If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.

New York Judge Paul Engelmayer just forbade all political appointees — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — from accessing Dept. of Treasury data, all based on Blueanon conspiracy theories!! Those theories couldn't be challenged because the order was EX PARTE — meaning Trump's lawyers weren't warned, and couldn't weigh in. Only Democrat Attorneys General were allowed to argue. The judge cites no law or logic to support this unprecedented order, because it defies both. The judge’s ruling is, in essence, that Scott Bessent simply occupies a ceremonial position without real power, like the King of England. This is a grenade thrown into the functioning of the Treasury Department. It forbids the elected government from accessing information about budget and finances. Instead, only the permanent, deep-state government can know what's being spent. It means Scott Bessent's subordinates have far more power than Scott Bessent does. Democrat pundits who whine about the Constitution are liars, and will shred it the first chance they get. For now, the order is only for the next week, but if a court tries to make it permanent the Trump Administration should absolutely consider defying it. Better yet, SCOTUS should bar this judge from ever hearing similar cases again, and every Democrat lawyer involved should be sanctioned.

I will update the sad result of our efforts: Much to the House Corporations and Election committees credit, they took time in three different meetings to hear our testimony, which is practically unheard of. In the final analysis, it did not pass out of their committee to be heard down on the House floor. They basically said the bill was 'not ready for prime time' given questions about process --- how hand counts would work throughout the State; and how the change would affect the fiscal bottom line. Testimony on those two fronts were a 'he said, she said' pissing match between us and the clerks. Our fine Secretary of State testified and said he favors the concept of hand counting and trusts we Wyomingites would get the job done just fine. We use 's hand counting method and have trained people all around the State. We're ready to go to help the clerks with the training. We'll be formalizing our fiscal report to show cost savings with hand counts. The testimony on the Senate side in the Corporations committee was less satisfying. They didn't even move the bill for discussion. The only bill we have left is a bill that would allow recounts, either by machine or by hand, if there is a margin of 2% or less in any race result; or if a candidate requests a recount with a formal affidavit (I foresee a legal morass with this,) and puts up a down payment in funds to get the recount done. That bill passed, on three readings down on the House floor and is heading over to the Senate side. The Senate Corporations committee has heard that sister bill, and I'll update everyone on where it goes. In the meantime, there is a people's initiative that has started through the Secretary of State's office. Our core group is jumping through the hoops to get us to a place where we can start collecting thousands of signatures. Ironically, that question on the ballot will be counted by machines. Ha!