Anna Bower
LightNews LightNews
banner
annabower.bsky.social
Anna Bower
@annabower.bsky.social
260K followers 3.1K following 5.1K posts
Just asking questions.

Senior Editor, Lawfaremedia.org.

Send story ideas and tips to [email protected]

Signal username: annabower.24
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Anna Bower
orinkerr.bsky.social
Ooh, interesting. Blogging/tweeting ahead....
December 13, 2025 at 8:01 AM
annabower.bsky.social
Yesss I’ve been waiting for your take on this!
December 13, 2025 at 1:31 PM
annabower.bsky.social
Order here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Memorandum & Opinion – #21 in RICHMAN v. United States (D.D.C., 1:25-mc-00170) – CourtListener.com
REDACTED MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying 20 Order. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 12/12/2025. (lcckk1) (Entered: 12/12/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
December 13, 2025 at 3:45 AM
Reposted by Anna Bower
annabower.bsky.social
Background here: annabower.substack.com/p/the-civil-...
The Civil Suit That Could Derail the Comey Prosecution (Again)
Daniel Richman, a central figure in the now-dismissed criminal case against James Comey, files suit over the government's handling of his property.
annabower.substack.com
December 13, 2025 at 3:43 AM
annabower.bsky.social
Background here: annabower.substack.com/p/the-civil-...
The Civil Suit That Could Derail the Comey Prosecution (Again)
Daniel Richman, a central figure in the now-dismissed criminal case against James Comey, files suit over the government's handling of his property.
annabower.substack.com
December 13, 2025 at 3:43 AM
Reposted by Anna Bower
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
It is not! A “scrivener’s error” is for things like fixing typos or very minor non-material errors, not retroactively adding a deportation order that doesn’t current exist!
goaldee.bsky.social goaldee.bsky.social @goaldee.bsky.social · 1d
Is "correcting" a previous order like this a real thing?
Stephen Miller bs
December 12, 2025 at 1:50 PM
annabower.bsky.social
I’m sorry, but that’s not how this works, Popehat. You don’t get to say that in retrospect.
December 12, 2025 at 3:53 AM
annabower.bsky.social
Well, I was unlawfully appointed (by myself) as the administrator of the who is the administrator of DOGE (#WITAOD) community. But no federal judge has weighed in.
December 12, 2025 at 3:51 AM
Reposted by Anna Bower
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
🚨Judge Xinis finds that, incredibly, Mr. Abrego Garcia was never ordered deported in 2019. She notes that every since this saga began all the way back in March, the government has NEVER been able to produce any evidence that the immigration judge actually issued a removal order.
B. No Order of Removal Exists for Abrego Garcia No such order of removal exists for Abrego Garcia. When Abrego Garcia was first wrongly expelled to El Salvador, the Court struggled to understand the legal authority for even seizing him in the first place. At the first hearing in Abrego I, the Court inquired of Respondents’ counsel: The Court: I want to ask, though, the very specific question, if there is a final order of removal, what . . . document got this process started? There is no warrant for his arrest by an order of removal. There is no statement of probable cause. There’s no charge. There’s no report that says that anyone saw Mr. Abrego Garcia doing anything illegal or criminal. So what is the actual document that gave these officers the authority to start this process? Counsel: That is not in the record, and the government has not put that into the record. And that’s the best I can do. Abrego I, ECF No. 33 at 21:11–22. The Court continued to press counsel about the existence of a removal order and was told plainly that none can be found: The Court: Okay. So if there’s a Title 8 removal order, there would be an order of removal that’s being executed, and we don’t have one for Mr. Abrego Garcia, right? . . . Do you have that order? . . . Is it in the record? Counsel: I do not have that order. It is not in the record. Id. at 23:7–24:4. Since that time, Respondents have never produced an order of removal despite Abrego Garcia hinging much of his jurisdictional and legal arguments on its non-existence. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 68–69; ECF No. 32 at 10, 15–17, 27; ECF No. 87 at 11–12. Indeed, Respondents twice sponsored the testimony of ICE officials whose job it is to effectuate removal orders, and who candidly admitted to having never seen one for Abrego Garcia. See ECF No. 107 at 30:16–22 (testimony of Cantú) (“Q: Based upon your many years of experience you described to us, you know what a final order of removal looks like, right, sir? Cantú: I do. Q: And have you seen a final order of removal in regard to Mr. Abrego Garcia? Cantú: I have not.”). See also Abrego I, ECF No. 234 at 46:6–12 (testimony of interim Assistant Director for ICE Removal Operations, Thomas Giles (“Giles”)) (“Q: You have not seen the final order of removal, have you, sir? Giles: What do you mean by that? Q: I mean, you have not seen a piece of paper that represents the final order of removal vis-a-vis Mr. Abrego Garcia, correct? Giles: No, I have not.”).15 Based on this, the Court concludes that no order of removal exists.
December 11, 2025 at 4:13 PM