ICE Suddenly Loses Key Evidence One Day After Being Sued

ICE is claiming the computer ate its records the day after it was sued for abuse.

404 Media reports that after ICE’s Bridgeview Detention Center outside Chicago was sued October 30 for allegedly abusing detainees, the agency said that two weeks of video footage that could have shown how immigration detainees are treated in the facility was lost in a “system crash” on October 31.

“The government has said that the data for that period was lost in a system crash apparently on the day after the lawsuit was filed,” one of the lawyers representing detainees, Alec Solotorovsky, said in a Thursday hearing about the footage, according to 404 Media. “That period we think is going to be critical … because that’s the period right before the lawsuit was filed.”

Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security said in court that the video footage was “irretrievably destroyed,” and on Thursday, government lawyers said that “we don’t have the resources” to keep preserving surveillance footage from the detention facility. In a seemingly flippant remark, the government’s attorneys suggested if the detainees’ lawyers provide “endless hard drives where we could save the information, that might be one solution.”

The idea that ICE doesn’t have resources to preserve video footage is absurd on its face, as the agency is receiving an astronomical amount of funding thanks to President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” Some $200 billion has been allocated to immigration enforcement, more than some countries allocate to their entire militaries, and at least some of that should be allocated to data preservation and I.T. maintenance.

Also, it seems too convenient for ICE to have had a system crash the day after they were sued. The detainees who filed the lawsuit claim that the ICE facility is rife with abusive treatment and poor living conditions. In response, the government hasn’t provided much information on the footage, directing attorneys to a company called Five by Five Management “that appears to be based out of a house,” said Solotorovsky.

“We tried to engage with the government through our IT specialist, and we hired a video forensic specialist,” he said, adding that the government specialist attorneys spoke to “didn’t really know anything beyond the basic specifications of the system. He wasn’t able to answer any questions about preservation or attempts to recover the data.”

Immigration enforcement under Trump seems to continuously flout the law, with little recourse available except for lawsuits. At best, legal action seems to only slow the Trump administration’s actions. Will the detainees in Bridgeview be able to overcome what looks like a government cover-up?

The U.S. Coast Guard is no longer going to consider the swastika a hate symbol. 

The Washington Post reports that a new policy will take effect next month at the military branch that will reclassify the swastika, used by the German Nazi Party and adopted as a global symbol of fascism and white supremacy, as “potentially divisive.” Other symbols being reclassified include the Confederate flag and nooses, although displaying the flag will still be banned.

Some historic displays or art with the Confederate flag will still be permitted, the Post reports. The new policy comes even though the Coast Guard isn’t part of the Department of Defense, under which Secretary Pete Hegseth has sought to overhaul standards on harassment and hazing. 

Instead, the Coast Guard falls under the Department of Homeland Security, but that hasn’t shielded the military branch from the Trump administration’s attempts to change military culture. On Donald Trump’s first day as president, he fired the first woman commandant at the Coast Guard, Admiral Linda Fagan, ostensibly for focusing too much on diversity initiatives. 

Days later, the new acting commandant, Admiral Kevin Lunday, suspended the Coast Guard’s hazing and harassment policy, which included the swastika in a “list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident.”

Both in his first and second terms, Trump has trafficked in racist tropes, and reclassifying the swastika may be an attempt to retain and attract people the military would have previously turned away. In any case, racism is becoming less and less of a dealbreaker for national service under Trump.  

Drama continues to follow interim U.S. Attorney and former Trump defense lawyer Lindsey Halligan, as she had a heated exchange with a federal judge who suggested she may be the president’s “puppet.”

Halligan spoke to the New York Post exclusively about the spat, which occurred during a hearing for former FBI Director and Trump administration legal target James Comey.

“Personal attacks—like Judge Nachmanoff referring to me as a ‘puppet’—don’t change the facts or the law,” she said. “The Judicial Canons require judges to be ‘patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity’ … and to ‘act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.’”

For what it’s worth, Judge Michael Nachmanoff never called her a puppet, and was asking the defense for clarification on their argument.

“So your view is that Ms. Halligan is a stalking horse or a puppet, for want of a better word, doing the president’s bidding,” he said, according to court files.

“Well, I don’t want to use language about Ms. Halligan that suggests anything other than she did what she was told to do,” the defense lawyer replied. Nachmanoff did not object.

Still, that was enough to set Halligan off, leading her to do a sit-down with a right-wing newspaper to speak directly about the judge presiding over the case she was actively prosecuting.

“Never have I ever … seen a sitting U.S. Attorney give an interview and make extrajudicial statements about a pending case,” Reuters’s Sarah Lynch wrote on X. “This is not customary for federal prosecutors. Usually DOJ only speaks through court filings.”

This isn’t the first issue Halligan has faced in the early days of her prosecution of Comey. On Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick said she made two “fundamental misstatements of law” to the grand jury, putting the entire case in jeopardy. And on Wednesday, Halligan told the court that only two grand jurors reviewed the Comey indictment before it was presented.

