Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts

Nov 23, 2025

Bye Bye



Texas National Guard troops to be recalled from Illinois soon, according to reports

Several media outlets, quoting anonymous federal officials, reported that hundreds of Texas troops could be coming home soon from the Chicago area after their activation was halted by a federal court.


Texas National Guard troops are expected to soon return from Illinois amid legal challenges that halt their deployment to the Chicago area, several media outlets reported this weekend.

In early October, Gov. Greg Abbott authorized the federal government’s mobilization of 400 troops from Texas to other states to “safeguard” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. According to the U.S. Northern Command, around 200 Texas Guard members were in the Chicago area as of Oct. 8.

State and local governments in Illinois objected to the out-of-state soldiers’ presence, and a federal court quickly ruled that they couldn’t be activated, but didn’t have to withdraw from the state.

The legal fight between Illinois and the federal government over the issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the case remains pending — the court asked for more legal briefings by Monday. It’s unclear when a ruling could come.

Media outlets including CNN and The New York Times reported that Texas National Guard troops are preparing to return home, citing anonymous U.S. officials.

The Department of Defense on Sunday pointed The Texas Tribune to a Friday post on X by the Northern Command that says it will be adjusting National Guard troops’ presence in Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles “in the coming days” to “ensure a constant, enduring, and long-term presence in each city.”

“Our troops in each city (and others) are trained and ready, and will be employed whenever needed to support law enforcement and keep our citizens safe,” the post said.

Abbott’s office on Sunday referred the Tribune to the Pentagon.

Matt Hill, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s deputy chief of staff for communications, said in a Saturday post on X that the Trump administration doesn’t update the governor’s office on military movements within the state. He also raised concerns about the federal government’s discussion about maintaining a long-term National Guard presence in these cities.

“This confirms what we have always known: this is about normalizing military forces in American cities,” Hill said. “Illinois will continue fighting for our state sovereignty, protecting people’s rights, and keeping our communities peaceful.”

Due Process, Bitch

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Amendment 14:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



Trump administration cannot expand rapid deportations, US appeals court rules

REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
Nov 22 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Saturday declined to clear the way for U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to expand a fast-track deportation process to allow for the expedited removal of migrants who are living far away from the border.

A 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to put on hold the central part of a ruling by a lower-court judge who had found that
the administration's policies violated the due process rights of migrants who could be apprehended anywhere in the U.S.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in an Aug. 29 ruling sided with an immigrant rights group and blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from enforcing policies that exposed migrants to the risk of rapid expulsion if the administration believed they had been in the country for less than two years.

The administration asked the D.C. Circuit to stay that ruling while it appealed.
But U.S. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and J. Michelle Childs said the administration was unlikely to succeed in showing its systems and procedures adequately protected migrants' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

The judges, both appointees of Democratic presidents, cited "serious risks of erroneous summary removal" posed by the administration's effort to expand the fast-track deportation process away from the borders to cover the entire U.S.

While the court largely left Cobb's order in place, it stayed part of it to the extent it required changes to how immigration authorities determine if someone has a credible fear of being sent back to his or her country of origin.

U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented and called Cobb's ruling "impermissible judicial interference."

The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The administration's appeal on the merits is scheduled to be heard on December 9.

For nearly three decades, the expedited removal process has been used to quickly return migrants apprehended at the border. In January, the administration expanded its scope to cover non-citizens apprehended anywhere in the U.S. who could not show they had been in the country for two years.

The policy mirrored one the Trump administration adopted in 2019 that Democratic President Joe Biden's administration later rescinded. The Trump policy also was challenged by the immigrant rights advocacy group Make the Road New York.


Oct 29, 2025

About That DHS Fuckery




We checked DHS’s videos of chaos and protests. Here’s what they leave out.

Trump administration videos purporting to show the triumph of recent immigration operations used footage that was months old or recorded thousands of miles away, an analysis found.


The Department of Homeland Security posted a swaggering montage to social media in August declaring it had triumphed in its takeover of Washington, D.C. It showed footage of federal agents fighting what a DHS official called a “battle for the soul of our nation” and working “day and night to arrest, detain and deport vicious criminals from our nation’s capital.”

There was one problem. Several of the clips had been recorded during unrelated operations months earlier, in Los Angeles and West Palm Beach, Florida. The official’s sound bite about deportations in D.C. played over a clip from May showing detainees on a Coast Guard boat off the coast of Nantucket, the Massachusetts island 400 miles away.

Officials in President Donald Trump’s administration have used similarly misleading footage in at least six videos promoting its immigration agenda shared in the last three months, a Washington Post analysis found, muddying the reality of events in viral clips that have been viewed millions of times.


Some videos that purported to show the fiery chaos of Trump-targeted cities included footage from completely different states. One that claimed to show dramatic examples of past administrations’ failures instead featured border crossings and smuggling boats recorded during Trump’s first term.

The Post provided DHS a detailed list of videos featuring misleading footage. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin did not dispute the errors or explain what had happened but said the videos were a small percentage of the more than 400 that the agency has posted this year. “Violence and rioting against law enforcement is unacceptable regardless of where it occurs,” she said.

The Post sent the same details to the White House. Abigail Jackson, a spokeswoman there, did not comment on the errors but said “the Trump administration will continue to highlight the many successes of the president’s agenda through engaging content and banger memes on social media.”

DHS’s video operation now includes in-house photographers and videographers who routinely capture the action of ICE raids and protest responses for videos that administration officials have widely promoted online. In a video DHS posted to X this month, a man in a Border Patrol flak jacket, his camera held aloft, can be seen jogging to catch up with officers putting a detainee into an SUV.

The administration’s intense digital strategy has helped grab Americans’ attention and shape discussion around current events, with some of its videos now capturing bigger audiences on social media than mainstream news reports. A White House video claiming Chicago was “in chaos,” which used footage from other states, has been viewed more than 1.4 million times across Instagram, TikTok and X.


But John Cohen, a former DHS official who worked on federal law enforcement and intelligence issues under both Democratic and Republican administrations, said the mix of misleading and polarizing content could weaken the administration’s ability to build trust with the American public long-term.

During his time in government, Cohen said, law enforcement and security officials worked to ensure that “any message or content we were putting out was absolutely accurate,” fearing misleading information would push people to start tuning them out during national emergencies.

“If people come to believe that what you’re saying is inaccurate or not based on an objective evaluation of a threat or emergency situation, they’re not going to pay attention or listen to you,” said Cohen, who now works at the nonprofit Center for Internet Security. “The goal of a law enforcement organization should be to de-escalate. And the way you de-escalate is by providing accurate information.”

‘Soul of our nation’

The misleading example about the “battle for the soul of our nation” was offered in the form of a news-style video featuring DHS deputy assistant secretary Micah Bock. A collection of video clips showcased how the operation had worked to safeguard the “hallowed halls” of Washington, the “heart of our republic,” according to Bock.

But The Post’s analysis, which used reverse-image searches, geolocation tools and other techniques to find the clips’ original sources, found that stretches of the footage had been filmed in different places or times than DHS had presented.

Some footage came from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in L.A., according to The Post’s analysis, which matched it to a DHS press release.


Other clips came from an ICE video showing officials conducting “routine daily operations” in February in West Palm Beach. The footage had been uploaded to the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, a public repository of military and law enforcement video run by the Defense Department.

A third set of video clips came from federal operations in May on the islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, which ICE said led to 40 arrests. The Nantucket Current, a small local news outlet, had published photos and videos onto its website and Instagram while reporting on the arrests, during which agents detained undocumented immigrants at traffic stops and loaded them onto a patrol boat for removal.

DHS’s X account reposted the Current’s video that month. So did White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who added, “Bye bye! 👋”

“The visual of it was really jarring to see,” said Jason Graziadei, the Current’s editor in chief. “Typically when you see ICE arrests, they don’t involve a Coast Guard boat and life jackets.”

