There's an argument that Trump's adherents might possibly understand: if Trump feels free to attack your First Amendment rights, he can - and will - also attack your Second Amendment rights.
I know this is not what you said. I think we need to anticipate the possibility that you are correct and build the argument against it now in the court of public opinion.
With what you posit regarding first and second amendment rights also applies to all of the rest of them. They can arbitrarily be denied unless there are people and institutions in place to defend them.
Do we have any sense of how long all these various lawsuits against the Trump regime will take? So far very little has advanced to the Supreme Court. Are they being fast-tracked in any way?
Let’s start by defining who we are actually dealing with.
What is the Russian Republican Party? Who is a Russian Republican? Is there a Russian Republican president?
A Russian Republican ignores the rule of law and the United States Constitution.
Specifically a Russian Republican refuses to acknowledge the democratic principle of free speech.
A Russian Republican places the Russian Republican President before the United States Constitution.
A Russian Republican allows the destruction of the United States Constitution sections and clauses that define “Separation of Power” between the three branches of government.
A Russian Republican demolishes institutions that support the Veterans of the United States.
A Russian Republican refuses to acknowledge that Russia once again invaded a sovereign nation.
A Russian Republican refuses to support a Ukrainian democracy defend its borders.
A Russian Republican refuses to share life saving satellite intelligence to a Ukrainian democracy.
A Russian Republican labels a war time president of a Ukrainian democracy a dictator.
A Russian Republican refuses to be part of an alliance of democratic nations called NATO.
A Russian Republican claims that Canada, a sovereign nation must relinquish its independence.
A Russian Republican claims that Greenland, an autonomous country of the Kingdom of Denmark must relinquish its ties to Denmark.
A Russian Republican claims that Panama, a sovereign nation must relinquish its independence.
A Russian Republican supports a war criminal. A Russian Republican supports the Trump regime which is now complicit in the crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
The big irony about this is that during Trump's speech to Congress, he stated "And I’ve stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back." Not to mention that Democrats were afraid to make a sound after one of their own was ejected for speaking out, while the Republicans were freely jeering, shouting, cheering, laughing when Democrats were mentioned, and breaking other rules of "decorum" during Trump's speech. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/us/politics/transcript-trump-speech-congress.html)
Marjory Taylor Green and Lauren Boebert have been creating disturbances in the House chamber for quite some time. No discipline or sanctions for them. Where's the balance?
tRump is trying to rule by edict... This is a very dangerous place for the American Nation to find itself. I still have yet to hear if those impounded USAID funds were released. The illegal firings and decimation of the various departments of the Federal Government continue. I fully expect tRump to start ignoring Judicial orders and then I do not know what will happen.
Thank you Jennifer for this newsletter and the excerpts demonstrating exactly which constitutional guarantees were violated. I love that this judge's order was so explicit and clear. I do not think it will change Trump's agenda or actions - he does not care if he violates our rights or the Constitution. But this is another win for democracy and hope for those who are working to hard to protect it. This will be a long haul unless/until Trump is impeached, but each victory should support us in continuing the fight.
It's hard not to reflect on the fact that organizations normally reflect the morals and standards of their leaders. Looking to Elon Trump for moral standards consistent with America's history turns out not to be such a great idea for our republic. It'll be a blessing when one or two of our formerly staunch Republican leaders decide that they've had enough.
And thanks to the fascist majority on the Supreme Court, their Citizen United decision allows billionaires to spend as much money as they want to support primaries against “Republicans” who don’t vote the way Agolf Shitler wants them to.
They'd better start being more terrified of their own voters. They may finally get mad enough about being short-changed and not served and vote them out. The recent town meetings are showing a decided level of discontent.
But enough discontent to take a stand against Drumpf's stupidity? Maybe they'd get voted out, but it's a certainty they'd be primaried if they oppose him.
This is pretty danged basic anti-constitution stuff. Why was the restraining order temporary? But more importantly, who is going to enforce the judge's order? How do we plan to deal with PINO when he just ignores the courts?
