide guidance on its impact despite the order quite clearly applying nationwide.
Yesterday SCOTUS blessed other defiance in that case.
Reuveni says he was ordered to file a brief at the 1st Circuit seeking an emergency stay of the D.V.D. injunction.
The brief argued that the order was nationwide, yet Reuveni knew that inside DHS the Trump admin was saying it only applied to the named plaintiffs — so he refused.
After Reuveni again raised serious concerns that DHS was treating the D.V.D. injunction as if it hadn't happened and didn't apply nationwide (despite telling a court it agreed), Drew Ensign personally told him to stop sending emails raising concerns about noncompliance.
On March 31, when the Trump admin deported more people to El Salvador using military flights, Reuveni knew that those flights violated the D.V.D. court order.
He says the DOD's General Counsel didn't know about the court order and was "upset" that DHS hadn't told him about it.
Reuveni, again investigating what appeared to be a clear violation of a court order, reached out to the DOD and the State Department.
The DOD's General Counsel says Joseph Mazzara had organized the flights — but Mazzara told Reuveni he didn't know anything about them.
After Reuveni raised his serious concerns about the admin having violated a court order, Yaakov Roth, a senior DOJ attorney put there by Trump, ordered him to stop asking questions and stop writing things in email.
The implication was that the admin wanted to hide from FOIA.
Turning to the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, which got Reuveni fired, he says that he repeatedly raised serious concerns about the facts and the law — and that DOJ leadership again ordered him to stop asking questions and stop trying to uncover the truth of the matter.
Finally, Mr. Reuveni says that he was ultimately fired because he refused to sign a legal brief making an argument that was directly contrary to law and unsupported by any evidence put forward in the case — that Abrego Garcia's deportation was legal because he was a "terrorist."
Mr. Reuveni's whistleblower letter is a shocking documentation of the Trump administration's contempt for the rule of law and for the federal judiciary.
Unfortunately, yesterday the Supreme Court arguably blessed this defiant attitude from the admin. static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is nothing more inimical to the principles that our country was founded on than a government official declaring that due process should be tossed aside.
Everyone is entitled to due process. Everyone. We thought it so important we wrote it into the Constitution TWICE.
Of course the Constitution doesn’t spell out what “due process” means in every context. It doesn’t do that for ANY process. That’s why we have laws passed by Congress and judicial precedent.
And in this context, there are laws, rules, and regulations that must be followed.
In every single major immigration raid so far, the MAJORITY of people arrested by DHS officers have no criminal record whatsoever — not even any traffic violations or misdemeanors.
In Washington, DC, it was 84% of all those arrested. In Los Angeles, 57%. In Illinois, 66%.
That is simply not true. Not only is being undocumented not a crime, but to have a criminal record requires someone to have been arrested for an offense in the past.
Neither of those offenses are relevant to the question of whether being undocumented is a crime, nor the question of whether a person who may have committed a crime for which they weren't charged can accurately be described as "having a criminal record."
This is FALSE. As the Supreme Court spelled out very clearly 125 years ago, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to three categories of exceptions, two ancient and one uniquely American.
- Children of diplomats
- Children of occupying soldiers
- Native Americans
Mr. Wong’s parents were ineligible for citizenship in a way today’s permanent residents are not. And the Court was clear that the 14th Amendment codified the ancient rule of birthright citizenship.
Also, Trump’s EO claims to bar citizenship even for children of ppl here legally.
That is exactly what the excerpt says. Read it again. “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment … would appear to have been to exclude … (besides children of members of the Indian tribes…), the two classes of cases” recognized in common law.
Obviously I have little sympathy for this guy, given his offenses. But I do want to explain why it is that this man was still in the country and not deported under any previous admin, including the first Trump admin.
In short - because for 50+ years, Cuba refused deportations.
Florida's sex offender registry says that Mr. Milian has two convictions relating to a single court case from 1996. So he's been deportable for at least 29 years.
But from 1965 to 2017, Cuba refused to accept any deportations of people who were inside the United States. Period.
The result of this diplomatic impasse means that for 50+ years, Cuban noncitizens convicted of a crime in the U.S. and ordered removed were mostly treated like regular American ex-con. After they did their time they'd be transferred to immigration custody and eventually released.
THREAD: Judge Ellis is the first federal judge to review extensive body cam video of DHS's actions in Chicago. She finds that DHS *repeatedly* misled the public and made claims that were disproven by agents' own videos.
I'll go through some of the most egregious ones here.
On October 28, @DHSGov claimed that days earlier "rioters" had "shot at agents with commercial artillery shell fireworks," thus forcing agents to deploy tear gas and riot munitions.
Judge Ellis reviewed the video. This was completely false. The explosions were DHS's flashbangs!
@DHSgov DHS claimed that agents were forced to use riot munitions to disperse an "unruly mob" on Sept. 19.
In fact, "the scene [was] quiet," and then "almost immediately and without warning, agents lob flashbang grenades, tear gas, and pepper balls, stating 'fuck yea!' as they do so."
Rep. Jayapal is correct -- it is not a crime to be undocumented. Here's the Supreme Court saying as much.
Plus, less than 10% of the undocumented population has a removal order, and would only be chargeable if they had willfully disobeyed it, and many don't know they have one.
As for 8 USC 1325, illegal entry applies only to the undocumented population that crossed illegally, meaning visa overstays or people who came via humanitarian parole commit no crime -- and the statute of limitations is 5 years, so most people couldn't even be criminally charged.
Two things can be true at once:
1. It is not a crime to be undocumented, as the Supreme Court itself has noted. 2. A subset of the undocumented population (far less than half) is theoretically criminally chargeable for specific immigration violations.