‘Antifa terrorists’

BTW - I'm kinda hard-pressed to think of anyong I've ever met who didn't at least partly identify as anti-fascist.
Are people just not thinking this shit thru?
How is anybody who claims to love our little Constitutional Republic not against fascism? 

The video wasn’t the only DHS release to use a journalist’s footage without credit — or to get its location wrong.

The freelance journalist Ford Fischer was scrolling through X earlier this month when he saw a DHS video overlaid with a message saying “antifa terrorists” had stormed federal facilities in Portland, Oregon. But he recognized the footage because he’d captured it himself days earlier, outside an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois.

The video, which The Post verified, had been cropped to remove Fischer’s watermark. And it seemed to bolster Trump’s claim that the Oregon city was overwhelmed by violent leftists who were “burning [it] to the ground.”

But Fischer had recorded the footage 1,700 miles away, at a prominent protest zone outside Chicago, where federal agents routinely scuffle with protesters seeking to block an ICE facility’s gate.

Fischer said he worried the video’s misleading description could warp Americans’ understanding of how the government was interacting with the public. He also questioned how the mistake was made in the first place: In Broadview, Fischer said, he saw multiple DHS officials gathering video of the scuffles, including one holding a camera-stabilizing tool known as a gimbal commonly used by professional videographers and influencers.


“They seem very media-savvy and very focused on the production of these slick high-end videos,” he said. “But it creates a sense of concern about how the work is being used and how it’s being disconnected from the original source.”

‘Resounding in their thankfulness’

Footage from the Broadview clashes was misused in another DHS video in September seeking to champion federal agents’ move into Memphis. In the video, Bock said the Tennessee city’s communities had been “abandoned to crime and lawlessness” and that residents had been “resounding in their thankfulness” when DHS moved in.

But in the video, Bock spoke over clips showing armed guards outside the ICE facility in Illinois, more than 500 miles away. The video, which was bookended by footage showing Memphis landmarks and its mayor, gave no indication it was recorded in a different state.

‘Decimated our way of life’

Beyond getting its places wrong, the DHS videos have also given incorrect dates.

In a video from this month saying Trump had “secured our nation,” DHS shared clips it said showed how past administrations’ failures had let in criminals who “decimated our way of life.” One showed a middle-of-the-night crossing of the Southern border, while another showed a smuggling boat.

The video did not mention, however, that both scenes had played out in 2019, the third year of Trump’s first term. The border-crossing video was posted to DVIDS and came from a Border Patrol checkpoint in Arizona. The boat clip — which DHS labeled as coming from New York — was taken from a Coast Guard interception in international waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean, thousands of miles away, a DVIDS entry shows.

‘Chicago is in chaos’

The White House has made notable errors in its own video operation, posting a video this month that claimed “Chicago is in chaos” and said the city “doesn’t need political spin — it needs HELP.”

The video, however, recycled footage from a months-old ICE operation in Florida, not far from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club. A fact-checker at Agence France-Presse also found other clips in the video had come from operations in Arizona, California, Nebraska, South Carolina and Texas, some of which had been recorded during President Joe Biden’s time in office.

In a statement to the Daily Beast, which first reported the mismatch, a spokesman for Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) made a joke about one of the video’s more notable telltale details. Chicago, he said, isn’t known for its palm trees.

‘I really appreciate you guys’

In one case, ICE posted a photo that many people suspected was false but was mostly accurate.

Earlier this month, ICE’s X account shared a photo of a woman holding a sign outside its facility in Portland that read, “I really appreciate you guys!” Many users argued the image was a fake, saying the strange angles of her arm, the odd contours of the sign and the visual artifacts around the edges of her body suggested the image had been doctored or generated by artificial intelligence.

DHS shared surveillance video of the scene with The Post showing the woman with the sign was real. But an examination of the footage by The Post and independent analysts also found that the photo had been retouched in a way the agency did not disclose. On the sidewalk under the woman’s feet, someone had written, “Chinga la migra” — a Spanish-language curse against the immigration authorities. Most of the message was removed in the image shared by ICE, save for two of the letters visible behind her legs.

The flawed clips show the risks for the administration as it pushes to build support and capture attention through the social media and online-video feeds many Americans now view as their sources for news.

The department has invested in a nationwide social media ad campaign warning undocumented immigrants they should leave the country or be “hunted down.” It also recently bought a $28,000 Skydio X10D drone to add to its aerial recording fleet; ICE this month posted a drone video of protesters clashing with officers onto its Facebook page.

Some of that real-world footage has been used in the department’s trolling memes and dark jokes around mass deportation. One clip, showing a home’s door being blown off as part of a Chicago ICE operation, was used in a video splicing together detained immigrants with Pokémon soundtracked to the cartoon’s theme song, “Gotta Catch ’Em All.”

The White House explained the administration’s strategy of online irreverence in March by telling The Post it would help “reframe the narrative” around immigration and push back against criticism “in the harshest, most forceful way possible.”

But the pattern of misleading clips in their news-style videos amount to more than just minor editing errors, said Eddie Perez, a former director for civic integrity at Twitter, now called X. Instead, they suggest that the administration has worked to undercut criticism by pumping out videos that could deceive Americans about the scale or success of their policies, transforming government channels into propaganda tools.

“What we are witnessing is the collapse of government accountability through communication based on facts,” he said. “They’re not trying to communicate actions and outcomes. They’re acting like filmmakers, trying to make people laugh, to make them feel scared, to inspire certain emotions regardless of the truth.”

DHS hasn’t let the criticism slow them down. Officials there have continued to frequently post immigration and protest videos in a newscast-like format, often by including an official criticizing the “fake news hoaxes” of media reporting and explaining why viewers should turn to them for the real truth.

“If you lie or smear our brave men and women of @ICEgov law enforcement, you WILL be debunked,” DHS said in an X post on Sunday. “Watch here for the FACTS.”

Oct 17, 2025

Today's Heather

Nobody is against paying the troops.

What Trump is doing to get around the law (The Antideficiency Act) is a big deal. It stinks of a standard authoritarian move to grab more power by ignoring - ie: disbanding - the legislature.

(Notice how Mike Johnson has conveniently sidelined The House)

It's a big fuckin' deal.


Oct 3, 2025

Ask And Ye Shall Be Answered

In June, SCOTUS handed Trump another pass by ruling that lower courts can't put a restraining order on the whole federal government in response to a lawsuit filed in a local or regional jurisdiction - unless its a class action suit that reaches across jurisdictions.

So guess what.


US-born citizen sues after twice being arrested by immigration agents

Leonardo Garcia Venegas was twice arrested in construction site sweeps.


Alabama man sues federal government after being detained by ICE twiceAttorney Jaba Tistsuashvili says his client, Garcia Venegas, was wrongly detained by ICE twice, one of which was a violent encounter, despite showing his real ID to prove his American citizenship.
A U.S.-born citizen who was arrested and detained by immigration authorities twice in recent months has filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming he was improperly detained.

Leonardo Garcia Venegas, an American citizen and construction worker who lives and works in Baldwin, Alabama, claims the arrests were "unreasonable" and violated the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

"DHS authorizes these armed raids based on the general assumption that certain groups of people in the industry, including Latinos, are likely illegal immigrants," Venegas' attorney claimed in the lawsuit. "Once immigration officers are on a site, they preemptively seize everybody they think looks undocumented."

The lawsuit is a proposed class action complaint filed on behalf of U.S. citizens and lawful residents who, while working a construction job, "have been or will be subject to the Warrantless Entry Policy," the suit said, amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.

The complaint alleges that immigration officers have enforced policies adopted by the Department of Homeland Security that "grant federal immigration officers sweeping search and seizure powers."

