Wednesday, November 26, 2025

The Snapshot

Wednesday, November 26, 2025.  Chump's war on immigrants continues and snares the mother of Karoline Leavitt's nephew, Chump who did not serve continues to try to overcompensate for his micro penis by attacking Senator Mark Kelly, and much more.


The bullies of Chump's gestapo forces never tire of intimidating and harassing people.  A court is hitting back at the lawless force.  Taylor Dolven (COLORADO SUN) reports:


Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ conduct during arrests in Colorado has been “unlawful,” a federal judge ruled Tuesday  in an order that restricts how immigration officers can arrest people in the state.

The preliminary injunction ruling is a significant victory for immigrants rights groups, who sued ICE last month to stop “indiscriminate” arrests and detentions. The lawsuit alleges that ICE agents are arresting and detaining people in Colorado because of their skin color, accent or perceived nationality, without determining flight risk, to fulfill arrest quotas set by the Trump administration.

ICE must repay the bond money posted by three named plaintiffs in the case, all immigrants arrested in Colorado, remove their ankle monitors and stop making warrantless arrests in the state without determining and documenting each person’s flight risk, according to the the ruling by U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson in Denver.

“ICE’s hubris and violent behavior have been on national display for months,” said Hans Meyer, owner of the Meyer Law Office and an immigration attorney for the plaintiffs. “But as Judge Jackson’s decision makes clear, no one — including ICE — is above the law.”



Let's drop back to Monday for this from THE NEWSHOUR (PBS).


Amna Nawaz:

A sweeping new investigation by the Associated Press is raising serious questions about what's happening inside America's immigration courts.

White House correspondent Liz Landers has more on how the administration has circumvented the asylum process.

Liz Landers:

Every day, all across the country, asylum cases are being tossed out, and asylum seekers exit the courtroom into the waiting arms and cuffs of immigration officers, that according to a new report from the Associated Press headlined "Migrants thought they were in a court for a routine hearing. Instead, it was a deportation trap."

One of its authors, Josh Goodman, joins us now.

Josh, thank you for joining the "News Hour."

Josh Goodman, Associated Press:

Thank you.

Liz Landers:

In reporting this story, you and your colleagues went to 21 immigration courts. Can you describe the scene as you watch migrants walk into court and then walk out into a legal snare?

Josh Goodman:

Yes, we witnessed multiple arrests over several months. This was a routine practice by which government attorneys would go before a judge, dismiss a case, which would typically be a good outcome for someone trying to stay in the United States.

And as soon as they would leave the courtroom, they would be arrested by ICE agents or federal agents, frequently with masks. Nationwide, it's estimated that there were over 2,000 arrests in this manner. Some of the courts were quite chaotic, arresting people in hallways. People were being trapped in elevators. Journalists were being rough-handled, scenes of fathers being torn from their children, women begging federal agents to let their husbands go.

These are people who wanted to follow the rules. They didn't have a criminal record. They were making an asylum claim and going through all the stages that are required and were completely blindsided by what happened to them.

Liz Landers:

What has changed in these immigration courts under this new Trump administration?

Josh Goodman:

So these immigration courts were kind of structurally flawed from the very beginning. They are not part of the independent judiciary in the way that tax court or federal court or any multiple courts around the United States are.

They are part of the executive branch. They actually are part of the Justice Department. They had a degree of professionalism over time that was built up. And these judges were allowed to really rule like any other court. But they were always very vulnerable to some sort of takeover.

What we have seen now under the second Trump administration, they are effectively exploiting those vulnerabilities, issuing new orders about what judges can and cannot rule on. And they're really narrowing the scope that these judges have to decide the cases.

Liz Landers:

How do the attorneys and judges within the immigration court system feel about the role that they're playing under this new Trump administration tactic?

Josh Goodman:

What I found is that overall these are people who are very patriotic. They signed up to work in the immigration system because they wanted to protect America's borders, root out the true people who need asylum from some of the people who are claiming it for nonlegal reasons or economic refugees, for example.

And they did not sign up for this at all. One of the judges I talked to said, this is really like deciding death penalty cases in a traffic court environment, because they have so few tools to actually mete out justice that — and they have such a huge docket — that they are rushing through these cases without giving them the due consideration that they need.

