@MSNOWnews senior legal reporter & recovering litigator; former: off-air legal analyst @maddow, @wagnertonight. Don’t let the pearls fool ya.
Joined January 2017
- Tweets 8,962
- Following 2,474
- Followers 253,744
- Likes 2,555
742 Photos and videos
Jun 5
NEW: In opposing efforts to block the Anti-Weaponization Fund in not just one, but two courts, DOJ claims the case is now moot because acting AG Todd Blanche says they've dropped the fund. 1/
JUST IN: DOJ apparently for the first time indicates in writing that it is not moving forward with the "anti-weaponization fund."
In a new court filing, the DOJ says the Court should not grant a bid to block the fund-- "not because the Fund will continue (it will not), but to protect the government’s institutional interests in the proper application of Article III limitations on judicial review." @MSNOWNews
23
158
484
76,132
Jun 5
The question for Judges Brinkema and Leon -- or at least one of the questions they face -- is whether Blanche's testimony makes "absolutely clear" that the allegedly unlawful aspects of the Fund "could not reasonably be expected to recur." 7/
4
17
104
6,900
Jun 5
To this ex-lawyer's mind, the "formidable burden" placed on the party claiming mootness makes this a tougher question than DOJ acknowledges. FIN.
6
15
111
6,055
Jun 5
NEW: Last month, I wrote about two Rhode Island judges who, in wildly different cases, each called DOJ's honesty into question. In one of those cases, an AUSA has already been referred for disciplinary proceedings. Now, it's happening in the other one too. Past coverage: ms.now/news/news-analysis/tr…
17
624
1,665
52,853
Jun 4
NEW: Todd Blanche’s refusal to rescind writings relating to the anti-weaponization fund dominated headlines—but did you listen closely to his exchange about the Epstein files with Rep. Dean? I did, and here’s why it matters:
ms.now/news/news-analysis/to…
11
305
813
50,924
Jun 2
NEW: In testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee, acting Attorney General affirmed they are "not moving forward" with the Anti-Weaponization Fund. But he said he won't rescind either the settlement agreement requiring him to create that fund or the broad release of Trump and others in what he described as an order of the Attorney General, not an amendment to the settlement agreement.
Jun 2
NEW: The Anti-Weaponization Fund is apparently on ice, but the acting AG's broad release of Trump & his family & businesses for tax-related liability -- and maybe more -- remains. And that raises a slew of serious legal questions. Analysis from me here: ms.now/news/news-analysis/a-…
25
188
467
42,706
Jun 2
NEW: The Anti-Weaponization Fund is apparently on ice, but the acting AG's broad release of Trump & his family & businesses for tax-related liability -- and maybe more -- remains. And that raises a slew of serious legal questions. Analysis from me here: ms.now/news/news-analysis/a-…
13
123
304
52,964
May 29
Today's trifecta of court rulings affecting Trump: 1) a block of the Anti-Weaponization Fund until 6/12, 2) a decision preventing his adding his name to the Kennedy Center, and 3) tonight's order that he explain whether his settlement with IRS and Treasury was collusive and whether the case should be reopened due to a fraud on the court.
70
542
1,815
75,500
May 29
NEW: The federal judge overseeing Trump's lawsuit versus the IRS orders him to respond to a motion by 35 former judges to reopen the case on grounds that there was a fraud on the court.
storage.courtlistener.com/re…
40
662
2,217
36,352
May 29
In a footnote, the judge notes DOJ "'was unable ... to provide assurances of how long [the] status quo would last' and declined plaintiffs' request that the government commit to not transferring money to the Fund or processing or paying claims until at least June 19 to allow for less compressed briefing in this case.”
BREAKING: Judge in EDVA temporarily blocks the DOJ’s “anti-weaponization” fund. This is a bandaid to maintain the status quo until she can hear arguments on the motion on June 12. @MSNOWNews
2
71
280
32,064
May 29
Bondi's opening statement: "Our stance has always been that the Department stands ready to review any potential evidence of criminal activity related to Epstein and his associates and would pursue appropriate investigative or prosecutorial action wherever the facts and law warrant." 1/
23
41
329
83,769
May 29
DOJ's unsigned July 2025 memo: "This systematic review revealed no incriminating 'client list.' There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties."
6
15
157
15,562