"ICE does NOT arrest or deport U.S. citizens," Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement responding to accusations that immigration authorities have detained American citizens. "Any U.S. citizens arrested are because of obstructing or assaulting law enforcement."

According to the lawsuit, Venegas, who was born in the United States, was first detained in May at a construction site by armed men in camouflage.

"The officers ran right past the white and Black workers without detaining them and went straight for the Latino workers," his attorney claimed in the lawsuit.

Two weeks later, Venegas was allegedly arrested again on another private construction site "when another immigration patrol saw him working and assumed, without reasonable suspicion, that Leo was undocumented."

Both times, Venegas claims he told the officers he was a citizen and showed them his REAL ID, an identification card issued only to citizens and lawful residents, the lawsuit said.

"But the officers still wouldn't let him go," the suit said.

The lawsuit included 19 examples of citizens and lawful residents who have been allegedly detained "in circumstances" like Venegas.

"As Leo's experience shows, these unlawful policies have real consequences for innocent, hardworking Americans," the lawsuit said.

Trump seeks expedited Supreme Court review of birthright citizenship executive order
A statement released by DHS said that during a targeted worksite operation, "Garcia Venegas attempted to obstruct and prevent the lawful arrest of an illegal alien."

"He physically got in between agents and the subject they were attempting to arrest and refused to comply with numerous verbal commands," the statement said. "Anyone who actively obstructs law enforcement in the performance of their sworn duties, including U.S. citizens, will of course face consequences which include arrest."

Jul 12, 2025

A Built-In Problem

There was a very similar problem with German SS. They were initially tasked with shooting prisoners, and it fucked up their morale something awful.

I guess we can only hope Stephen Miller isn't concocting some shitty scheme to provide a better "solution".

And I have to wonder - it seems pretty obvious that there aren't millions of dangerous criminals among the undocumented immigrants. Will this fact finally break thru, and show people the problem isn't what they've been told it is?


Jun 21, 2025

Bounty Hunters

Face masks, no uniforms, no insignia, no way to identify them.

Tom Homan's lame excuses about trying to keep these thugs safe from the evil doxxers are total bullshit. Who's going to keep regular people safe from them?

No one is obligated to treat these assholes like anything but kidnappers and traffickers.

The government's fuck-around games are going to get people killed.




ICE NOT WELCOME: Verify, Document, and Report

WE KNOW OUR RIGHTS when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is at our door.

  • We know not to open the door.
  • We know to ask for a warrant.
  • We know not to answer any questions.
But now, ICE agents have resorted to trickery and deception. Instead of identifying themselves as ICE, they mispresent themselves as police or probation officers. They use intimidation tactics to coerce their way inside of people’s homes. They tell fake stories designed to lure a person out of their home or to trick people into inviting the agents inside or give up information.

When ICE impersonates police, these are the types of stories they often tell:
  • We’re police investigating a serious crime and just want to ask a few questions. Can we come in?
  • We’re police and there is an issue with your car. Can we come outside?
  • We’re probation officers looking for a person that lives at this house. Are they here? Can we come in?
Communities that know their rights can lawfully prevent ICE from entering their homes and protect themselves, their neighbors, and their loved ones. Learn more about your rights and share widely.

The following information is produced by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California for educational purposes only. This is not intended as and is not a substitute for legal advice.

Verify, Document, and Report

Don’t be fooled. Know your rights. When ICE shows up at your door, remember to safely* take these three important steps:
  • VERIFY their identity and purpose.
  • DOCUMENT the encounter.
  • REPORT what happened.
1. VERIFY. Determine the officer’s agency and whether they are really police or probation.
  • Look at their uniforms. Uniforms are one way to tell what agency an officer is from. ICE usually wears civilian or plain clothing with black bulletproof vests. Oftentimes, it says “POLICE” on the front or back. Local police, on the other hand, wear distinct uniforms with identifying insignias.
  • Ask what police or probation department they are from. Remember what they say. If they lie, make sure to document it.
  • Ask to see proof of who they are.
  • Ask to see a business card or a badge.
  • Ask if they have a warrant signed by a judge.
2. DOCUMENT. Determine the officer’s agency and whether they are really police or probation. Record the encounter with video or audio. Remember names, times, and details. Documentation and witnesses can be critical to a legal defense, should that be necessary later.
  • Ask for their names and titles. If you can, write them down.
  • Ask why they are there.
  • Find someone to witness the encounter — either from inside the house or outside.
  • Document the details of any questioning, search, or arrest.
3. REPORT. Share what happened and seek legal assistance if necessary.
  • Call your local Rapid Response Network to report the incident and to seek legal assistance, if needed.
  • Share video or other documentation on social media.
  • Report the incident to your consulate or a community organization.
* Remember to stay safe. If an officer tries to enter your home without your permission, do not block the doorway or physically obstruct the officer. Just tell the officer: “I do not consent to you entering my home” and document the encounter. And never answer any questions about citizenship or immigration status without advice of a lawyer. If you are searched, against your will, say: “I do not consent to this search.”

Together, we can protect each other and our families, friends, and neighbors. What happened to you might be happening to others. Only with that information can we fight back.

More Resources
We are actively working to stop ICE from deploying deceptive and illegal tactics that put our communities at risk. Learn more about our lawsuit.

If you have experienced ICE’s deceptive and illegal tactics, please share your story.

Jun 6, 2025

Progress

Trump made some noise about spitting on the courts. Guess what happened then.




Kilmar Abrego Garcia is back in U.S. custody after being illegally deported and will now face criminal charges

The courts ordered the administration to facilitate his return after he was deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order.


Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran native whose deportation by the Trump administration was declared illegal by the Supreme Court and generated a national furor, is back in U.S. custody and will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.

Abrego Garcia was secretly indicted by a federal grand jury in Nashville last month on two felony charges: transporting undocumented immigrants and conspiring with others to do so. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, when police found Abrego Garcia at the wheel and nine other men in an SUV, all of whom were Hispanic and lacked identification, according to the indictment.

The indictment was unsealed Friday after Trump administration officials acknowledged Abrego Garcia was in custody of U.S. authorities. Abrego Garcia’s return was first reported by ABC News.

Abrego Garcia’s return follows months of extraordinary brinkmanship between the Trump administration and federal courts, a Supreme Court rebuke, diplomatic intrigue and a domestic political crisis over the episode.

Abrego Garcia, who allegedly entered the U.S. illegally more than a decade ago, had been living in Maryland when the Trump administration deported him to El Salvador in March. The deportation violated a 2019 immigration-court order that barred the U.S. from sending him there because he was at risk of being targeted by a local gang.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return. For months, the administration publicly resisted that order. At times, Trump and his top aides suggested Abrego Garcia would never return to the United States.

“There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said last month during a hearing before a Senate appropriations panel.

May 13, 2025

I Don't Hate Trump

Well, I do actually, but it's not because I just decided to hate that Tangerine Tinhorn.

I hate all the things he does, and all the negative qualities that make him who he is.

I hate dishonesty, and self-dealing, and general fuckery.
  • and rape
  • and grifting
  • and stealing from charities
  • and extortion
  • and fascism
  • and sexually molesting children
  • and fraud
  • and
  • and
  • and
All the shitty things that define Donald Trump - taken either individually or together - I hate them.

And I think hating bad things is necessary to both social and personal health.