And I noticed in some of the text messages between the federal agents and the attorneys a great deal of empathy and people kind of saying to themselves, this is cruel and we don't really want to be a part of this.

Liz Landers:

I was struck by that in your reporting, that these attorneys who are arguing in front of these judges are in direct contact, it seems, with the ICE agents who are waiting outside.

Josh Goodman:

This process starts about two weeks in advance. Every attorney is assigned a number of people, like maybe 40 cases that day. They have to come up with a list for the client — the client here is ICE — of people who they would — quote, unquote — call "amenable" to detention.

And then, on the day of the hearings, the attorney and the ICE officer in the hallway are coordinating almost in real time so that they can identify what the individual looks like, what kind of shirt, black shirt, a white shirt, whatever they're wearing, as well as if indeed the judge dismissed the case, because that was the hook.

If the judge didn't dismiss the case, they couldn't arrest these individuals. If they're trying to reach a quota every day, it's a lot easier to pick up people at court.

Liz Landers:

One of the stated reasons that the Trump administration has adopted this new policy is to work through the asylum system's yearslong backlog. Is it affecting the backlog and is it affecting other systems?

Josh Goodman:

That's a great question. The backlog is a huge challenge. It has been for many, many years. It keeps growing. The numbers themselves are not 100 percent clear.

The government has said that they have managed to reduce the backlog from about 4.2 million to 3.8 million cases, which is still mind-boggling for only 600 judges nationwide. But they're also benefiting from the fact that the border itself is sealed. In other words, there's not a lot of new people coming in and clogging up the system.

But every time that there are arrests in the streets, any time there are major roundups, those people also get sort of thrown back into the system, and they can actually increase the numbers. So, it's not entirely clear, but I think, at a very minimum, what we can say is that the backlog is not growing as fast as it once was.

Liz Landers:

So you find in this reporting that a number of these judges, these immigration court judges have been laid off. You guys profile in your story a judge in Ohio who had been fired.

Why are immigration judges getting fired right now if there is such a backlog to process these cases?

Josh Goodman:

Yes, I mean, this is a great conundrum. There's about 90 judges that have been fired since February. And the government, Trump administration, very clearly says that they are not targeting anyone from a viewpoint perspective.

But the data speaks for itself. These judges were more favorable to migrants than the national average.



Let's look at some of the people targeted.  Robert Birsel (NEWSWEEK) reports:

Immigration authorities detained a University of Oklahoma professor of Iranian studies on Saturday while he was on his way to an academic conference in Washington, D.C., despite having a valid H-IB visa, a colleague said.

He was released this week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told Newsweek on Tuesday.
“This Iranian national was detained for standard questioning. He’s been released,” a DHS spokesperson said via email.

Violent criminals?  And this person even had paperwork to prove he was all checked off to stay in the country.  Gestapo thugs.  Untrained menace let loose on the streets of America.  Guess we now understand what Blackwater did in Baghdad.  


Leaked Immigration and Customs Enforcement data show that nearly three-quarters of detainees have no criminal conviction, undermining President Donald Trump’s promise to remove “millions and millions of criminal aliens.”

The figures, leaked to the libertarian Cato Institute, expose the gulf between the administration’s rhetoric and results, as Trump’s top enforcer, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, insists the dragnet is targeting America’s “worst of the worst.”

Since Oct. 1, 73 percent of people booked into ICE custody had no criminal conviction, while nearly half had neither a conviction nor pending charges, according to the Cato analysis. Just 5 percent had a violent conviction.

Good for Cato but this has been the pattern -- as Cato itself has previously pointed out -- and now we know it remains the pattern.  


And look who ICE snared now:  a relative of Propaganda Pig.  Tara Prindiville and Dennis Romero (NBC NEWS) report:

Officials have detained the mother of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt's nephew amid the Trump administration's ramped-up immigration enforcement efforts, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to NBC News.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took the woman into custody in Revere, Massachusetts, this month, the source said.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Bruna Caroline Ferreira is a "criminal illegal alien from Brazil" who overstayed her tourist visa, which expired in June 1999.

The woman has an arrest on suspicion of battery, the spokesperson said. It’s not clear how the case was resolved.