I think that temporary restraining order is a legal first step. I'm not a lawyer, although I feel like I have been receiving some law education in the past two years. Maybe someone who is a lawyer can speak to this point.
I'm also not a lawyer, though like you felt like I'm receiving an accelerated course. Plus, I've worked in close quarters with the legal field and attorneys for almost half my life now, so you pick up a few things. Either way, it's a win, and though we're not going to win every fight, as a citizen I am playing to win every single time, and be on the winning side every time. Against Trump.
If the government can do that to a green card holder who has no crime record then they will do it to a born and bred American citizen. Trump will do whatever to fix anything he doesn’t like even if he has to unlawfully accomplish his goals. This has always been a pattern with him and he should have been impeached and removed long ago. The MAGA’s are too chicken 💩to do anything about him. Rule of law and decency means nothing to the GOP anymore. The party of Gaslighting Our People. Tell us Jen what you learned at the democracy conference. We are thirsty for more knowledge!
That IS the point, exactly!! If we sit on our bums and just rant to each other, nothing positive will happen. If we all speak up, as with ONE voice, then perhaps we will have a chance to remove this felon from office, along with his dingalings!!! Write, call, shout! Do whatever you have to do to be heard!! Set up a National Day of Protest and head to DC to voice your objections to drumpf not being ejected; tied to a rail, and tarred and feathered on his way to prison for life!!!
I may disagree with Khalil's statements, but I support his freedom to express them. The Felon-in-Chief is doing his best to eliminate the Constitution and all its protections. Courageous attorneys and judges may be all that's standing in his way.
You have company, and thank you for mentioning your student protester history. Grew up in a college town myself, and college town environments in the '60s and '70s, and I too assume there are others like us here. We - and I mean all of us who are likeminded - need to gather together and put aside a whole lot of differences when we agree on one thing, and related issues.
Yes Wayne. There are more of us student protesters here from exactly 60 years ago. I took part in the Free Speech Movement at UCB as a freshman demonstrating against the Vietnam War and for civil rights and women's reproductive rights. We had such hope, courage and a fighting spirit. I think we need a new Free Speech Movement NOW and millions of us demonstrating in the streets.
No doubt, a lot of us were. We come from a generation of Just revolution, and what a dynamic heady time it was--Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Gay Rights, more. We made changes happen. I very much hope these protests today can do the same thing. College campuses are the place for this. Our streets are the place for this. Our states are the place for this. Our Capitol is the place for this. It's important.
I wondered why The Contrarian didn't use him as an example since he is an actual, real-life example--a lawful citizen taken from his home in the darkness of night and disappeared before we knew where he was--and the Trump Administration say they're going to deport him. And they say they're going to do this with other protestors. You don't have to make a hypothetical, when you have the real thing.
I think, given the polarization of the Israel/Palestine issue, they were using more popularly supported thought experiments (Ukraine, Canada) to make a point about Khalil's unlawful detention rather than getting bogged down in something that the mere mention of can make people forget that giving up rights because of "fear" or "dislike" doesn't come with guardrails to just that situation for the loss of those rights. I've seen plenty of people not care about this man because they disagree with his view, so rather than just present his case in a vacuum, the contrarian was making using other examples of our new "enemies of tRump" to make a point about Khalil's detention.
Still, he's a present real-life example. And he should have been written about in this context no matter anyone's prejudices. He is the topic. The fact that they didn't begs the question if they went around the world to address this very important issue because of The Contrarian's prejudices?
I guess I don't see where they completely ignore the real life example, it was discussed, albeit briefly, in the article and from how I read it coming out against his detention, so we may disagree in our interpretation of the written word (easy to misconstrue intent when missing so many nonverbal cues). They focused the article on two separate attacks on the constitution, so we're not gong to get an in depth analysis of either (they do go more in depth on the attacks on law firms, but even then it's relatively superficial).
