OK - back in AAUP v Rubio trial, cross of US witness Armstrong by video from DC. Judge Young has a request to 1st Circuit to lift stay. Inner City Press covers the case (including in 2d 1/2 of the below) & will live tweet, thread below

Plaintiffs' lawyer Alexandra Conlon: Can guidance be conveyed through the Foreign Affairs Manual? US witness John Armstrong: Yes. And we announce that, so people [at State] know about the change. Conlon: But is an Action Memo policy guidance? Armstrong: Can be.

Judge Young: In our case, you've testified about communications you've had with the Secretary of State- and he came up with the relevant individuals in our case with an action letter. That's direction for action, not the policy, correct? Armstrong: Could I see it?

Armstrong: Could you make it larger? My eyesight has gotten worse with time. [Leaning into screen in office in DC and reads] Armstrong: It's a letter to HSI Judge: Go ahead, Ms. Conlon. Conlon: So there are Action Memo, from those there may be action letter to HSI

Armstrong: A single decision does not a policy make. I'm sure we could find a hypothetical. Conlon: Let's turn to guidance leading to revocation of visas. You've discussed them outside of State? Armstrong: Yes. Conlon: With senior officials at the White House? Yes

DOJ lawyer: Objection? Judge: Ground? DOJ lawyer: Presidential communication privilege. Conlon: He discussed this in his deposition. So it's waived. Judge: Read from the deposition. Conlon: You said, more than a dozen. Armstrong: Page 220? Conlon: 203

Conlon: Including with Stephen Miller and his staffer Adam? Armstrong: Yes. Only telephonic. I've never met Mr. Miller personally, only by phone. DOJ lawyer: This is veering into Presidential communications Judge: If it's in the deposition, it's waived.

Judge: I'm going to honor her claim of Executive Privilege in the course of your oral cross examination. At the same time, what's revealed in the deposition is before the court. I can read. Just ask to get it in. Conlon: We will submit a designation after cross

Conlon: You attended the Homeland Security Council? Armstrong: Only by phone. I'm not of the rank to attend in person [laughs] Let me say, US policy over the past 30 years that I've been here have always been against anti-Semitism.

Armstrong: And I am against anti-Semitism, and I make no apology. Conlon: Nor should you. Armstrong: It may be that the Secretary of State cannot act against US citizens organizing anti-Semitic protests. But students with visa, he can.

Armstrong: This is the first Executive Order I am aware of saying, We are against anti-Semitism. Conlon: You've reviewed DHS records on this in the past few months? Armstrong: Yes. We reviewed several thousands of students Conlon: Under EO 14188? A: Yes

Judge: Here's what I hear: there's been no guidance as to what should be treated as anti-Semitism. Is that it, Ms. Conlon? Conlon: It is. Has there been training? DOJ lawyer: Objection! Judge: Overruled. Armstrong: I do not know of any training materials

Armstrong: I think there is a common understanding in our society of what anti-Semitism is. Conlon: And you think anti-Semitism includes criticism of Israel and Israeli? Armstrong: Yes. It's just a dodge. Conlon: Let me draw everyone's attention to his cable

Armstrong: Yes, support of Hamas is grounds to be removed - if we get this wrong, you have 9/11 - Judge: Hold on. What does it mean to support Hamas? Go ahead Ms. Conlon? Conlon: So in your view, saying "From the river to the sea" could be grounds -

Armstrong: Yes, it leaves no space for Jews. Conlon: A statement calling for an arms embargo on Israel could be covered? Armstrong: You'd have to look at the whole thing, the totality of the situation. Conlon: And calling Israel an apartheid state? A: Could be

Conlon: Could criticism of this Administration's policy be covered? DOJ lawyer: Objection. Judge: This is about visa. I'm going to sustain that. Conlon: Are you familiar with 4(b) of INA, to remove? DOJ lawyer: Show him the statute. Conlon: Trying to be efficient

Conlon: You have control of the mouse - here, instead of being ineligible, they are deportable, correct? Armstrong: It does say that, based on a finding of the Secretary of State. Conlon: So criticism of the Trump administration policy on Israel could be enough?

Armstrong: If someone said Hamas should kill those in the Trump administration Conlon: You've used an outrageous hypothetical. But at deposition you merely said, Possibly... You worked on the cases of Mahmoud Khalil and Yunseo Chung? Armstrong: Mr. Chung [sic]

Armstrong: I do remember Mr. Khalil's name... Judge: Ms. Conlon, you have 45 minutes more for examination, if you want to reserve 45 minutes for closing. Conlon: I understand. You sent the Action Memos about Mahmoud Khalil and Yunseo Chung to Secretary Rubio?

Armstrong: If you say so, counselor, I believe you. Conlon: Look at the end of your Action Memo DOJ lawyer: This copy has our redactions, so I... Conlon: We'll just move on. So was this never done before? Armstrong: Secretary Rubio had been in the saddle 6 weeks

Conlon: The referral was March 14, approved on March 15? Armstrong: Yes. Conlon: And in those 24 hours, 15 people reviewed it? Armstrong: It could have been more than 24 hours. But let's say, 24 hours. It says, it's "info." Conlon: Let's turn to Ms. Ozturk

Conlon: Do you have access to the Action Memo? Isn't on your screen. Armstrong: Exhibit EY, correct? Conlon: Yes. It says on Ms. Ozturk, 4(c) was cited Armstrong: I underlined that, so they are my notes Conlon: The court has ruled that's privileged

Armstrong: She had a connection to a banned student group - Conlon: She co-wrote an op-ed Armstrong: There was more that that. Conlon: But your decision was based only on the action memo, right? Armstrong: I acted on the memo.

Judge: Did you consider at least two actions - one, the writing of the op-ed, and two, affiliation with the group that sponsored the op-ed that had, you are inferring, a connection with the now-banned student group, right? Armstrong: I focused on her actions

Armstrong: Associations are not speech. And these grounds created a hostile environment for Jewish students. The op-ed was not a key factor. It just indicated her motivation to create a hostile environment. The group was suspended Conlon: She wasn't part of it

Conlon: I don't think she deserves to be besmirched further - Judge: Just a moment, that's inappropriate. You ask questions, that's it. I draw the inferences. Conlon: I understand. Mr. Armstrong, it's right in front of you Armstrong: She was associated with TSJP

Conlon: You used a provision that allows revocation not for foreign policy reasons, but any reasons. Armstrong: I take discretion seriously. Conlon: No further questions. Judge: Re-direct? DOJ lawyer: None

P.S. Now Judge Young setting up closing arguments - plaintiffs will go first, then the defendants / US Gov't. We'll stand in recess - I have somewhere to go, it's a nice day outside. [True] [Vlog coming]