So they have an 11 year old son, Michael Leavitt and Bruna.  They were engaged and lived in a condo together until he won  million dollars.  Karoline, Michael's sister, had to troll old men to find her a sugar daddy, but Michael won his earnings.  And, if you're not following, the woman arrested is the mother of Karoline's nephew.  I don't know why the reports struggle on the connection.  She's also very pretty -- unlike the porker Michael chose to marry.  Karoline apparently hates Bruna and you have to wonder if Homeland Security's been used by Karoline to 'ease family tensions' by getting Bruna out of the country?  Homeland Secuirty's got all these neagtive things to say about the woman but no outlet can even find where charges have ever been filed against her.  Alexx Altman-Devilbiss (KFOX 14) adds:


Ferriera's sister, Graziela Dos Santos Rodrigues, stated on a GoFundMe page to help with legal costs that Ferriera was brought to the United States by her parents in 1998 and "has done everything in her power to build a stable, honest life."

"She has maintained her legal status through DACA, following every requirement, and has always strived to do the right thing," Rodrigues continued. 

 

We've talked about the lies Homeland Security keeps telling.  Grace Hall (MIAMI HERALD) notes:



U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis criticized testimony from a top ICE official about efforts to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, calling it unhelpful and inconsistent with his affidavit.

Abrego Garcia, returned to El Salvador in March and later brought back to the U.S., faces human-smuggling charges and is fighting repeated attempts to deport him to various countries, including Liberia, instead of Costa Rica, which he prefers.



Now let's return to the topic of US Senator Mark Kelly.  








Hence on Monday, the Pentagon announced that it would perform a “thorough review” of “serious allegations of misconduct” against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.). The Pentagon said Kelly could be recalled for active duty “for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.”

Kelly is a popular senator in Arizona, a state Trump won. He also served in the U.S. Navy as a captain and as an astronaut — he flew four space missions and his identical twin brother Scott is also a retired NASA astronaut — before he ran for Senate in 2020 after his wife, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head in a political assassination attempt in 2011. Kamala Harris had him on her shortlist to be her running mate.

But he sent Trump into a rage last week when he – along with fellow Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Democratic Reps. Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Maggie Goodlander and Chris DeLuzio – released a video telling active duty U.S. servicemembers that they could refuse to obey illegal orders.
Trump responded by calling the behavior seditious and said that it could be punishable by death. Republicans either outright defended Trump’s words or they pretended not to see it.

This case will likely fall apart in the same manner Trump’s attempts to prosecute Comey and James.

And it will likely cause just as much backlash and make Kelly a hero among Democrats the same way that Gavin Newsom did after Trump sent the National Guard and Marines into Los Angeles without the governor’s permission.

Kelly for his part does not seem bowed by Trump’s attack on him. But it is just another example of how Trump is using the federal government to exact revenge against anyone he perceives as his political enemies and equating his enemies with the country’s enemies.


We're back in on this.  I was hoping we were out; however, a lot of 'experts' and reporters on military matters do not know what they're doing.  Not a bit.  I watched in shock, at Lt Ehren Watada's court-martial after Judge Toilet (John Head -- two-time toilet) ended the court-martial in his illegal attempt to give the government a do over.  I was elated.  And yet I'm watching all these 'experts' -- even one from the National Lawyers Guild give their expertise to the media and they're all saying this is going to be tough when they do it over with the next court-martial -- WHAT!  As I said then there is no next time.  Judge Toilet was prodding and coaching the government prosecutors and they still couldn't make a winnable argument so he stopped the case.  Double jeopardy had attached.  There's no do over.  

And there wasn't.  

Or take the Status Of Forces Agreement Bully Boy Bush pushed through on Thanksgiving of 2008 and all the liars who said and wrote that it ends the Iraq War and forces US troops out of Iraq in three years.  No.

Did you read it?  Because I did.  In full on Thanksgiving day and we did an Iraq snapshot about it that day.  We usually take Thanksgiving and Christmas and July 4th and Memorial Day off -- am I forgetting one? -- but this was important so we had to do a snapshot.