Aside from these flubs and unconventional media decisions, calling Halligan a “puppet,” even indirectly, isn’t too far off. The only reason the president’s former lawyer was awarded this position is because her predecessor, Erik Siebert, refused to indict Comey due to a lack of evidence.

The White House is falling neatly in line behind Donald Trump’s call to execute half a dozen Democratic lawmakers.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt practically snapped Thursday under a massive public backlash to the president’s dangerous language, accusing reporters during a press conference of inappropriately focusing on Trump’s comments instead of what made him upset. It wasn’t clear, however, if Leavitt was fully informed on the controversy, getting basic details about the situation incorrect.

“Let’s be clear about what the president is responding to, because many in this room want to talk about the president’s response but not what brought the president to respond in this way,” Leavitt said. “You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a video message to members of the United States military, to active-duty service members, to members of the National Security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the president’s lawful orders.”

Leavitt went on to accuse “three” members of Congress of having participated in the protest, though her count was wrong.

Six Democratic members of the House and Senate—a coalition of veterans and former national security professionals—posted a video on Facebook Tuesday, repeating the message to America’s military and intelligence communities that they “can” and “must … refuse illegal orders.” They made no reference to disobeying Trump directly, only reminding people to uphold the Constitution.

Those lawmakers were Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, as well as Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.

“The sanctity of our military rests on the chain of command, and if that chain of command is broken, it can lead to people getting killed, it can lead to chaos, and that’s what these members of Congress—who swore an oath to abide by the Constitution—are essentially encouraging,” Leavitt continued.

“These members knew what they were doing. They were leaning into their credentials … to signal to people serving under this commander in chief, Donald Trump, that you can defy him and you can betray your oath of office. That is a very, very dangerous message, and it perhaps is punishable by law.”

She then added, “I’m not a lawyer.”

Trump responded to the video Thursday by warning that “their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” He followed up on that Truth Social post an hour later by calling for their “DEATH.”

Despite the executive pressure, Democrats have refused to back down. In a joint statement Thursday, the same coalition of Democratic lawmakers reiterated that there was nothing illegal about reminding service members to “follow only lawful orders.”

“It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty,” they wrote. “In these moments, fear is contagious, but so is courage. We will continue to lead and will not be intimidated.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt offered a truly pathetic defense Thursday for President Donald Trump calling a female reporter “piggy.”

During a press briefing, Leavitt was asked to explain what the president meant when he said, “Quiet, piggy” to Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey earlier this week. Lucey had asked him a question about Jeffrey Epstein while on Air Force One.

Presenting her own wild spin, Leavitt claimed Trump’s crude and sexist comment was him being “frank and open” with the press, and an example of behavior that was “a lot more respectful” than that of the previous administration.

“So, I think the president being frank and open and honest to your faces, rather than hiding behind your backs, is frankly a lot more respectful than what you saw in the last administration, when you had a president that lied to your face and then didn’t speak to you for weeks, and hid upstairs and didn’t take your questions,” Leavitt said. “So I think everyone in this room should appreciate the frankness and the openness that you get from President Trump on a near daily basis.”  

Leavitt’s right about one thing: This is completely normal behavior for Trump. The president has a well-documented history of berating female reporters who ask him tough questions, calling them “the worst” and “second-rate,” telling them “to be quiet” and that they “know nothing about nothing,” and saying that he doesn’t like their “attitude.”

A White House official responded earlier this week to the incident with Lucey, claiming that she had “behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional way towards her colleagues on the plane.” When pressed on what specifically Lucey had done wrong, the White House did not respond.

Bedlam has consumed the House of Representatives since the end of the government shutdown.

Lawmakers don’t seem to remember how to get along with one another after a whopping 54-day recess. Instead, they’re practically at each other’s throats, with several major intra- and interparty clashes taking center stage in the lower chamber.

On Tuesday, Democratic Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez’s resolution to rebuke her liberal colleague Representative Chuy Garcia passed the House, formally reprimanding the Chicago-area politico for attempting to handpick his successor.

Hours later, the House deliberated on censuring Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett. Documents released from the Epstein estate revealed Plaskett had texted with Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 Oversight Committee hearing, using his answers to craft questions for the president’s former fixer Michael Cohen.

After that vote failed, Representative Lauren Boebert—a member of the conservative coalition that penned the censure—practically exploded at her fellow Republicans, torching them for failing to act while they hold majorities in both chambers of Congress.

“It was multiple F-bombs,” one Republican who witnessed the tirade told NBC News. “At least one of them that I heard clearly was, ‘What the f--- am I doing here?’”

But wait, there’s more! Representative Nancy Mace moved Wednesday to force a vote on censuring embattled Florida Representative Cory Mills. The effort would strip Mills from his committee appointments, potentially removing him from the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees.

Last month, a judge granted a restraining order against Mills after his ex-girlfriend accused him of “harassment, threatening to release sexual videos, and to harm future boyfriends.” It’s hard to imagine that didn’t catch Mace’s attention, since she has spent the better part of the year working to introduce legislation to curb revenge porn.