Right after their italicized paragraph on the Ukranian thought example and the couple sentences in the Canadian thought example, this is the very next paragraph "These cases are legally indistinguishable from the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who led anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, some of which went so far as to lionize Hamas. He was never arrested or charged. And yet because he advocated a position noxious to many Americans, his detention has been lauded by a purported civil rights group, the American Anti-Defamation League, and members of Congress have either cheered the action or were slow to object." Then after they quote Niemöller’s poem, they then publish the ACLU's response to the situation. They didn't write a whole article about Khalil, and perhaps they could in a different format address it, but this is a short form brief missive covering 2 massively important cases in an ecosystem where the regime is still flooding the zone with assaults on our freedoms. They sieve a little more real estate discussing the law firm issue, but it was trying to be a short read piece discussing the dissolution of the book of rights.
I don't doubt that they could talk more about Khalil, but I actual think they came out smart starting with reframing the issue away from Palestine. I can't remember which comment in this thread linked to a long form piece on the issue, but the Israel issue has become so toxic that even many whom I agree with on the side of freedom and moral good, would write off Khalil because he's pro-palestine. His detention is wrong, full stop. But when you can't find people who are supposed to have courage that won't hedge any comment (and the annoying reflexive pro-israeli sentiment that has run this country for decades), reminding people that just because this issue is sticky doesn't mean that it will be contained to just this sticky situation.
With all due respect, the issue only came up because of what happened to him. What are the best journalistic practices here? Not avoiding the direct subject. With a short piece, it would have been so much easier to directly address his situation as the primary part of the piece. If people write him off because of their own prejudices, that is their own prejudice and they are revealing themselves and what is most important to them, which in this case would not be the First Amendment. That is on them.
I think we're both in the same side of the main issue at play, and a good piece that addresses the specifics as we can would be wonderful. I see another of your comments about how we are living in a fascist state, which we are now. However we cannot let perfect be the bar we set. They did mention Khalil by name in the article, called out the horrific responseof the ADL, and highlighted what the ACLU said. The first amendment at stake here is too important to not point out where this heads, so to try and get the reflective pro-israeli to realize how much is truly at stake here we need things like the thought experiments they use. Hell, everything I'm writing here is enough to maybe get me locked up in a camp either here or in central America when they finalize those details. After 9/11, we gave up far to much for fear of terrorists, this is the natural extension. IMHO, this piece unequivocally states that his case is wrong, but far too many won't react until it's one of the other examples or something else listed. I get that they don't spend enough time discussing the specifics of his case for you, and that is your right to hold that opinion. I'm all for doing everything we can to make the first amendment case, because an annoying high percentage of the country is otherwise too likely to write off the specifics of his case and ignore the broader implications. If that means starting with the thought experiment and not his name, then I'll take anyone who joins up to protect the bill of rights.
For that matter he's also an example of family separation: married to an American citizen, who is 8 months pregnant. So he will have a dependent child American citizen soon. No criminal charges. Do we really want to be breaking up families to deport legal residents who have broken fewer laws than the felonious president?
Absolutely not. This is Fascism. These are the acts of Fascists. We are Fascists now. And we can't let this stand. My daughter says she thinks this is all going to end in violence, and it may.
Everyone, each and every one of us, should 'take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties' as James Madison said in his Memorial and Remonstrance. Perkins & Coie are being singled out because they dared to work for the Clinton campaign and in subsequent elections to defend us from Trump's attempt to steal an election he lost.
The idea that a legal permanent resident of this country can be arrested, detained and threatened with deportation because of things he said months ago, because he exercised his First Amendment-protected speech, should shock the conscience of every American. We don't need First Amendment protections for popular opinions; the First Amendment was designed to protect speech even when it's unpopular. I don't have to like Mr. Khalil or what he says, but I defend his right to speak his mind. The idea that the Trump administration is doing this because of their policy against anti-semitism doesn't pass the laugh test.