Mar 19, 2025

Wednesday's Bible Thing


Psalm 10
  1. Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
  2. In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak, who are caught in the schemes he devises.
  3. He boasts about the cravings of his heart; he blesses the greedy and reviles the Lord.
  4. In his pride the wicked man does not seek Him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
  5. His ways are always prosperous; your laws are rejected by him; he sneers at all his enemies.
  6. He says to himself, “Nothing will ever shake me.” He swears, “No one will ever do me harm.”
  7. His mouth is full of lies and threats; trouble and evil are under his tongue.
  8. He lies in wait near the villages; from ambush he murders the innocent. His eyes watch in secret for his victims;
  9. like a lion in cover he lies in wait. He lies in wait to catch the helpless; he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net.
  10. His victims are crushed, they collapse; they fall under his strength.
  11. He says to himself, “God will never notice; he covers his face and never sees.”
  12. Arise, Lord! Lift up your hand, O God. Do not forget the helpless.
  13. Why does the wicked man revile God? Why does he say to himself, “He won’t call me to account”?
  14. But you, God, see the trouble of the afflicted; you consider their grief and take it in hand. The victims commit themselves to you; you are the helper of the fatherless.
  15. Break the arm of the wicked man; call the evildoer to account for his wickedness that would not otherwise be found out.
  16. The Lord is King for ever and ever; the nations will perish from his land.
  17. You, Lord, hear the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
  18. defending the fatherless and the oppressed, so that mere earthly mortals will never again strike terror.
Pray, hope, meditate, count your rosary - do whatever you think will ease your mind.

But know this: god is not coming to help you.

We save ourselves from this ungodly shit, or we won't be saved at all.


Jan 30, 2025

Duty To Disobey


An unlawful order in the military is an order that violates the Constitution, laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders.

Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) governs orders given in the military. 
It covers failure to obey orders or regulations, and dereliction of duty.

Soldiers who violate a lawful order can be held for criminal violations.

What are some examples of unlawful orders?
  • Orders that are vague, overly broad, or intended to harass or humiliate a service member 
  • Orders that violate established laws, regulations, or the UCMJ 
  • Orders that an officer gave that they did not have the authority to give 
What are some defenses to disobeying an unlawful order?
  • Lack of knowledge
  • The order was not lawful
  • Inability to comply
  • Mistake of fact
  • Duress
What should you do if you receive an unlawful order?
  • Consult with an experienced military defense attorney
  • Understand your rights
  • Present your case
If you're active duty military, Nat'l Guard, or reserves, and you're being ordered to violate the Constitutional rights of a US citizen - or anyone else - then you need to know your own rights and obligations.

GI Rights Hotline
877-447-4487

Jan 16, 2025

Slippery

I guess it's pretty easy to say Merrick Garland fucked this up. Sure looks like it.

It's just hard to tell how much damage Trump did at DOJ in his first term, and how much of a headwind Garland had against him from inside the department because of that damage.

That may be one of those things we just never get to know. Maybe it'll come out in somebody's memoir down the road.

But this is where we are, and this is what we've got, and we have no choice but to move forward - trying to keep track of all the Trump shit as we go - taking whatever solace there is to be found in the knowledge that some sunny morning, we're going to wake up to the ringing of bells because his obituary is all over the news.

MIllions of MAGA rubes will cry, as billions of normal people cheer.


Special counsel report says Trump would’ve been convicted for Jan. 6 ‘unprecedented criminal effort’

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith said his team “stood up for the rule of law” as it investigated President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, writing in a much-anticipated report released Tuesday that he stands fully behind his decision to bring criminal charges that he believes would have resulted in a conviction had voters not returned Trump to the White House.

“The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process,” the report states.

The report, arriving just days before Trump is to return to office on Jan. 20, focuses fresh attention on the Republican’s frantic but failed effort to cling to power in 2020 after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. With the prosecution foreclosed thanks to Trump’s 2024 election victory, the document is expected to be the final Justice Department chronicle of a dark chapter in American history that threatened to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, a bedrock of democracy for centuries, and complements already released indictments and reports.

Trump responded early Tuesday with a post on his Truth Social platform, claiming he was “totally innocent” and calling Smith “a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election.” He added, “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

Trump had been indicted in August 2023 on charges of working to overturn the election, but the case was delayed by appeals and ultimately significantly narrowed by a conservative-majority Supreme Court that held for the first time that former presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. That decision, Smith’s report states, left open unresolved legal issues that would likely have required another trip to the Supreme Court in order for the case to have moved forward.

Though Smith sought to salvage the indictment, the team dismissed it in November because of longstanding Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution.

“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,” the report states. “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

The Justice Department transmitted the report to Congress early Tuesday after a judge refused a defense effort to block its release. A separate volume of the report focused on Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, actions that formed the basis of a separate indictment against Trump, will remain under wraps for now.

The report is unsparing in its details about schemes undertaken by Trump to undo the presidential contest, accusing him of an “unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power.”

It recounts his role in trying to force the Justice Department to use its law enforcement authorities to advance his personal interests and in participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden, and it says he directed “an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters’ violence to further delay it.”

And it documents his fallout with his vice president, Mike Pence, over Trump’s demands that he refuse to certify the electoral count before Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. It says that just before he left the White House to deliver a speech at the Ellipse that day, he called Pence one last time and that when the vice president told him that he planned to issue a public statement that he lacked the authority to do as Trump had requested, “Mr. Trump expressed anger at him. He then directed staffers to re-insert into his planned Ellipse speech some language that he had drafted earlier targeting Mr. Pence.”

Though most of the details of Trump’s efforts to undo the election are already well established, the document includes for the first time a detailed assessment from Smith about his investigation, as well as a defense by Smith against criticism by Trump and his allies that the inquiry was politicized or that he worked in collaboration with the White House — an assessment he called “laughable.”

“While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters,” Smith wrote in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland attached to the report. “I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters.”

The special counsel also laid out the challenges it faced in its investigation, including Trump’s assertion of executive privilege to try to block witnesses from providing evidence, which forced prosecutors into sealed court battles before the case was charged.

Another “significant challenge” was Trump’s “ability and willingness to use his influence and following on social media to target witnesses, courts, prosecutors,” which led prosecutors to seek a gag order to protect potential witnesses from harassment, Smith wrote.

“Mr. Trump’s resort to intimidation and harassment during the investigation was not new, as demonstrated by his actions during the charged conspiracies,” Smith wrote.

“A fundamental component of Mr. Trump’s conduct underlying the charges in the Election Case was his pattern of using social media — at the time, Twitter — to publicly attack and seek to influence state and federal officials, judges, and election workers who refused to support false claims that the election had been stolen or who otherwise resisted complicity in Mr. Trump’s scheme,” he added.

Smith also provided fresh analysis about his team’s prosecution decisions, writing that his office decided not to charge Trump with incitement in part because of free speech concerns, or with insurrection because he was the sitting president at the time and there was doubt about proceeding to trial with the offense — of which there was no record of having been prosecuted before.

Dec 31, 2024

Old News - But Still

It doesn't hurt to remind ourselves every day what a fucking fucked up loser MAGA's mango-faced dumbass ape god is.



Trump loses appeal of E. Jean Carroll $5-million defamation, sexual assault verdict

NEW YORK, Dec 30 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a $5-million verdict that E. Jean Carroll won against Donald Trump when a jury found the U.S. president-elect liable for sexually abusing and later defaming the former magazine columnist.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected Trump's argument that the trial judge should not have let jurors hear evidence about the Republican's alleged past sexual misconduct, making the trial and verdict unfair.

The court said that evidence, including Trump bragging about his sexual prowess on an "Access Hollywood" video that surfaced during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, established a "repeated, idiosyncratic pattern of conduct" consistent with Carroll's allegations.
"Taking the record as a whole and considering the strength of Ms. Carroll's case, we are not persuaded that any claimed error or combination of errors in the district court's evidentiary rulings affected Mr. Trump's substantial rights," the court said in an unsigned decision.

The May 2023 verdict stemmed from an incident around 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan, where Carroll, now 81, said Trump raped her, and an October 2022 Truth Social post where Trump denied Carroll's claim as a hoax.
Though jurors in federal court in Manhattan did not find that Trump, 78, committed rape, they awarded the former Elle magazine advice columnist $2.02 million for sexual assault and $2.98 million for defamation.

That position is supported by most U.S. lawmakers.