And then idiots pretended it ended the Iraq War.  It didn't.  Some -- not all -- US troops left at the end of 2011.  It was a drawdown, not a withdrawal.  (The 2,500 currently in Iraq are supposedly going to leave by the end of this year.)  The drawdown would not have happened if Nouri al-Maliki -- US puppet and despot -- had gotten what he wanted.  He insisted on a larger number of troops than Barack was offering.  .Iraq wanted US troops out of Iraq.  That and the UN's refusal to continue to provide fig leaf cover to the illegal war is why the US government moved to a SOFA.  It replaced the UN mandate (each country keeping troops in Iraq had to do their own version of a SOFA because the UN mandate was expiring and the UN was not going to extend them.  Each year, Nouri would sign it -- after lying to the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people that he wouldn't -- and it would extend foreign troops' presence in Iraq.  He no longer had the power to do this yearly -- he would be toppled trying that.  So the SOFA covered 3 years and was renewable.  If Barack had agreed to more solider, Nouri would sign the SOFA.  The US military was what kept him in place.  He conveyed that to Senators John McCain, Joe Liberman and Lindsey Graham.  They were not silent about the request, they spoke of it in an open meetings of Congress.  

People need to stop pretending they know what they're talking about when they don't.

One of the few commentators worth listening to on military law is Eugene R. Fidell.  He is almost always right (in fact, I can't think of a time when he was ever wrong).  He's been cited here over and over since 2006 for that reason.  October 19, 2020, he wrote "Wrestling with Legal and Illegal Orders in the Military in the Months Ahead" (JUST SECURITY):

Good order and discipline are the familiar watchwords of military forces around the world. A disciplined force is one in which comprehensible, lawful orders are given and promptly followed. But must all orders be obeyed? If not, what is a soldier to do? These questions are not new, but they are particularly timely given the concerns many understandably feel about the possibility that the Trump administration will employ the armed forces in questionable ways before, during, and even after the 2020 election, even though Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has firmly stated that the armed forces will not be involved in the election.

American military law is about as clear as it can be as to when orders must be followed and what sanctions are possible in the event of disobedience. No one could have predicted some of President Donald J. Trump’s dismaying conduct and treatment of the armed forces, and there is no guarantee that future administrations will be steadier, although it would be difficult for them not to be. Given what we’ve witnessed over the last few months, armed forces should critically review their training for both judge advocates and commanders, including the development and analysis of hypotheticals that explore possible scenarios arising from domestic unrest and possible use of the Insurrection Act.

What does military law say about orders, and what can happen if a soldier disobeys?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is America’s criminal code for the armed forces. It is an Act of Congress and applies not only to those on active duty in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard, as well as reservists, but also to personnel of the National Guard and Air National Guard when they have been called into federal service. National Guard and Air National Guard on state orders are subject to state codes of military justice that largely replicate the federal statute. For federal military personnel, the UCMJ’s implementing regulations can be found in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which is an executive order issued and amended from time to time by the president, as well as service-specific regulations issued by each branch of the armed forces. All of these have the force of law.

The UCMJ’s “punitive articles” criminalize the disobedience of lawful orders given by military superiors. These may be oral or in writing.  Usually, a servicemember cannot be prosecuted for violating a lawful order unless it can be proved that he or she actually knew about it. “General orders,” on the other hand, are different. These orders from senior officers are like statutes and regulations: Everyone is deemed to have notice of them if they have been properly disseminated.

There are potentially severe penalties for disobeying lawful orders. A disobedient soldier might simply be “chewed out” or given nonjudicial punishment if the commander considers the disobedience a minor offense. But disobedience of a lawful order can, depending on the circumstances, lead to the death penalty in time of war and in peacetime to confinement for up to five years, a stigmatizing punitive discharge (dishonorable or bad-conduct for enlisted personnel, dismissal for commissioned officers), loss of pay, and other sanctions.

Only lawful orders have to be followed. This is what the Manual for Courts-Martial says about the lawfulness of orders:

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

(iii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, custom of the Service, or applicable order to direct, coordinate, or control the duties, activities, health, welfare, morale, or discipline of the accused.

(iv) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the Service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.

(v) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.


That's an excerpt.  Eugene is an expert.  Pete Hegseth?  A man who pays a woman to drop assault charges is not a man who respects the law.  He is a piece of trash who thinks he can buy his way out of anything, but he is not someone who respects the law -- further demonstrated by his repeatedly billing himself as the Secretary of War when there has no such position since FDR was president and only Congress can change the title from Secretary of Defense.  Looselips Hegseth is not just targeting Senator Mark Kelly, he's also targeting the Boy Scouts.  Katie Hawkinson (INDEPENDENT) reports:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants the U.S. military to cut all ties with Scouting America, the organization formerly known as the Boy Scouts, according to a new report.

