This Secret ICE Memo Leak is Crazy!!
PDS Published 01/22/2026
-
The virtual war in Minnesota’s getting scarier and scarier by the day.
Because ICE has said goodbye to warrants and begun terrorizing children as a matter of routine.
[Clip, 00:15, 00:20 - 00:34, 00:43 - 00:48, 00:53 - 00:56]
We’re gonna get into all of it, but first we need to talk about this crazy internal memo kept secret by ICE but just now leaked by an anonymous whistleblower.
Right, it instructs agents that they can forcibly enter someone’s home even if they don’t have a judicial warrant. [Headline]
Which is something that not just ICE, but all law enforcement agencies have been explicitly barred from doing for decades because of the Fourth Amendment. [B roll, 00:00]
And y’all, this memo’s dated May 12, so presumably ICE has been following it for months.
Right, apparently the reason we’re only learning about it now is that the agency’s kept it under wraps, so it took the whistleblower a while to get it out safely.
In fact, only supervisors were generally given the memo itself, and they just used it to verbally brief employees. [Quote, find “verbally brief”]
And if an employee was allowed to read the memo, reportedly they had to give it back to a supervisor when they were done. [Same quote]
So now, if this policy is the new normal, the conventional advice given to immigrants about how to protect themselves just goes out the window.
Right, even as recently as last month, Zohran Mamdani was telling New Yorkers this. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:13 - 00:14, 00:18 - 00:28] Caption: “Know your rights. … ICE cannot enter into private spaces like your home, school, or private area of your workplace without a judicial warrant signed by a judge. That looks like this.”
But the memo, which was signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, claims that all agents need is an administrative warrant issued by immigration officials themselves.
Which is why for decades it’s held far less authority than a judicial warrant.
But the incredible thing is that ICE itself knows this; right, its own written training materials from last year called this practice “the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed,” citing Supreme Court precedent. [Quote]
In fact, the whistleblower says that ICE is telling new hires and agents still in training to ignore those written training materials and follow the memo’s guidance instead. [Quote, find “contradict”]
So that may go some way toward explaining why we’ve seen these videos of agents in tactical gear busting down doors with assault rifles but no warrant. [B roll, 00:09]
Right, they did that to a Liberian man in Minneapolis recently, for example. [Same B roll]
But even putting the warrant issue aside, the memo itself states that agents must knock on the door and share who they are and why they’re at the residence. [Quote, find “knock”]
Then, the people inside must be given a “reasonable chance to act lawfully,” but from so many videos pouring out of Minnesota that doesn’t always seem to be happening. [Same quote]
And that’s all assuming the person being arrested is even an immigrant at all.
Right, in another case, agents entered a home without a warrant, guns drawn, and pulled out a 56-year-old U.S. citizen, who was only in his underwear, into the freezing cold. [B roll, 00:02]
[Clip, 00:44 - 01:04] Caption: [Reporter:] “So your grandson watched everything?” [ChongLy “Scott” Thao:] “Yeah, my grandson watched everything. After they took me, he was crying, looking for me. They just took me out there without any clothes on, only the blanket, only my grandson’s blanket.”
So with all these tactics now out in the open, you have a legal expert telling the AP:
[Clip, 00:50 - 01:17] Caption: “If DHS implements this new procedure, what will happen is those arrests will be challenged as an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and if judges rule that agents were not supposed to enter the home without a warrant or some other exception in the warrant requirement such as consent, exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, then that arrest will be dismissed as a Constitutional violation.”
But there’s another ICE tactic shocking a lot of people right now, and that’s what they call the detention — though others call it the abduction or kidnapping — of children.
With so many examples of this going viral, like this 16-year-old boy and his father in Texas.
Right, reportedly they were driving to school when two unmarked vehicles pulled them over and masked men with guns but no badges jumped out. [Lead B roll into clip]
Then, without identifying themselves or even stating “you’re under arrest,” they started pulling on the car doors, so the pair drove off. [Lead B roll into clip]
Now the boy was a U.S. citizen, but his father was undocumented, and in video obtained by MS NOW, you can hear him virtually having a panic attack fearing his dad would be deported. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 02:24 - 02:33]
Then the agents chased after them, repeatedly ramming their car from behind. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 03:04 - 03:06]
But eventually they pulled over, the boy was restrained and ended up in the hospital, and his father, well …
[Clip, 05:23 - 05:44]
But y’all, even 16 is relatively old for some of the kids ICE has been snatching up.