Thank you. I have a much better understanding of what is playing out here because I am a reader/viewer/listener of The Contrarian, and I have been paying attention to your coverage of the role of the courts, judges, lawyers and lawsuits.
I especially appreciate the extended excerpt describing the Trump Administration’s constitutional violations. Our constitution in action! Awesome! As you point out, we need lawyers and law firms who are not afraid to use it. If I were a lawyer, it would be an honor to work on such cases.
And I noticed that individuals are being held to account in the lawsuit, not just departments, as they should be. I’m thinking of OMB Director Vought, architect of Project 2025, in particular.
Need to address this now before they take away our first amendment rights with their second amendment rights.
There's an argument that Trump's adherents might possibly understand: if Trump feels free to attack your First Amendment rights, he can - and will - also attack your Second Amendment rights.
I know this is not what you said. I think we need to anticipate the possibility that you are correct and build the argument against it now in the court of public opinion.
With what you posit regarding first and second amendment rights also applies to all of the rest of them. They can arbitrarily be denied unless there are people and institutions in place to defend them.
Exactly
Do we have any sense of how long all these various lawsuits against the Trump regime will take? So far very little has advanced to the Supreme Court. Are they being fast-tracked in any way?
Here's one: Judge Chutkan fast-tracks discovery for lawsuit against Doge:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elon-musk-must-turn-over-records-and-answer-questions-on-what-he-s-doing-at-doge-judge-orders/ar-AA1AOq6O?cvid=4b7e3cdd6394459fbba2b00b61e5cb13&ocid=ob-fb-enph-370&apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1
Note that "fast" = 3 weeks these days
I believe the new SCOTUS motto is, For Our Friends Fast Track. For Our Enemies Chancery. (If you happen to know Bleak House.)
Haha. Yes.
Norm Eisen could answer that much better than I could!
Well said.
Let’s start by defining who we are actually dealing with.
What is the Russian Republican Party? Who is a Russian Republican? Is there a Russian Republican president?
A Russian Republican ignores the rule of law and the United States Constitution.
Specifically a Russian Republican refuses to acknowledge the democratic principle of free speech.
A Russian Republican places the Russian Republican President before the United States Constitution.
A Russian Republican allows the destruction of the United States Constitution sections and clauses that define “Separation of Power” between the three branches of government.
A Russian Republican demolishes institutions that support the Veterans of the United States.
A Russian Republican refuses to acknowledge that Russia once again invaded a sovereign nation.
A Russian Republican refuses to support a Ukrainian democracy defend its borders.
A Russian Republican refuses to share life saving satellite intelligence to a Ukrainian democracy.
A Russian Republican labels a war time president of a Ukrainian democracy a dictator.
A Russian Republican refuses to be part of an alliance of democratic nations called NATO.
A Russian Republican claims that Canada, a sovereign nation must relinquish its independence.
A Russian Republican claims that Greenland, an autonomous country of the Kingdom of Denmark must relinquish its ties to Denmark.
A Russian Republican claims that Panama, a sovereign nation must relinquish its independence.
A Russian Republican supports a war criminal. A Russian Republican supports the Trump regime which is now complicit in the crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
Thanks for the addition! Sooo many other Russian autocratic manifestations in the Republican Party.
I will add it to the list.
And in Gaza
I love this "Russian Republican" moniker. I'm going to be using it going forward. Thank you!
Send to every Republican member of Congress. Send as a press release.
Impeach. Feathers of Hope. https://jerryweiss.substack.com/p/remove-impeach-impeach
Call. https://act.commoncause.org/call_campaigns/tell-congress-stop-the-musk-budget/?source=email-share
It’s no longer the GOP (grand Old Party), it’s now the LOP (Lost Old Party)!
ROP - Russian Oligarch Panderers
Brilliant. Nailed the situation.