The House Ethics Committee announced Wednesday that it would open an investigation into Mills, but Mace’s attempt to censure him before that investigation has even begun rubbed one of her fellow Republicans the wrong way.

“It’s insanity. They want to convict and sentence people, and then send it to Ethics for investigation. Ass backwards,” one lawmaker told NBC.

House Speaker Mike Johnson thinks it’s “wildly inappropriate” for Democrats to tell troops to obey the U.S. Constitution, but he wasn’t the slightest bit concerned about President Donald Trump’s threat to execute Democratic lawmakers.

Speaking to the press Thursday, Johnson was asked to respond to Trump’s claim that a group of Democratic lawmakers had committed “seditious behavior punishable by death” by posting a video reminding members of the military and intelligence community not to obey illegal orders.

Johnson fumed about the message these lawmakers were sending to impressionable “young troops,” but he did not address the president’s own violent rhetoric. “I mean think of what the threat that is to our national security and what it means to our institutions,” the speaker said. 

“We have got to raise the bar in Congress, this is out of control, and it is wildly inappropriate. And for a senator like Mark Kelly or any member of congress in the House or Senate to be engaged in that kind of talk is to me just so beyond the pale,” Johnson said. 

What was beyond the pale was Trump’s fury at lawmakers reminding troops and intelligence officials  that they’d sworn an oath to defend and obey the U.S. Constitution—not the president or his administration. 

Senator Marsha Blackburn also defended Trump’s outrageous response during an appearance on Newsmax Thursday, claiming that members of the military were simply “there to carry out their orders.”

Both Johnson and Blackburn seem to think that diminishing the agency and intelligence of servicemembers is the best way to justify the president’s outrageous response. 

While the lawmakers didn’t get specific about what orders were unconstitutional, there have been major legal concerns about a number of the president’s actions. A recent report revealed that the top military lawyer for the command overseeing Trump’s strikes on alleged “drug boats” thought they were illegal—but the Pentagon ignored him. Additionally, the Trump administration’s federal law enforcement takeover of American cities has also been challenged in courts around the country.

Federal prosecutors are seeking to dismiss charges against a woman shot by Border Patrol last month.

Marimar Martinez and her co-defendant, Anthony Ruiz, were charged with impeding a federal officer with a deadly weapon when her car collided with a Border Patrol vehicle in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood on October 4. But Martinez has argued the opposite: Border Patrol agent Charles Exum crashed into her car, and then shot her.

On Thursday, prosecutors moved to dismiss the charges just before a new hearing in federal court, where Martinez and Ruiz’s attorneys were going to reveal new text messages from Exum that have not yet been made public. Exum has already gotten in trouble for Signal texts bragging about the shooting to his fellow agents, saying, “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.” Exum also sent a news article to another recipient saying, “Read it. 5 shots, 7 holes.”

The move to dismiss charges suggests damaging material was going to be revealed in the new texts. Already, the facts in the case reflected poorly on Exum, as he quickly drove his government-issued Chevrolet Tahoe to a Border Patrol mechanic in Maine for repairs before any investigation could examine the damage. Also, video from the incident allegedly shows Exum saying, “Do something, bitch,” before getting out of his car and shooting Martinez.

President Trump’s “Operation Midway Blitz,” ostensibly to enforce immigration law, has resulted in brutality against protesters and multiple court rulings against Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino left Chicago after being rebuked by a federal judge for using tear gas and other riot-prevention methods against protesters.

Martinez was a victim of this half-baked operation, along with countless immigrants in Chicago. But the White House is doing the same thing in other cities across the U.S., such as Charlotte, North Carolina. How will the government be held accountable?

President Trump is so devoted to protecting the artificial intelligence industry that he is preparing to sign an executive order attacking states’ rights to regulate it.

The order would direct the Justice Department to sue states that pass AI regulation laws. It would also have Attorney General Pam Bondi create an “AI Litigation Task Force” to “challenge state AI laws, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful.” The order would also have the Commerce Department withholding federal funding from states that didn’t fall in line with Trump on AI.

Trump could issue the executive order as soon as Friday, according to reports.

This summer, the Senate voted overwhelmingly against an effort to restrict AI regulation on the state level. Many of Trump’s own party members disagreed with the legislation on the grounds that it would protect an industry that may cut jobs, hurt children, and drive up utility prices. Those same issues—along with the erosion of states’ rights at the center of the effort—are still prevalent.

“There should not be a moratorium on states rights for AI,” MAGA Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on X Thursday. “States must retain the right to regulate and make laws on AI and anything else for the benefit of their state. Federalism must be preserved.”

MTG is unfortunately correct here. States should play a large role in determining the extent to which they want AI active within their borders. Trump using an executive order with the Justice and Commerce departments to prioritize AI companies over real people feels like a shrewd, neoliberal move—not very small government or antifederalist for a Republican president.

“Preemption is a question for Congress, which they have considered and rejected, and should continue to reject,” Center for Democracy and Technology director Travis Hall told The Washington Post. “This proposal is shocking in its disregard for the democratic processes of state governments in their work to address the real and documented harms arising from AI tools.”