Right, reportedly agents have detained at least four children from the same Minnesota school district in just the past couple of weeks, and one of them was a five-year-old boy.
His name’s Liam Ramos [Rah-mose], and the school says that just after he and his father got home from his preschool, ICE met them in the driveway. [Image]
With DHS saying the father fled on foot, so the agents stayed with the boy for his safety while one chased down the dad. [Post]
But then, according to the school, the agents had Liam knock on the door of his own home to see if any other people were inside, essentially “using a 5-year-old as bait.”
And when Liam’s middle-school-aged brother came home 20 minutes later, reportedly he discovered that both his younger brother and father had been taken.
Right, now the family’s lawyer says the pair are being held in San Antonio, even though they’ve been going through the asylum process perfectly legally.
With the school district’s superintendent saying:
[Clip, 00:50 - 00:57] Caption: “Why detain a five-year-old? You can’t tell me that this child is gonna be classified as a violent criminal.”
Now in response, DHS said it was targeting the father, not the boy, and claimed “the child was ABANDONED.” [Post]
Explaining that the policy is for a child to either stay with a safe person designated by a parent or be removed along with the detainee. [Same post]
But the schools says that another adult living in the home who was outside at the time “begged the agents” to leave Liam with them, and the agents refused.
And that’s just one of the four; right, we’ve still got three more kids to talk about.
[Clip, 00:59 - 01:05] Caption: “A 10-year-old student, fourth grader, was taken by ICE agents on her way to elementary school with her mother.”
With her adding that the girl called her father and told him that ICE agents were “bringing her to school,” but by the time he got there, both his wife and daughter were already gone. [Continue B roll]
With school officials saying they’re now in a Texas detention center, just like Liam and his dad, and continuing:
[Clip, 01:24 - 01:34] Caption: “On the way to school, a 17-year-old high school student, a minor, was taken by armed, masked agents alone. No parents were present.”
And then lastly, the school says that agents “pushed their way into an apartment” and detained another 17-year-old student, as well as her mother.
So understandably, many of the remaining kids are terrified, with as many as a third of students in that district reportedly staying home in recent weeks out of fear. [Quote, find “stayed home”]
In fact, the Minneapolis and St. Paul districts have canceled classes the past couple weeks while teachers switch to virtual learning. [Quote same link, find “virtual learning”]
[Clip, 02:21 - 02:30] Caption: “ICE agents have been roaming our neighborhoods, circling our schools, following our buses, coming into our parking lots, and taking our children, and our hearts are shattered.”
But y’all, these stories just keep coming and coming, with federal agents raiding a home in St. Paul, letting a woman and her baby stay, but taking the other six people there, including a 12-year-old boy. [B roll, 00:41, then B roll, 01:09]
With neighbors saying they were told it was about narcotics, not immigration, but they’re skeptical because of this surveillance footage showing a package getting dropped off just minutes before the raid. [Same B roll, then B roll, 01:30]
[Clip, 01:36 - 01:45]
Then, when a family friend tried to pick up the little boy from a federal building the next day, he said he was told the kid had been sent to San Antonio. [B roll, 01:19]
And if you’ve started to notice that a lot of these kids are ending up in Texas, that’s not a coincidence.
Right, you’ve got Senator Chris Murphy posting: “Last night in San Antonio I met two traumatized young boys who were locked up for 6 weeks at Trump’s “baby prison” in Texas. Taken when they checked in for a routine hearing, their mother waiting in the car with their backpacks for school. It’s insane this is happening.” [Post]
And speaking of ICE detention facilities in the lonestar state, we’ve got a shocking update in the case of Geraldo [Heraldo] Lunas Campos, a 55-year-old father of four who died in ICE custody this month.