The big irony about this is that during Trump's speech to Congress, he stated "And I’ve stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back." Not to mention that Democrats were afraid to make a sound after one of their own was ejected for speaking out, while the Republicans were freely jeering, shouting, cheering, laughing when Democrats were mentioned, and breaking other rules of "decorum" during Trump's speech. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/us/politics/transcript-trump-speech-congress.html)
Marjory Taylor Green and Lauren Boebert have been creating disturbances in the House chamber for quite some time. No discipline or sanctions for them. Where's the balance?
They're the "right" color.
True that, and they are also of the party that not only tolerates such demonstrations, but encourages them.
How about branding Trump and his congress “Russian Republican” because they are performing as Russians and are backing Russians.
speaking the truth
Perkins Coie gave a superb response. Clearly Trump and his minions never heard my later father's adage, "Don't bait tigers."
Yeah, but the silence of so many major WashDC law firms is shocking. Probably because many of their well-heeled clients are Trumpy.
Excellent piece. Makes good sense even to a non-lawyer.
tRump is trying to rule by edict... This is a very dangerous place for the American Nation to find itself. I still have yet to hear if those impounded USAID funds were released. The illegal firings and decimation of the various departments of the Federal Government continue. I fully expect tRump to start ignoring Judicial orders and then I do not know what will happen.
There is little difference between an edict and an Executive Order.
Thank you Jennifer for this newsletter and the excerpts demonstrating exactly which constitutional guarantees were violated. I love that this judge's order was so explicit and clear. I do not think it will change Trump's agenda or actions - he does not care if he violates our rights or the Constitution. But this is another win for democracy and hope for those who are working to hard to protect it. This will be a long haul unless/until Trump is impeached, but each victory should support us in continuing the fight.
It's hard not to reflect on the fact that organizations normally reflect the morals and standards of their leaders. Looking to Elon Trump for moral standards consistent with America's history turns out not to be such a great idea for our republic. It'll be a blessing when one or two of our formerly staunch Republican leaders decide that they've had enough.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any Repugnants to stand against Drumpf. They're all too terrified of being primaried.
And thanks to the fascist majority on the Supreme Court, their Citizen United decision allows billionaires to spend as much money as they want to support primaries against “Republicans” who don’t vote the way Agolf Shitler wants them to.
I fully agree with you, Harvey. By the way, I like your name for the Felon-in-Chief!!
I've also read that at least some of them have been getting death threats.
If that's the case, they can always retire......
isn't it some sort of crime to threaten a member of congress ??!
shouldn't the perps be hunted down....oh right it 's probably the J6 crowd.
Who else on earth could it possibly be?!
can't be the pizza gate guy, he's dead.!
They'd better start being more terrified of their own voters. They may finally get mad enough about being short-changed and not served and vote them out. The recent town meetings are showing a decided level of discontent.
But enough discontent to take a stand against Drumpf's stupidity? Maybe they'd get voted out, but it's a certainty they'd be primaried if they oppose him.
Musk's moral standard is the same as Trump’s: Whatever I want.
This is pretty danged basic anti-constitution stuff. Why was the restraining order temporary? But more importantly, who is going to enforce the judge's order? How do we plan to deal with PINO when he just ignores the courts?
I think that temporary restraining order is a legal first step. I'm not a lawyer, although I feel like I have been receiving some law education in the past two years. Maybe someone who is a lawyer can speak to this point.
I'm also not a lawyer, though like you felt like I'm receiving an accelerated course. Plus, I've worked in close quarters with the legal field and attorneys for almost half my life now, so you pick up a few things. Either way, it's a win, and though we're not going to win every fight, as a citizen I am playing to win every single time, and be on the winning side every time. Against Trump.
Off topic but if the senate democrats do not stand up, what backstop do we have--about cloture and giving away the filibuster for nothing
Jen and Norm urged everyone to call their democratic senators today!
If the government can do that to a green card holder who has no crime record then they will do it to a born and bred American citizen. Trump will do whatever to fix anything he doesn’t like even if he has to unlawfully accomplish his goals. This has always been a pattern with him and he should have been impeached and removed long ago. The MAGA’s are too chicken 💩to do anything about him. Rule of law and decency means nothing to the GOP anymore. The party of Gaslighting Our People. Tell us Jen what you learned at the democracy conference. We are thirsty for more knowledge!