'HOAX,' TRUMP SPOKESPERSON SAYS

A different jury ordered Trump in January to pay Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her and damaging her reputation in June 2019, when he first denied her rape claim.
In both denials, Trump said he did not know Carroll, she was "not my type," and that she fabricated the rape claim to promote her memoir.

Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesperson, said in a statement that Americans "demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed."

It was not clear if any appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump tapped Cheung last month to be his White House communications director.
Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, said in a statement: “E. Jean Carroll and I are gratified by today's decision."

Carroll's cases are continuing despite Trump's having won a second four-year White House term.

In 1997, in a case involving former President Bill Clinton, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously, opens new tab that sitting presidents have no immunity from civil litigation in federal court over actions predating and unrelated to their official duties as president.

EVIDENCE SHOWED PATTERN: COURT

Trump argued the $5-million verdict should be thrown out because the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is not related to Roberta Kaplan, should not have let jurors hear testimony from two other women who accused him of sexual misconduct.

One, businesswoman Jessica Leeds, said Trump groped her on a plane in the late 1970s. The other, former People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff, said Trump forcibly kissed her at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005.

Trump's lawyers also said the trial judge should not have let jurors watch the 2005 "Access Hollywood" video, where Trump boasted graphically about forcing himself on women.
But the appeals court said that in each of these encounters, "Mr. Trump engaged in an ordinary conversation with a woman he barely knew, then abruptly lunged at her in a semi-public place and proceeded to kiss and forcefully touch her without her consent."
It said this was "relevant to show a pattern tending to directly corroborate witness testimony and to confirm that the alleged sexual assault (of Carroll) actually occurred."

The court also rejected Trump's claim that Kaplan should have allowed evidence that a prominent Democratic critic, billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, funded Carroll's case, saying it had "little probative value." Carroll is also a Democrat.

Judge Kaplan also oversaw the trial that ended with the $83.3 million verdict.

Dec 16, 2024

Beg Pardon



Biden must ignore pardon myths and protect Patel’s and Trump’s targets
Patel issued unprecedented threats. Biden must respond.


Since President Joe Biden began seriously considering an amnesty for people at risk of retribution from President-elect Donald Trump and his FBI pick (who comes armed with an enemies list), the pearl clutching and myth-spinning about pardons have spread. Biden should pay attention to history and case law, not misinformed critics.

The first myth: A broad amnesty would be unprecedented, an intrusion into the rule of law.
That is categorically false. More than a dozen presidents dating back to George Washington have granted amnesty to a defined, large group of Americans. As legal scholar Frank O. Bowman III pointed out:

George Washington issued pardons in 1794 to defuse the lingering tensions of the defeated Whiskey Rebellion. President Andrew Johnson made extensive (and controversial) use of the pardon power to civilly rehabilitate former Confederates. A century later, Gerald Ford issued a conditional amnesty and Jimmy Carter a full pardon to Vietnam draft evaders.
Presidential amnesties for categories of people have been commonplace. After Washington, President John Adams issued a broad pardon for those involved in the Fries Rebellion in 1799 in Pennsylvania (i.e., prosecutions of “any person or persons by reason of their being concerned in the said insurrection”). With a small exception, President James Buchanan, for example, pardoned Brigham Young and his Mormon followers who had engaged in a conflict with the U.S. military. In the 19th century, Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland also issued pardons to Mormon polygamists.

The White House Historical Association recounts that presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Warren G. Harding granted amnesty to various groups of Americans — citizens convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts for Jefferson, and 24 political prisoners (including Eugene V. Debs) for Harding.

Moreover, the association explains, “As decided in Ex Parte Garland (1866), presidents may issue pardons at any time after the commission of a federal offense, even before federal charges have been filed or a sentence has been imposed.”)

What is entirely unique is that an incoming president and a would-be FBI director nominee have explicitly named people and groups (e.g., prosecutors) they want to go after. To meet that unique threat, Biden should issue amnesty to the most vulnerable group of Americans: witnesses against Trump whom Trump and Kash Patel have already threatened.

The second myth: Some people might not want amnesty.
Again, this is not a valid reason to refuse to extend it to those who very much do want and need protection. Some individuals enjoy immunity from prosecution on other grounds so won’t need additional protection; they would be excluded from the amnesty. House members on the Jan. 6 committee immune under the speech and debate clause, along with and federal and state prosecutors operating under the color of law, almost certainly cannot be prosecuted.

But that leaves some ordinary Americans, primarily witnesses and those who provided material to courts, grand juries, Congress and federal investigators, to twist in the wind. It’s small comfort that such people would eventually be exonerated. Criminal trials and appeals can cost millions of dollars and ruin reputations as well as likely increase the physical threats many of these figures already face.

The third myth: Amnesty would not completely protect the recipients.
It is correct that such an amnesty would not protect recipients from criminal investigation for future conduct, from civil suits or from IRS audits. It is an imperfect solution to the problem of a rogue, irresponsible president-elect empowering intended nominees to seek vengeance. However, by limiting the pardon to a discrete group of people, making clear this is essentially a witness protection program to insulate the recipients from Trump’s wrath, Biden can spare some conscientious citizens and alert the public to the dangers Trump and Patel pose.

The fourth myth: Accepting amnesty is an admission of guilt.
This is false. The most recent case on the scope of pardons, 2021’s Lorance v. Commandant, held that the defendant’s acceptance of a full and unconditional presidential pardon did not amount to an admission of guilt, and therefore the defendant did not waive his habeas rights upon accepting it.

Lorance also dealt with a common misperception concerning a Supreme Court case, 1915’s Burdick v. United States, which seemed to suggest that accepting a pardon constituted “a confession” of guilt. However, Lorance explained that that statement referred to how the pardon recipient might feel. In other words, though acceptance might make the recipient “look guilty” in the eyes of some, it does not make the recipient legally guilty.

Biden in his amnesty statement can underscore that acceptance is no admission of wrongdoing but rather confirmation that the incoming president poses extreme and unprecedented threats to political enemies — something indicative of an authoritarian regime, not a great democracy.

The fifth myth: This would open the door to pardon abuses by Trump and/or mar Biden’s legacy.
The first is laughable given Trump’s pardon track record (e.g., Michael Flynn, Sheriff Joe Arpaio) and his plans to pardon those convicted of violent crimes on Jan. 6, 2021. He needs no excuse to flout democratic norms. (By the way, Biden might not have considered amnesty had not Trump recently repeated his threats and chosen Patel for FBI director with barely a whisper of complaint from Republicans. If Trump renounced revenge and found a fit nominee, none of this might be necessary.)

As for Biden, his Hunter Biden pardon statement explained that he acted because “raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.” It certainly follows that he should act to keep raw politics — unabashedly announced in advance — from leading to a miscarriage of justice.

If ordinary citizens face retribution for daring to testify against powerful bullies, few will do so. To preserve the justice system, to encourage people to provide evidence, Biden should grant them amnesty — in effect setting up a witness protection program. It is the least he can do for selfless Americans.

Nov 13, 2024

Today's Brian & Glenn

I think I get it - gotta be careful about setting precedent, and you don't wanna hand the bad guys a weapon they can use against you later (assuming of course we actually find our way outa this fucked up mess), and we have to interpret the law, and apply the law, and not try to make the law on the judiciary side - etc etc etc. I'm there. I get it.

But goddammit - I'm so fucking sick of rich people stomping around in smarmspace manufacturing loopholes - using and abusing the courts to duck responsibility.

Here's a thought: Obey the fucking law. Could we try that for a while?


Oct 24, 2024

Skullduggery Is Afoot

The effort to overthrow democracy in 2020-2021 didn't fail - when the movers and shakers go unpunished, it wasn't a failure - it was a rehearsal.


This piece in Wired is a long one. But it's important to remember that the Trump problem is complex and gnarly.

