Eric N. Winn

Hello Senator Thune, At 3 AM on Friday, March 27th, in a near-empty chamber, you passed a bill by voice vote that excludes all funding for ICE and CBP. Let me repeat that: voice vote. No roll call. No record of who was there. No accountability. Just you, Barrasso, and a handful of senators shuffling paper in the dead of night while America slept. You could have demanded a recorded vote. You chose not to. You could have held the line for five more days until the House returned. You chose not to. You could have used the same procedural tools Democrats have used against you for 40 days. You chose not to. Instead, you gave Chuck Schumer exactly what he asked for, DHS funding minus immigration enforcement, and called it a win. Then you walked to the cameras and blamed the Democrats. Let's be precise about what you did: 1. You caved to a demand Democrats made on Day 1 of this shutdown. Forty-one days of supposed hardball negotiation, and you settled for their opening offer. 2. You handed them a template. The next time Democrats want to defund any agency — ICE, CBP, or anything else — they now know: just shut down DHS and wait. John Thune will fold at 3 AM. 3. You punted to reconciliation. "Good possibility," you said. Not "we will." Not "guaranteed." Just maybe. Meanwhile, ICE operates on fumes from last year's bill with no certainty of future funding. The precedent you set: You have argued for months that the filibuster is sacrosanct. That the 60-vote threshold protects minority rights. That we cannot bend Senate rules for policy wins. But at 3 AM on Friday, you bent every norm that actually mattered: • Voice vote to avoid accountability • Empty chamber to avoid debate • Midnight deal to avoid scrutiny • Immediate recess to avoid questions You'll bend the rules to avoid a fight. You just won't bend them to win one. What you've actually accomplished: Democrats demanded ICE restrictions. They got ICE defunded. Not reformed. Not restrained. Defunded. And you're out here tweeting about how Democrats are the "Defund the Police" party while you just voted to defund border enforcement at 3 in the morning. The question you should answer: Why did this deal have to happen at 3 AM? Why couldn't it happen at 3 PM, with cameras rolling and every senator on record? You know why. Because you didn't want your voters to see what surrender looks like. Here's my message: We saw it anyway. Stop hiding behind "Democrat obstruction." You're the Majority Leader. You set the schedule. You control the floor. You chose this outcome. Own it.

To my southern friends, How come none of you warned me about fire ants?! You guys know I’m from New York and don’t get out much! 😂

THREADETTE: SCOTUS's decision yesterday in Callais case striking down Louisiana's unconstitutional race-based districts prompted voters who brought challenge to immediately file an application asking Court to rush case back to district court so the districts could be redrawn. 1/

To EVERYONE - practitioners and non-practitioners alike, you need to grapple with this if you think the Comey case will not make it to trial: "Engle clearly based his dismissal motion on the pretrial "evidence" that had thus far been produced. See, e.g., J.A. 35 ("So far, the government has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia."). However, because Engle moved under Rule 12 to dismiss Count 1 before trial, his motion was a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment, which is ordinarily limited to the allegations contained in the indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 488 (4th Cir.2003) (noting that "courts lack authority to review the sufficiency of evidence supporting an indictment"). A district court may dismiss an indictment under Rule 12 "where there is an infirmity of law in the prosecution; a court may not dismiss an indictment, however, on a determination of facts that should have been developed at trial." United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 866 (11th Cir.2010)." That's U.S. v. Engle, 4th Circuit, 2012. It cites favorably the 11th Circuit standard which is considered the most strict on the issue that pretrial motions based on the facts are not allowed in federal criminal cases. Whether "86 47" is a "true threat" is a fact for the jury to determine based on all the evidence. This case is going to make it to trial.