“Kimberly Guilfoyle, all the DC buzz is that you’re going to get fired. What are your plans if that happens?” Kimberly Guilfoyle: …

For Indigenous Peoples Day, here’s a talk I gave explaining how Columbus was basically the original trans-Atlantic drug trafficker. You will be never think about the colonization of this hemisphere in the same way again. The “drug” economy powered hemispheric growth (and enslavement) for centuries:

"So now we're all gonna have a massive fire drill because the government can't be trusted. Unless you're gonna tell me that the government can be trusted?" Judge Reyes now proposes a plan.

Now, there are 300 more trees that are gonna get cut down, "and I have no faith the government isn't gonna cut them down unless there's an order in place not to do so."

"I have not wanted to enter a TRO. I have not wanted to enter a PI. I have time and time and time again avoided doing that...because I actually don't think courts should be playing Parks and Rec."

"Let me ask you this, counsel, do you think the government acted in good faith on Friday or Saturday? I'm not going to ask you that question. I'm going to withdraw that question." How should we proceed now?

Testimony was that there's absolutely no urgency whatsoever. "Why did no one...raise their hand and say, hey...maybe we should take a beat so we don't chop down hundreds of trees when the court has said repeatedly that she's gonna trust us to act in good faith?"

I have repeatedly on the record rejected plaintifs' requests for notification order because I told them, I told the American public, "You can trust the government." I do not understand why this went foward on Saturday. Why did this go forward on Saturday?

Here's the thing, counsel. There are American citizens who are deeply concerned with the actions of the government, and I have repeatedly on the record said, "Don't be concerned. I trust the government."

And let's do this after we've heard from the plaintiffs and court on how to proceed. Maybe at a minimum we should wait until the next business day.

What I cannot understand is why...given the number of times I made abundantly clear what I didn't want to happen, that no one said, hey...no reason to begin this on Saturday, let's give plaintiffs notice, let's give the court notice.

To say that no, no, what she meant was that we weren't going to chop down hundreds of trees with respect to the renovation plan and didn't mean chop down trees with respect to a 2019 plan that no one had done anything about for 7 years is preposterous.

"...and then no notice at all that something is going to happen until Friday afternoon...when I have two gov. officials testifying under oath that there was zero urgency to this is completely beyond the pale."

"Everyone at NPS knew there was a concern about cutting down trees...There was zero ambiguity about that. The idea that I had a decision made on Oct. 5 and I get a signed declaration from the director of the relevant agency on Oct. 6 saying nothing is going to happen..."

DOJ says this wasn't a renovation. Judge Reyes says, "What I find most frustrating about this, counsel, is that this is all double-speak."

Judge Reyes now asking how she got a declaration from acting NPS Director Jessica Bowron on Oct. 6 saying significant renovation work on the golf course wouldn't happen when at least of Oct. 5 there was a plan in place to cut down hundreds of trees.

We're back with DOJ objecting more even more vigorously after the fact to attorney-client privilege issues with the recent lines of questioning.