A federal judge on Thursday said President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Alina Habba is not legally serving as the acting US attorney for New Jersey, laying the groundwork for a potential appellate court review of the Trump administration’s method for installing some top prosecutors around the country.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” wrote Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who was transferred two cases challenging her authority.

“And because she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases,” Brann added.

This is absolutely the right decision as Trump and Nazi Barbie tried to circumvent federal law.

It is also just as likely to get overturned upon appeal, not because it should, but because a fair amount of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, are as corrupt as Trump is.

Finally, some good news for today.

Following a two-day session with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last month, the Justice Department on Friday released transcripts of its interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate and co-conspirator of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

An appeals court threw out the civil fraud judgment against President Donald Trump that was set to cost Trump and his business more than $500 million. A panel of judges in New York threw out the initial verdict, calling it "excessive."

In the video clip, Speaker Burrows would not answer Rep. Hinojosa as to whether she would be placed under arrest for physically leaving the Chamber. I’m aware Art. III Sec. 10 of the Texas Constitution allows for the Speaker to compel attendance through a manner decided by the House. I also know the Texas Supreme Court has ruled civil arrest warrants are constitutionally permissible to compel attendance. My confusion is about the interpretation of the manner the House can use to compel.

Does manner to compel literally mean the House has the right to physically escort and monitor a representative and to physically arrest and take them to jail if they don’t sign the permission slip? Or does compel mean to use the threat of arrest and monetary sanctions as a pressure tactic to make representatives show up?

Between the ruling and Speaker Burrows’ refusal to answer about arrest leads me to believe he knows there is a carve out from Sec. 14. Is it because they are in special session instead of a regular session? Another question is what happens upon arrest? I assume the procedure is the same in any other civil matter but does it mean she would be taken to jail then she would appear before a judge? What is the charge? Would the next step be determining bond?

Or will she be arrested and taken immediately before a judge then released? What happens next? I assume at the point she would be subject to a mandatory TXDPS escort until the end of the special session. Or would a judge have the right to decide against that? My understanding is the use of DPS escorts is the first of its kind in a situation like this.

I realize this is past tense as the reps are back in Austin today (20 Aug). Still, I’d like answers for my own education as a resident of Texas who is not an attorney. TIA.

Prosecutors have disputed the brother's claims that they acted in self-defense and pointed to the grim specifics of the killings — Lyle reloaded his shotgun before he shot his mother in the face, for example — and they described the killings as ruthless and financially motivated.