Right, because at first, ICE claimed he was moved into solitary after he was being disruptive, then they called medical staff over after they noticed him in distress. [Quote, find “distress”]
But last week, a witness told The AP that he was handcuffed as at least five guards held him down and one put an arm around his neck and squeezed until he was unconscious. [Quote same link, find “squeezed”]
And only then did DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, a notoriously fierce defender of Trump’s immigration agenda, revise the initial story, claiming that Lunas Campos actually tried to take his own life and guards merely tried to help him. [Quote same link, find “amend”]
Adding that he violently resisted the guards, and in the ensuing struggle he stopped breathing and lost consciousness. [Quote same link, find “violently”]
But now, we have the autopsy report, and his death was ruled a homicide, with the cause being asphyxia due to neck and torso compression. [Headline same link]
And in response, McLaughlin issued a statement emphasizing that he was "a criminal illegal alien and convicted child sex predator.” [Quote same link]
But his death was one of at least three reported in little more than a month at the facility, which is really little more than a sprawling tent city. [Image]
-
Donald Trump is replacing the UN!
That’s what you have people worried about now that he’s launched his new “Board of Peace” at the World Economic Forum in Davos (BROLL: 15:49).
With several world leaders signing a charter describing an organization completely unlike what was originally proposed – which was an already controversial temporary body meant to oversee the rebuilding of Gaza
And it was actually the UN Security Council that adopted a resolution endorsing the establishment of the “Board of Peace” – describing the board as a “transitional administration” in Gaza with a two-year mandate to start. []
But the board's charter makes no direct reference to Gaza at all – instead describing itself as “an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” []
And in the singing ceremony today – where Trump claimed the world is already “richer, safer and much more peaceful than it was just one year ago” – he also claimed the board would become one of the "most consequential bodies" ever created (BROLL: 5:22)
Adding that it “will be the most prestigious board ever, and it's going to get a lot of work done that the United Nations should have done” – and saying:
“Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do.” (BYTE: 18:46-18:51).
Now, with that, I should note, he followed up by saying: “...we’ll do it in conjunction with the United Nations.”
But that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence – especially given how often and how strongly he’s criticized the organization.
Not to mention, earlier this month, he moved to withdraw the US from 66 international organizations described as “Contrary to the Interests of the United States.”
With many of them being UN-related bodies dealing with issues like climate, labor, and migration.
And, on Tuesday, he straight up said he thought the Board of Peace “might” replace the UN.
Although, again, he sort of walked it back – saying “you got to let the U.N. continue because the potential is so great.”
But you still have people like an international law professor at Cambridge University saying:
“This is a direct assault on the United Nations.”
“This initiative is likely to be seen as a takeover of the world order by one individual in his own image.” []
And he’s right that the extent to which one man, that man being Trump, would run the show is pretty crazy.
Right, both the UN Resolution and the Charter names Trump as chair – and the Charter gives him the power to veto decisions, approve the agenda, invite members, dissolve the board entirely, and designate his own successor. []
And on the topic of succession, it’s possible that Trump could hold the chair position for the rest of his life – even after leaving the presidency.
With a U.S. official saying:
"The Chairmanship can be held by President Trump until he resigns it.”
“A future U.S. president, however, may choose to appoint or designate the United States' representative to the Board." []
Now, with all that – while Trump has also claimed “This is the greatest board ever assembled” and “everybody wants to be on it” – the reality is that many countries are not all that enthusiastic.
Right, Trump said that the board had the backing of 59 countries.
But only 19 countries were represented at the signing ceremony.
And, so far, it seems that about 25 countries have publicly accepted – including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and Indonesia, just to name a few. []
And, very notably, no major European allies have made a commitment yet and some have outright rejected the idea.
Including French President Emmanual Macron – which led Trump to threaten him with 200 percent tariffs on wine from the country.
Among those Europeans who have signed are Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – who is something of a Trump-style strongman.
And President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko (Loo-kuh-shen-kuh) – who is also known as “Europe’s last dictator” and is a close ally of Putin.
And, on that note, Russia also received an invitation – with Trump actually claiming yesterday that Putin had accepted.
But Putin clarified afterward that he had not and the Kremlin was still studying the proposal.
And the involvement of Belarus and possibly Russia was why you had Zelensky saying he was unsure if Ukraine could accept the invitation.
But with all that, Trump defend his decision to include them and other countries considered to be autocratic – telling reporters:
"I have some controversial people on it, but these are people that get the job done. These are people that have tremendous influence.”
Although, with that, many of the world’s most influential countries are not taking part – at least so far.
Including not only the biggest powers in Europe but also countries like Brazil, China, India, and Japan.
And as far as membership goes, it’s apparently flexible.