Synopsis:
  • Constitutional Sheriffs believe they're the ultimate and absolute authority
  • They get to choose which laws they enforce and which ones they can ignore
  • They've been testing their theories by seizing voting gear and harassing election officials
  • Some have been organizing private militias, and posses (ie: vigilantes) to patrol voting stations
  • Under the guise of "election security" they're being organized to ensure Republican wins at any cost
  • Their claims to power are not legit - "Sheriff" is not in the US Constitution


'Take Back the States': The Far-Right Sheriffs Ready to Disrupt the Election

Constitutional Sheriffs are duly elected lawmen who believe they answer only to god. They've spent the last six months preparing to stop a "stolen" election—by any means necessary.


Dar Leaf and Richard Mack don’t seem like they would pose a threat to US democracy.

Leaf, a sheriff from Barry County, Michigan, always has at least two pens clipped neatly to his shirt pocket and speaks softly with a Midwestern accent. When we meet at an April event in Las Vegas, Nevada, Leaf is immaculately dressed in a sheriff’s uniform, replete with the polished gold star.

Mack also wears a gold star—even though he’s no longer a sheriff. But in the Ahern Hotel ballroom in Vegas, Mack played the part. In a ten-gallon hat, Mack was genial; shaking hands with guests, joking with vendors, and taking selfies with supporters.

This wasn’t an average get-together. Leaf and Mack were at a conference for the far-right Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, or CSPOA, a group described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-government organization with links to many other extremist groups.
Constitutional sheriffs are actual elected sheriffs who also believe they are the ultimate legal power in their county, and that no federal or state authority can usurp their authority. They also believe that a sheriff’s power stems directly from the constitution, and that they can disregard any laws they deem unconstitutional—a belief that is not grounded in reality.

Leaf is on the board of the group; Mack is the founder. And there are hundreds of members around the country.

In Las Vegas, Mack referred supporters and journalists to Leaf, who was, he said, “doing more than anyone to uncover election interference” in his role as sheriff.

A staunch Trump supporter, Leaf has spent the last four years investigating voter fraud in the 2020 federal election in Barry County—even though Donald Trump won decisively there. He has attempted to seize voting machines, pushed wild conspiracies, and ultimately became the focus of state investigations himself. In at least one case, Leaf appears to have inspired an election official to refuse to verify a vote—an ominous warning ahead of the 2024 US election.

The conspiracies have also taken a physical turn: According to emails shared exclusively with WIRED by the nonprofit group American Oversight, Leaf has run a militia training course advising “potential jurors, homeschoolers, ladies and gentlemen” to “get a standard AR-15 type military grade weapon” and “500 rounds of ammo.” The emails also show that, ahead of the most consequential election in a generation, Leaf is in regular contact with a wide variety of election conspiracists.

Leaf and a number of his colleagues in the Constitutional Sheriff movement say that they have “posses” to patrol polling stations, monitor for “illegal” immigrant voters, and help sheriffs respond to reports of fraud—or anything else—on election day.

Mack, meanwhile, has been the driving force behind the modern day Constitutional Sheriffs movement. In the last six months, Mack’s group has mobilized across the US, building relationships with powerful figures close to Trump, training armed militias, and laying out plans for when Democrats inevitably, in their view, try to steal the election. They’re laying the groundwork to challenge the outcome of next month’s vote—and recruiting sheriffs to help them assert control if Trump loses.

“In a swing state like Michigan or Wisconsin, where the difference in the state's outcome is 50,000 to 70,000 votes, if a sheriff becomes an obstacle, then that could undermine that state's credibility, says Will Pelfrey, a professor of criminal justice and homeland security at Virginia Commonwealth University. “In a swing state, that could undermine the entire national election.”

A WIRED investigation reviewed hundreds of documents and conducted dozens of interviews over the course of the last six months. We found that the Constitutional Sheriff movement believes it is the last line of defense to protect American elections. At conferences in Las Vegas and Florida, as well as online in group chats and Zoom meetings, their discussions often turn to how sheriffs can utilize their unique power in order to, they say, safeguard democracy.

For years, sheriffs like Leaf who believe they have unlimited power to interpret and enforce the laws of the land have operated on the fringes. But as the election approaches, they have been increasingly empowered by those close to Trump and are more committed than ever to ensuring a Republican victory up and down the ballot. At all costs.

Today, one in four sworn law enforcement officers in the US report to a sheriff. In addition to running county jails, sheriffs and their deputies make approximately 20 percent of all arrests in the nation, according to one estimate, translating to around 2 million arrests every year. In nearly one in three US counties, sheriff departments are the largest law enforcement agency, meaning sheriff’s offices are the primary law enforcement agency for 56 million people.

“Sheriffs are really beholden to nobody,” says Pelfrey. “Once elected, a sheriff has tremendous power, and there have been sheriffs who have been convicted and still hold office. It's a bizarre thing. It shouldn't exist, but sheriffs are not beholden to a governor or to a president, and the only way to enforce state or federal laws for a recalcitrant sheriff is the National Guard. And that's not a viable system.”

At the April event in Las Vegas, Mack worked the room incessantly. Together with Leaf, he built links with the leaders of the election denial movement, discussing and preparing for the recruitment of like-minded citizens to patrol polling stations and stop “illegal” immigrants from voting in the election. The event was a veritable who’s who of the right-wing election denial movement, including former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, pillow salesman Mike Lindell, and the de facto leader of the movement, disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

On stage, Flynn told the sheriffs they have “a huge role and responsibility in this country” and that only their local-level work will halt voter fraud. During his speech, Byrne said that constitutional sheriffs would need to play a vital role in fighting the influx of “15 million military-age men.” He also claimed that a “well-regulated militia is not a dirty phrase” and urged sheriffs in attendance to build “surge capacity” by partnering with local militias.

“The constitutional sheriffs, or any sheriff in this county, have mega power at the county level,” Lindell told WIRED in Las Vegas. He suggested that sheriffs could arrest voters for illegally voting in the wrong county, adding that they could “put a moratorium” on the voting machines if they suspect fraud is taking place. And he cited Leaf, who spoke at the event, as an example that all sheriffs should follow.

“Our job is basically to make sure that my guys are educated on the election laws, start looking for the violations, trying to get the election clerks to start paying attention if somebody drives in and they've got a whole van full of people that look like they're not from around our area, and they can say no and then make them take it through the courts,” Leaf told WIRED that week, referencing the conspiracy that “illegal immigrants” were being relocated over the border by Democrats to sway the election in favor of Kamala Harris.

To make sure his deputies follow his lead, Leaf said he is working with others to produce a guide on how to properly police elections—something he said he was going to share with all sheriffs across the country in time for the US elections.

“The role of the sheriff has always been to maintain the peace, and he's your chief law enforcement officer and chief conservator of the peace of your county,” Leaf said. “And when you get people cheating on elections, that's disturbing the peace. You violated somebody's peace.”

None of these claims of constitutional power and control are true.

“There is no constitutional basis for their claims to power, zero, it's just not in the constitution,” says representative Jamie Raskin, the congressman from Maryland who spent decades working as a constitutional law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law. “County sheriffs have no more sovereign-state political power than municipal police chiefs or mayors or county commissioners. The whole claim is completely fictional. It's a pure fabrication.”

Still, anyone paying attention is nervous: Leaf has publicly defended members of the Wolverine Watchmen militia who plotted to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. “It’s just a charge, and they say a 'plot to kidnap' and you got to remember that,” he told a local news outlet. “Are they trying to kidnap? Because a lot of people are angry with the governor, and they want her arrested. So are they trying to arrest or was it a kidnap attempt? Because you can still in Michigan, if it’s a felony, you can make a felony arrest.” And he has run an eight-week militia training course, called Awaken Our Constitution’s Sleeping Militia Clauses, that he openly advertised on his Facebook page as recently as January.