That IS the point, exactly!! If we sit on our bums and just rant to each other, nothing positive will happen. If we all speak up, as with ONE voice, then perhaps we will have a chance to remove this felon from office, along with his dingalings!!! Write, call, shout! Do whatever you have to do to be heard!! Set up a National Day of Protest and head to DC to voice your objections to drumpf not being ejected; tied to a rail, and tarred and feathered on his way to prison for life!!!
Your first sentence is exactly right. Red flag warning!
This was a good read on Mahmoud Khalil. I was a student protester back in the day (as I assume many contrarians were) and this is an outrage https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-arrest-columbia-student-activists-misrepresentations/
I may disagree with Khalil's statements, but I support his freedom to express them. The Felon-in-Chief is doing his best to eliminate the Constitution and all its protections. Courageous attorneys and judges may be all that's standing in his way.
You have company, and thank you for mentioning your student protester history. Grew up in a college town myself, and college town environments in the '60s and '70s, and I too assume there are others like us here. We - and I mean all of us who are likeminded - need to gather together and put aside a whole lot of differences when we agree on one thing, and related issues.
Yes Wayne. There are more of us student protesters here from exactly 60 years ago. I took part in the Free Speech Movement at UCB as a freshman demonstrating against the Vietnam War and for civil rights and women's reproductive rights. We had such hope, courage and a fighting spirit. I think we need a new Free Speech Movement NOW and millions of us demonstrating in the streets.
No doubt, a lot of us were. We come from a generation of Just revolution, and what a dynamic heady time it was--Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Gay Rights, more. We made changes happen. I very much hope these protests today can do the same thing. College campuses are the place for this. Our streets are the place for this. Our states are the place for this. Our Capitol is the place for this. It's important.
I wondered why The Contrarian didn't use him as an example since he is an actual, real-life example--a lawful citizen taken from his home in the darkness of night and disappeared before we knew where he was--and the Trump Administration say they're going to deport him. And they say they're going to do this with other protestors. You don't have to make a hypothetical, when you have the real thing.
I think, given the polarization of the Israel/Palestine issue, they were using more popularly supported thought experiments (Ukraine, Canada) to make a point about Khalil's unlawful detention rather than getting bogged down in something that the mere mention of can make people forget that giving up rights because of "fear" or "dislike" doesn't come with guardrails to just that situation for the loss of those rights. I've seen plenty of people not care about this man because they disagree with his view, so rather than just present his case in a vacuum, the contrarian was making using other examples of our new "enemies of tRump" to make a point about Khalil's detention.
Still, he's a present real-life example. And he should have been written about in this context no matter anyone's prejudices. He is the topic. The fact that they didn't begs the question if they went around the world to address this very important issue because of The Contrarian's prejudices?
I guess I don't see where they completely ignore the real life example, it was discussed, albeit briefly, in the article and from how I read it coming out against his detention, so we may disagree in our interpretation of the written word (easy to misconstrue intent when missing so many nonverbal cues). They focused the article on two separate attacks on the constitution, so we're not gong to get an in depth analysis of either (they do go more in depth on the attacks on law firms, but even then it's relatively superficial).
Right after their italicized paragraph on the Ukranian thought example and the couple sentences in the Canadian thought example, this is the very next paragraph "These cases are legally indistinguishable from the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who led anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, some of which went so far as to lionize Hamas. He was never arrested or charged. And yet because he advocated a position noxious to many Americans, his detention has been lauded by a purported civil rights group, the American Anti-Defamation League, and members of Congress have either cheered the action or were slow to object." Then after they quote Niemöller’s poem, they then publish the ACLU's response to the situation. They didn't write a whole article about Khalil, and perhaps they could in a different format address it, but this is a short form brief missive covering 2 massively important cases in an ecosystem where the regime is still flooding the zone with assaults on our freedoms. They sieve a little more real estate discussing the law firm issue, but it was trying to be a short read piece discussing the dissolution of the book of rights.