Right, the charter says that nations that accept the invitation will be given a three-year membership term.
But permanent membership will only be given to member states that contribute more than $1 billion in cash to the Board of Peace within the first year.
Although you’ve had U.S. officials claiming that “Membership does not carry any mandatory funding obligation.” []
And saying that if member states choose to contribute money, the Board of Peace will "implement the highest financial controls and oversight mechanisms."
But with that, it’s not clear if anyone is opting for the paid tier so far – although Putin has floated the idea of paying it with Russian assets frozen in the US.
And so it’s still not entirely clear where the money will come from for rebuilding Gaza.
Right, because even though the Board of Peace apparently has loftier ambitions, that is still seemingly its focus for now.
And you actually had Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner laying out a 25 billion dollar plan for doing so at the signing ceremony this morning (BROLL: 46:40)
WIth him saying the next 100 days will focus on increasing aid deliveries and rehabilitating essential infrastructure – including water, electricity and sewage systems – and reconstructing hospitals and bakeries.
But he then presented a “master plan” that would turn Gaza into a futuristic tech and industry hub with skyscrapers and coastal resorts.
With Kushner saying the White House wants to bring “free market economy principles to Gaza” – reflecting the “same mindset” and “same approach” that he says Trump is implementing in the US.
But of course, while the people in charge seem to see this as a real estate opportunity, it’s not clear this is best for the people of Gaza, and Palestinians seem to have little say.
Right, there is supposed to be a “technocratic” governing committee made up of Palestinians but it’s at the bottom of the hierarchy. []
And, for now, the situation in Gaza remains extremely dire.
And the violence? It has not totally subsided.
Right, since the ceasefire began in October, both sides have accused each other of violations.
With Israel saying Hamas has delayed returning a final body of a dead hostage.
And Hamas saying Israel has continued to restrict aid into Gaza despite an ongoing humanitarian disaster.
You’ve also had Reuters investigating and finding that Israel has violated the ceasefire by moving the “yellow line” dividing Gaza deeper into the territory – destroying buildings and displacing Palestinians in the process.
And that’s as Israeli strikes have killed hundreds of Palestinians over the past few months.
And in fact, just yesterday, Israeli forces reportedly killed at least 11 Palestinians in Gaza – including two 13-year-old boys and three journalists.
And ultimately, a bunch world leaders and real estate developers calling themselves the Board of Peace doesn’t make it so.
And the whole thing seems especially ironic given Trump’s recent action in Venezuela and threats to take over Greenland.
Although, yesterday, you did have Trump sort of saying he won’t use force in Greenland.
With him then dropping his threat to impose new tariffs on several European allies as he claimed that he and the head of NATO had “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.”
And today, you had him saying on Fox News that the deal essentially grants “total access” with “no time limit.”
And with that, you’ve had the New York Times reporting that there are at least three main proposals on the table.
1) a major new NATO mission in the Arctic
2) restrictions on non-NATO countries, especially Russia and China, mining Greenland’s rare-earth minerals.
And 3) an update to a 1951 pact between the US and Denmark that basically already allows the American military to do whatever it wants in Greenland.
But apparently the concern has been that if Greenland gained independence that would threaten that access.
And so what’s on the table is giving the US sovereignty over pockets of Greenland’s territory – basically meaning that these areas would be considered American territory.
But with all that, it seems that this thing is far from set in stone.
And you actually had Zelensky slamming European leaders today in his speech at Davos over their handling of the whole situation – saying:
“It seems like everyone is just waiting for America to cool down on this topic, hoping it will pass away. But what if it [does] not: what then?” (2:43-2:57)
Today, Europe relies only on the belief that if danger comes, NATO will act. But no one has really seen the alliance in action. If Putin decides to take Lithuania or strike Poland, who will respond? (8:35-8:56)
“Europe needs to know how to defend itself. And if you send 14 or 40 soldiers to Greenland – what is that for? What message does that send to Putin? To China? And even more importantly, what message does it send to Denmark?” (9:51-10:25)
Now, with that, he avoided criticizing Trump – and he actually kind of suggested Europe should be more like Trump in terms of taking action, raising the possibility that they could seize Russian oil tankers the way Trump has been doing with ones from Venezuela.
And before that speech, you actually had Zelensky meeting with Trump – a conversation both leaders described as “good” without giving too much detail.