The contents of the course, according to emails reviewed by WIRED, are based on a 2010 booklet from Brent Allen Winters, a sovereign-citizen believer, titled “Militia of the Several States,” which outlines a belief that armed militias are granted their power not from the constitution but from God, harking back to a time during the American Revolution when men in some areas were fined for not bringing their guns to church. The booklet even cites the Old Testament as justification for organizing an armed militia.

As Winters and Leaf see it, a member of a militia has two duties: “Armed defense of the land from enemies foreign and defense of the law of the land from enemies domestic.”

In one slide, titled “Do Your Duty,” which was shown to attendees of Leaf’s training course, Winters wrote: “Get started. Get a standard AR-15 type military grade weapon. Get 500 rounds of ammo.”

“There should be militias connected with every sheriff,” Leaf told The Guardian in July.

Experts like Devin Burghart, executive director of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights and someone who has closely chronicled the Constitutional Sheriffs movement for years, are also tracking how the organization is now interacting with other extremist, “paramilitary” groups.

”The Vegas CSPOA conference was about more than recruiting far-right sheriffs,” Burghart claims. “It was about plotting a road map for coordinated election interference and insurrection 2.0.”


In the weeks after the 2020 election, Trump and his advisers were scrambling to challenge the election results when a relatively unknown former Army Reserve lieutenant colonel named Ivan Raiklin started tweeting. Raiklin told Trump that he should play the “Pence card” and force then vice president Mike Pence to refuse to certify the results of the election.

While Raiklin cited a real provision of the US legal code, his plan had no basis in law. Trump retweeted and endorsed Raiklin’s plan, and while it ultimately went nowhere, the “Pence card” was a precursor to the Trump internal legal team’s coup memo that laid out a plan for Pence to overturn the election result on January 6, 2021.

Four years later, Raiklin is now a superstar in the world of election denial. Ahead of the 2024 election, he has a new scheme to guarantee Trump’s win. It involves the constitutional sheriffs.

Raiklin has compiled a “Deep State target list” of more than 350 names, reviewed by WIRED, that includes elected Democratic and Republican lawmakers, FBI officials, journalists, members of the House January 6 committee, US Capitol police officers, and witnesses from Trump’s two impeachment trials. His plan is to get constitutional sheriffs to round up those people in livestreamed swatting raids so they can be punished for treason. Raiklin, who is closely connected to Flynn’s organization, also wants sheriffs to “deputize” people into armed militias or “posses” to help facilitate the arrests.

“We have hundreds of thousands that want to participate in retribution,” Raiklin said in a June video interview with Cliven Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher who became a far-right icon after a dispute in 2014 over grazing fees led to an armed standoff with federal authorities. “Some people call it accountability.”

Raiklin met with Mack at the Las Vegas conference and tried to recruit sheriffs to his cause. In June, Raiklin and Mack met again and had “a good discussion,” according to Mack, who would not expand on what exactly the pair discussed. Raiklin refused to speak to WIRED in Vegas and didn’t answer questions sent afterward.

While Trump has not endorsed the Constitutional Sheriffs movement directly, he has spent recent years courting sheriffs around the country. In September 2018, Trump stood in the White House surrounded by almost four dozen sheriffs. Front and center was Thomas Hodgson, then sheriff of Bristol County in Massachusetts.

Hodgson was there to present Trump with a plaque, and praised him for his “strength of purpose” and “commitment to [his] convictions.” The inscription read in part: “There’s a new sheriff in town.” A supporter of the Constitutional Sheriff movement, Hodgson was tapped by Trump in late 2019 to become an honorary chairman of Trump’s Massachusetts reelection effort.

Trump held around a dozen meetings with sheriffs at the White House during his four years in office, more than any other president—and that’s not counting the regular appearances of sheriffs at Trump rallies and campaign stops. Mark Lamb, a constitutional sheriff from Pinal County, Arizona, spoke at Trump rallies in his home state and in Illinois. Trump also emboldened sheriffs by removing Department of Justice oversight that the Obama administration had put in place and restarting a program to allow sheriffs departments to buy military-grade weapons at discounted prices.

“Trump’s tough-guy, xenophobic, and conspiracy-minded persona gave sheriffs a new model in the White House,” writes Jessica Pishko, author of The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy. “Under Trump, constitutional sheriffs had a friend and protector at the highest level of government.”

While Mack’s group is at the forefront of the Constitutional Sheriffs movement, there are many other sheriffs across the US who hold similar beliefs about the power of sheriffs. The movement has also found purchase with other prominent right-wing groups. In 2021, the Sheriff’s Fellowship was launched by the Claremont Institute, an influential far-right think tank involved in the drafting of Project 2025, whose stated goal is to see the US revert to a Christian-centric nation based on principles espoused by the founding fathers. The fellowship, which was funded by Trump’s former secretary of education Betsy DeVos, is a five-day training course in “American political thought and institutions” and has featured multiple self-identified constitutional sheriffs, including Leaf.

The closer constitutional sheriffs get to the mainstream GOP, the more cause for alarm.

“The danger of authoritarian attack on the democratic process is at its peak when you get an alliance between extremist vigilante groups like [the Constitutional Sheriffs] with elements of the actual political system, like a political party,” says Representative Raskin. “That's a dangerous combination if Donald Trump is going to be leading the Republican Party into election denialism and a determination to prevail over the rule of law, and you have violent paramilitary groups backing them up.”

Richard Mack’s law enforcement career began with rejection. “My father had just retired from the Bureau a few years earlier and I wanted to follow in his footsteps,” Mack wrote in his 2009 book titled The County Sheriff. “But, this dream never happened as I had some problems with one of the Bureau's entrance tests.” He instead decided to join the Provo (Utah) Police Department in 1979, where he says he immediately became a “by-the-numbers jerk” whose primary goal was writing as many tickets as possible.

In 1982, Mack went undercover on the narcotics beat. “I had to live in the bars, drink, smoke, and act like the biggest partying druggie there ever was (something totally foreign to my conservative Mormon upbringing),” Mack wrote.

The assignment opened Mack’s eyes to what he saw as the injustice of the drug war and how it was targeting US citizens rather than organized crime groups. Disillusioned with the police force, in 1988 Mack moved home to Safford, Arizona, and successfully ran for Graham County sheriff. This was where the Constitutional Sheriff movement began.

Constitutional sheriffs claim their power comes directly from the founding fathers, even though there is no mention of sheriffs in the constitution. Many sheriffs—including Leaf—cite a quote from a Thomas Jefferson letter as their justification for the importance of the position: “The office of Sheriff [is] the most important of all the Executive offices of the county.” The line was indeed written by Jefferson, but the letter focuses on Jefferson's complaints about lifetime appointments of local judges and how they abuse their office, Pishko writes in her book.

The roots of the modern day Constitutional Sheriffs movement originate in the far-right Posse Comitatus group, which was formed in the early 1970s by William Potter Gale, a minister of a militant antisemitic, white-nationalist quasi-religion known as Christian Identity. Gale lionized the idea of the county sheriff as a protector of the ordinary citizen who had the power to call up posses or militias to root out communism, fight the desegregation of schools, and remove—or even execute—federal officials.

Over the years, the ideas popularized by Gale would inspire a variety of far-right groups, individuals, and movements, including Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Incidents like the sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco in the early 1990s, the latter of which resulted in dozens of deaths, would be used as further evidence by figures like Mack who already believed the federal government was overstepping.

At the same time, Mack coordinated with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the Brady Bill, signed into law by then president Bill Clinton in 1993. The law mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers—carried out by sheriffs. For sheriffs like Mack, who almost uniformly view Second Amendment gun rights as sacred, this was too far.

