Both whether they failed to disclose information and, which I suspect, they affirmatively misled the GJ. Because this cannot possibly meet even the probable cause standard under current law, which requires an "imminent threat."
John Roth
@johnrothdc.bsky.social
1.4K followers 586 following 132 posts
Former federal prosecutor, former DHS Inspector General. Ethics and compliance leader in the private sector. Interested in governance, corruption, and justice issues.
![II. Credibility
The Court next addresses the credibility of the parties’ evidence and witnesses. After reviewing all the evidence submitted to the Court and listening to the testimony elicited at the preliminary injunction hearing, during depositions, and in other court proceedings, the Court finds Defendants’ evidence simply not credible. [FN 6]
Plaintiffs submitted a mountain of evidence, providing the Court with over eighty declarations, numerous videos and articles, and other evidence. Defendants did not rebut anything that Plaintiffs set forth in their declarations or testimony, even with BWC footage.
[FN 6] In another case considering some of the same evidence presented to this Court, another court in this district also found that the perceptions of certain of Defendants’ declarants, such as Hott and Parra, were not reliable. See Illinois v. Trump, No. 25-cv-12174, 2025 WL 2886645, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2025) (noting a “troubling trend of Defendants’ declarants equating protests with riots and a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are observing, questioning, and criticizing their government, and those who are obstructing, assaulting, or doing violence”), motion to stay denied in part, 155 F.4th 929 (7th Cir. 2025).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreifpyry2il5toxbr3iejgrsxs6kmnwve75qwnhebfp44ieyjrfpsdu)