But you had Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, who’s also deeply involved all the Gaza stuff, saying:
"I think we've got it down to one issue and we have discussed iterations of that issue, and that means it's solvable.”[]
And with that, he headed off to Moscow with Jared Kushner to meet Putin.
And there are now supposed to be trilateral talks involving the US, Ukraine, and Russia in the UAE on Friday and Saturday.
Go to Vessi for 15% off your first order.
-
The federal investigations into Trump “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity.”
That is verbatim what former Special Prosecutor Jack Smith said under oath before the House Judiciary Committee in a highly-anticipated hearing that was trending at the top of X while it took place.
Right, and this hearing is a big deal because it marks Smith’s first public appearance to defend his two attempts to criminally prosecute Trump for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election and handling of classified documents.
Though, notably, Smith is under a gag order from a Trump-appointed judge that prevents him from discussing major elements of the documents case, which is why lawmakers largely avoided talking about the details of that probe.
And there were a ton of different topics covered in the hours-long hearing — the testimony was still happening while I was recording.
But here was one main, overarching theme that emerged: whether Smith’s investigations were politically motivated, or whether he had hard evidence that Trump committed crimes.
With Republicans trying to paint the investigations as out-of-control political campaigns that were part of a broader effort to weaponize the DOJ against Trump ahead of the 2024 election.
While Democrats largely used the hearing to give Smith a public stage to defend his inquiries as legitimate and lay out Trump’s alleged criminal actions in the cases that were shut down after he was reelected.
And this is all very high-stakes for Smith: Trump has made it clear that he thinks Smith is one of his biggest political enemies, and Smith has said he believes the president is looking for any chance to investigate and prosecute him.
Right, in his opening statement, you had Smith delivering powerful remarks that quickly went viral on X.
With Smith fervently defending his investigations, claiming that he and his team followed DOJ policies and observed legal requirements, and arguing that his actions were based entirely on facts and law, not political motivations:
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law — the very laws that he took an oath to uphold.” 00:27 - 00:35
“Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power. After leaving office in January of '21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago social club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.” 00:46 - 1:10
“As I testify before the committee today, I want to be clear: I stand by my decisions as Special Counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican. No one — no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account, so that is what I did. To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases would have been to shirk my duty as a prosecutor and as a public servant.” 1:21 - 2:11
Right, and throughout the hearing, we saw a lot of Republicans trying to control the narrative, making a wide range of sweeping allegations and implications, at times using unproven, misleading, or outright false allegations about Smith and the outcome of the 2020 election.
With members also repeatedly peppering Smith with rapid-fire questions and cutting him off when he attempted to respond.
By contrast, you had Democrats largely focusing on giving Smith a public platform to defend himself as an independent actor who was just doing his job and following the facts.
With multiple Democrats repeatedly asking Smith if he was pressured by Biden or anyone in his administration to launch the investigations into Trump in order to target a perceived political enemy or sway the 2024.
And time and time again, Smith responded “no,” saying that he always acted independently and came to the decision to bring charges on his own accord, based on overwhelming evidence.
And that was something Smith reiterated during this notable exchange with Rep. Ted Lieu (Loo):
With Loo then going on to note that those are all things that TRUMP has done PUBLICLY, arguing it’s ironic that Republicans are trying to claim that Smith was at the center of a broad conspiracy to weaponize the DOJ to go after Biden’s opponents when that is exactly what Trump is doing.
A point that Trump himself only affirmed by making Truth Social DURING the hearing where he LITERALLY said he hopes Attorney General Bondi is investigating Smith, who the president also called “a deranged animal.”
And when asked about Trump’s repeated threats against him by one Democrat, Smith gave this powerful response:
Beyond that, we also saw Democrats spending a lot of time trying to prove that Trump knew he lost the election and incited the insurrection because of it — which is notable because Smith would have had to prove that Trump had intent in order to secure a conviction against him if the case had gone to trial.
And there, we saw Smith repeatedly saying that his investigation found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump knew his election fraud claims were false and privately acknowledged that he did, but he still took illegal measures to overturn the election and then incited an insurrection when his attempts failed.