In 1997, the Supreme Court sided with Mack and the NRA, finding that the provisions in the bill that forced sheriffs to perform the background checks were unconstitutional. Mack was no longer a sheriff, but he catapulted to fame on the far-right for standing up to the government. He became a regular on the militia and pro-gun speaking circuits and even did PR work for Gun Owners of America, a more hard-line version of the NRA.

Over the next decade, Mack continued to mix in far-right circles. In the early 2010s, he became a board member of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government militia led by former Army paratrooper Stewart Rhodes, who is currently serving an 18-year sentence for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. (Mack said he left the Oath Keepers around a decade ago when it became too militant, but CSPOA continued to support the group on its podcasts and newsletters in the years since the attack on the Capitol, helping raise money for Rhodes’ legal fund.)

In 2011, Mack founded the CSPOA to “take America back, Sheriff by Sheriff, County by County, State by State.” In 2014, Mack, together with members of the CSPOA and the Oath Keepers, was part of the now infamous armed standoff between the federal government and the Bundy family in Nevada.

The popularity of the CSPOA has waxed and waned over the course of its 13-year-old history, but the Covid-19 pandemic and protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 brought sheriffs back to the fold.

Mack reportedly encouraged sheriffs to ignore restrictions by federal and state officials meant to curb the spread of Covid; he also helped facilitate the spread of anti-vaccine disinformation as a board member of the conspiracy group America’s Frontline Doctors, a role for which he was, at one time, paid $20,000 a month. Mack, who to this day still refers to himself as “Sheriff Mack,” has not been a sheriff for almost 30 years. He unsuccessfully ran for other sheriff positions, and even governor of Utah and US senator in Arizona.

In interviews, Mack comes across as reasonable, repeatedly pointing out that the CSPOA is a nonviolent movement. But in the private members-only webinars he broadcasts weekly to his subscribers, he portrays a much darker side. In an August webinar, he said that his group was “obsessed” with monitoring next month’s vote and the “probability” that the election will be stolen as a result of the millions of illegal aliens being shipped into the country. In another webinar earlier this summer, Mack pushed an even darker conspiracy, that Democrats will allow Trump to win to instigate a civil war:

“The only way I see Trump winning is if they decide they want Trump to be in, that those who cheated last time are actually going to make sure he gets in,” Mack said. “Why do they want Trump in? Because they want the civil war to begin, and the violence that will be happening across this country will be horrendous.”

In September, Leaf appeared in Orlando, Florida, to discuss what extremism experts say is a “far-right blueprint for the next insurrection.” He was speaking at a conference organized by the Florida Foundation for Freedom, a group run by the CSPOA. Leaf was there to show other sheriffs how to take action.

The conference’s speaker list included a variety of election conspiracists with links to Trump—including far-right figure Mark Finchem, who is currently running for a seat in Arizona’s statehouse—and Christian nationalists, including Bill Cook, the founder of America’s Black Robe Regiment. Also speaking at the conference was Mary Flynn O’Neill, a director at America’s Future, the nonprofit run by her brother, Michael Flynn.

The event was organized by Bill Mitchell, the head of CSPOA’s Florida chapter, to promote a blueprint he created for constitutional sheriffs in other states to connect with like-minded election officials. The details of the plan were outlined in a seven-page document published on the foundation’s website, on CSPOA-headed paper.

“Take back the states, one constitutional sheriff at a time,” Mitchell said during a summer presentation about the plan.

When WIRED spoke to Mitchell, he denied that his plan was focused on disrupting the election. But the document clearly calls for citizen-led, local posses aligned with the CSPOA to recruit like-minded sheriffs, county commissioners, and supervisors of elections. Should those officials refuse to take action as directed, the plan states, allied sheriffs or posse-led grand juries will relieve them of their duties.

“Instead of a January 6–style centralized mass insurrection, these Florida activists developed a blueprint for a county-by-county-style revolt,” says Burghart, who analyzed the plan on IREHR’s website.

It’s not just Florida. In Las Vegas, Bob Songer, the sheriff in Klickitat County in Washington state, shared a 32-page guide with other sheriffs on how to recruit a posse, revealing that his own has 150 members. Leaf outlined how, when his Michigan election fraud investigation was going nowhere, he created his own “election investigation posse” consisting of two cybersecurity experts and a “clerk” to gather evidence.

Mack has also espoused his view that every sheriff should have his own posse. In a recent members-only webinar, viewed by WIRED, Mack and Sam Bushman, CEO of the CSPOA, wondered about the possibility of veterans temporarily moving to Leaf’s county in Michigan and being deputized to help his investigations into election fraud.

Mack’s views on the power of posses is deep-seated: “People get all upset when they hear about militias, but what’s wrong with it?” Mack reportedly said in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing at the NRA's national membership meeting, in which Mack was honored as the organization's law enforcement Officer of the Year. “I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to call out my posse against the federal government if it gets out of hand.”

“There's no federal constitutional prohibition against a posse,” says Will Pelfrey, a professor of criminal justice and homeland security at Virginia Commonwealth University. “It's kind of terrifying, because you're empowering a lot of fringe people to do something that they probably shouldn't be doing.”

Like lynching, maybe?

It’s not exactly clear how many constitutional sheriffs currently exist. Back in 2014, the group claimed it had 485 sheriffs signed up. In 2017, Mack told High Country News the group had 4,500 fee-paying members. By 2021, that number had risen to 10,000, Mack told VICE News, adding that his group had “trained 400 sheriffs.” Two years later, Mack told AZCIR that his groups had trained 1,000 sheriffs.

When WIRED asked Mack how many sheriffs were currently members of the CSPOA, he said 300 sheriffs could be described as “really solid.” He would not divulge how many paying members the group has.

While Mack and the CSPOA are the most prominent part of the Constitutional Sheriff movement, there are many other sheriffs who espouse the same beliefs. A 2022 survey conducted by the Marshall Project found that close to 50 percent of the sheriffs polled agreed with the constitutional sheriff mantra that “their own authority, within their counties, supersedes that of the state or federal government.”

Many sheriffs have also shied away from publicly aligning themselves with Mack, something the former sheriff readily admits. And yet Trumpworld, the election denial movement, and some of the most prominent far-right influencers are now seeking to team up with the sheriffs to influence the outcome of the US election.

In September, election denial group True the Vote told its followers that it was working with sheriffs to monitor drop boxes. While Mack told WIRED he hasn’t spoken to True the Vote about this specific plan, he has confirmed that the CSPOA is still actively working with True the Vote, though he declined to say in what capacity. Bushman also wouldn’t give details of their collaboration, but said: “It's more than just supporting what they're doing.”

In multiple conversations with Mack over the last six months, he repeatedly asserted that the CSPOA advocates only for nonviolent action in efforts to combat the alleged (and unproven) widespread voter fraud that is now the group’s driving force.

But Mack also maintains deep ties to Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers and is publicly meeting with figures like Raiklin, who in August also posted an ominous threat on X referencing the recent assassination attempt against Trump: “In a duel, each side gets one shot. They missed 36 days ago. Now it's [our] turn.”

Earlier this month, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security warned that “election-related grievances” could motivate domestic extremists to engage in violence around the election.

In a recent phone conversation, Mack’s tone sounded more deflated than antagonistic; he admitted that he was “frustrated” that more sheriffs were not taking a more active role in policing elections, a practice that has led to voters feeling intimidated in the past.

“President Biden and his administration have just caused so much extra work for the sheriffs, it's really hard to get them to focus on elections,” says Mack. Every sheriff in this country should verify the security and integrity of the voting in their county. Every single one.”

Dar Leaf, for one, remains focused. As he prepares to police an election while continuing to investigate the last one, he is clear-eyed about where the threat is coming from: immigrants and Democrats. He claims that America has received “other countries’ garbage,” and as a result, he needs to act.

“Any police officer who thinks that machine is bad or something criminal is going on,” Leaf says, “we have a duty to seize it.”