I don't doubt that they could talk more about Khalil, but I actual think they came out smart starting with reframing the issue away from Palestine. I can't remember which comment in this thread linked to a long form piece on the issue, but the Israel issue has become so toxic that even many whom I agree with on the side of freedom and moral good, would write off Khalil because he's pro-palestine. His detention is wrong, full stop. But when you can't find people who are supposed to have courage that won't hedge any comment (and the annoying reflexive pro-israeli sentiment that has run this country for decades), reminding people that just because this issue is sticky doesn't mean that it will be contained to just this sticky situation.
With all due respect, the issue only came up because of what happened to him. What are the best journalistic practices here? Not avoiding the direct subject. With a short piece, it would have been so much easier to directly address his situation as the primary part of the piece. If people write him off because of their own prejudices, that is their own prejudice and they are revealing themselves and what is most important to them, which in this case would not be the First Amendment. That is on them.
I think we're both in the same side of the main issue at play, and a good piece that addresses the specifics as we can would be wonderful. I see another of your comments about how we are living in a fascist state, which we are now. However we cannot let perfect be the bar we set. They did mention Khalil by name in the article, called out the horrific responseof the ADL, and highlighted what the ACLU said. The first amendment at stake here is too important to not point out where this heads, so to try and get the reflective pro-israeli to realize how much is truly at stake here we need things like the thought experiments they use. Hell, everything I'm writing here is enough to maybe get me locked up in a camp either here or in central America when they finalize those details. After 9/11, we gave up far to much for fear of terrorists, this is the natural extension. IMHO, this piece unequivocally states that his case is wrong, but far too many won't react until it's one of the other examples or something else listed. I get that they don't spend enough time discussing the specifics of his case for you, and that is your right to hold that opinion. I'm all for doing everything we can to make the first amendment case, because an annoying high percentage of the country is otherwise too likely to write off the specifics of his case and ignore the broader implications. If that means starting with the thought experiment and not his name, then I'll take anyone who joins up to protect the bill of rights.
For that matter he's also an example of family separation: married to an American citizen, who is 8 months pregnant. So he will have a dependent child American citizen soon. No criminal charges. Do we really want to be breaking up families to deport legal residents who have broken fewer laws than the felonious president?
Absolutely not. This is Fascism. These are the acts of Fascists. We are Fascists now. And we can't let this stand. My daughter says she thinks this is all going to end in violence, and it may.
Everyone, each and every one of us, should 'take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties' as James Madison said in his Memorial and Remonstrance. Perkins & Coie are being singled out because they dared to work for the Clinton campaign and in subsequent elections to defend us from Trump's attempt to steal an election he lost.
The idea that a legal permanent resident of this country can be arrested, detained and threatened with deportation because of things he said months ago, because he exercised his First Amendment-protected speech, should shock the conscience of every American. We don't need First Amendment protections for popular opinions; the First Amendment was designed to protect speech even when it's unpopular. I don't have to like Mr. Khalil or what he says, but I defend his right to speak his mind. The idea that the Trump administration is doing this because of their policy against anti-semitism doesn't pass the laugh test.
The only thing that worries me is the current SCOTUS.
Thank you. I have a much better understanding of what is playing out here because I am a reader/viewer/listener of The Contrarian, and I have been paying attention to your coverage of the role of the courts, judges, lawyers and lawsuits.
I especially appreciate the extended excerpt describing the Trump Administration’s constitutional violations. Our constitution in action! Awesome! As you point out, we need lawyers and law firms who are not afraid to use it. If I were a lawyer, it would be an honor to work on such cases.
And I noticed that individuals are being held to account in the lawsuit, not just departments, as they should be. I’m thinking of OMB Director Vought, architect of Project 2025, in particular.