With Smith saying that, based on his interpretation of the law, he believed he had enough evidence to secure a conviction against Trump, and repeating this line numerous times throughout the hearing:
“Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused January 6th, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence.” 00:46 - 00:56
And during a line of questioning about what would happen to American Democracy if a president is not held accountable for trying to steal the election, Smith responded with a dire warning:
But, of course, now that Trump’s second presidency has ended, Smith’s probe, it seems unlikely he’ll ever be held accountable for his attempts to overturn the election.
And the bigger question coming out of this hearing is: will Trump be able to pull something out of Smith’s testimony that he can use to go after him?
Right, that’s exactly what he did with former James Comey — he had a loyalist prosecutor charge the former FBI director with making false statements in a testimony he gave to the Senate.
And while many legal experts say the charges against Comey and Trump’s other enemies are bogus, the fact of the matter remains that the president has been itching for something he can use against Smith.
And unfortunately for now, we’re just going to have to wait and see if this hearing gives Trump the ammo he’s looking for.
-
And Jack Smith is not the only person congressional Republicans are putting in the hot seat.
Because the House Oversight Committee just voted to recommend holding Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt,
And Democrats actually joined them in this effort.
Right, the Clintons have refused to testify in the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein investigation, arguing that the subpoenas were “invalid and legally unenforceable.”[]
They also noted that other officials have avoided testifying by submitting sworn statements, and since the Clintons provided similar statements, they think they should be excused too.
Especially since they say they have no relevant information anyways.
But members of the committee from both parties believe that the subpoenas were legal, and that because Bill Clinton had ties to Epstein, they should testify.
So the vote to hold Bill in contempt was 34-8, with nine Democrats joining Republicans.[]
And while fewer crossed party lines for Hillary, they still went in favor with a vote of 28-15.
With Democratic Rep. Stephen (Steven) Lynch, who supported the Bill Clinton measure, telling Axios that there is “plenty of evidence” that he might have information given the amount of times he had flown or traveled with Epstein, and since he knew Ghislaine Maxwell.[]
As for what happens next, well, this is just the first step in what could be a very consequential proceeding for the Clintons.
Right, the full House would have to vote in favor of this and then pass it over to the DOJ, but contempt charges could land them up to a year behind bars and a $100,000 fine.[]
And Republican committee Chairman James Comer believes he has the votes to move it forward.
But still, some Democrats do not support this effort, arguing it is politically motivated.
Right, with Rep. Robert Garcia saying that:
“It’s interesting that it’s this subpoena only that Republicans and the chairman have been obsessed with putting all of their energy behind. Donald Trump is leading a White House coverup right now of the Epstein files.”
And Ro Khanna arguing that if anyone should be held in contempt, it's Attorney General Pam Bondi, because her department has not released the files in compliance with the law passed last year. []
Which, on that note, we are now one month past the deadline set for the DOJ to fully release the files, and, well, we are nowhere near close to a full release.
So you have Khanna, who co-authored the bill, calling this an obstruction of justice.
He and Rep. Thomas Massie also took to the courts to try to force the release along.
But a judge just issued a ruling that is mostly an L for them,
Denying their request to get an independent monitor to ensure the DOJ complies with the law and releases the files.
With the judge saying that he did not have the authority to supervise the DOJ in this case.
Though, the judge also said that Khanna and Massie “raise legitimate concerns about whether D.O.J. is faithfully complying with federal law.”[]
And on that note, said they could file a separate lawsuit to request an independent monitor, and that they could use other Congressional tools to add more oversight to the DOJ.
So you had Khanna saying they respect the judge’s decisions and:[]
“We will continue to use every legal option to ensure the files are released and the survivors see justice.”
And right now, Congress does have at least one more trick up their sleeve in their investigation.
As the House Oversight Committee is deposing Ghislaine Maxwell next month.
But, it remains to be seen if this move will actually prove helpful, because her attorney has already suggested she is keeping her lips zipped, claiming:
"That is not a negotiating position or a tactical choice; it is a legal necessity.”
Saying this deposition is a waste of taxpayer dollars and political theater, and that:
"The only certainty is a public spectacle in which a witness repeatedly invokes the Fifth Amendment.”
As for details, it appears the deposition will be held virtually as Maxwell is currently in prison in Texas.
But the committee insisted that whatever the circumstances, they need to hear from her.
So as always, this issue is going to be hanging around for a while, but we still have to see if anything actually results in any consequences for the people involved with Epstein.