Hegseth said the military is planning to sever ties with the organization, claiming it is no longer a meritocracy and is designed to “attack boy-friendly spaces,” according to a draft memo to Congress obtained by NPR. Scouting America, which “aims to prepare young people for lives of impact and purpose,” was founded in 1910 and has more than one million youth members, according to its website.


Is there a bigger bunch of babies?  The only thing bigger than these babies is the huge chips that they carry around on their shoulders.  A life of resentment is all they've lived and they've played the victim over and over.  Petey may not realize it but he's at the height of his life.  He's not going to have another job where can create his own beauty salon the way he's done at the Pentagon.  This is it.  And he has nothing but hatred to project right now.  That was true even on Easter. 

I wasn't planning on covering this topic again but a friend in the House asked me to saying the media was being so-so on the coverage and the right wing was rabid.  "So you need a bitch on this one?"  Apparently yes. So this is a topic we'll be covering regularly.  It would be more in depth today but that call asking me to cover it came in ten minutes ago. 

 

 



Cowardly weak sister Chump is going after Senator Mark Kelly.  He already screwed over this country when he refused to go to Vietnam and lied about having bone spurs, now he thinks he can go after those who did serve?  No, no, no, no.  Get your little pampered ass back in your lane, fatso.  No one's buying the lies and attacks you're spreading.  Shame on you, Donald Chump. 


Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

Bicameral introduction follows Trump administration’s shutdown chaos and effort to strip food assistance from millions of Americans; 1 in 9 Washingtonians rely on SNAP benefits to put food on the table

ICYMI: Senator Murray Statement on House Passage of “Big, Ugly Betrayal” Cutting Health Care & SNAP for WA State Families to Fund Tax Cuts for Billionaires

Senator Murray briefly relied on food stamps as a child and has always fought to fully fund SNAP benefits; Murray fiercely opposed Republicans when they passed the largest cuts to SNAP in American history this summer by passing their Big Ugly Bill.

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and other Democratic colleagues in introducing the Restoring Food Security for American Families and Farmers Act of 2025. The legislation would repeal all the devastating cuts made by Republicans to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” the partisan Republican reconciliation bill that was signed into law in July. U.S. Representatives Jahana Hayes (D-CT) and Angie Craig (D-MN) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans’ partisan One Big Beautiful Bill Act made the largest SNAP cuts in history—breaking a 50-year bipartisan commitment—in order to fund new tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. Congressional Republicans approved cuts that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will eliminate $187 billion in food assistance over the next decade—as grocery prices rise and President Trump’s tariffs raise costs on Americans across the board. These Republican SNAP cuts will take meals from millions of Americans, including children, seniors, veterans, workers, and people with disabilities, while harming farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and grocers who rely on SNAP dollars. Additionally, the Republican legislation creates a massive unfunded mandate on state governments that could force deep cuts or even eliminate SNAP entirely in some states. SNAP is a lifeline for over 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, 8 million seniors, 4 million people with disabilities, and 1.2 million veterans. In Washington state, over 888,000 residents received SNAP benefits in Fiscal Year 2024—approximately 11 percent of the state’s population, or one in nine Washingtonians.

“SNAP is an investment in people and a commitment we make that, in the richest country on earth, kids and families should not be forced to go hungry,” said Senator Murray. “But Republicans broke that commitment with their Big Ugly Bill that made the largest cuts to SNAP in history—taking food away from families who need it the most, to fund new tax breaks for billionaires who need them the least. And during the Republican shutdown, the Trump administration did everything they could to deny SNAP benefits to struggling families—even going to court to block benefits from reaching people who needed them. I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to fully repeal Republican cuts to SNAP and I will keep doing everything in my power to speak out and fight back against these terrible cuts to programs Americans rely on to meet their basic needs.”

Additionally, nearly 1,500 national, state, and community-based organizations joined a letter voicing support for this effort.

In addition to Senators Murray, Luján, Klobuchar, and Merkley, and Leader Schumer, the legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA.), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

The full text of the bill can be found HERE.

###




The following sites updated:







Posted by at