I would, and you would - anybody would - but Trump won't.
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Feb 25, 2026
Tom Powell Jr
If you're not guilty, you'd be eager to release every scrap of information that would prove you're not guilty.
Feb 12, 2026
The Korean Vegan
An Executive Order is not the law.
And I can't believe anybody has to be reminded of that - but here we are.
Feb 4, 2026
Score Card
Since the 70s, Trump has been accused of some kind of sexual misconduct by somewhere between 38 and 70 women and girls.
Not to get too pushy with it, but if we stop to consider that upwards of 90% of all sexual assault incidents go unreported, the number of girls and women who've been pawed or raped or forcibly molested by that fuckin' jerk could easily be well over 500. Maybe a thousand or more.
Now then - let's think about how often Trump has practically made a career out of filing defamation suits against people he thinks have slandered him. He's filed way over 4,000 lawsuits in the last 50 years.
That's a lawsuit every 5 days or so.
But he's never filed a defamation suit against any of his accusers. He's filed plenty of suits against media outlets for reporting on his history of assaults and misconduct, but I can't find anything that says he's ever sued an accuser.
Are ya feelin' it?
RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES
On Liam And His Dad
I knew there had been a win in court. I didn't know how bigly the judge had dunked on Kristi Noem and Donald Trump.
This is outstanding.
Jan 13, 2026
The DOJ Is Dogshit Now
7. The law is my sword, but not your shield.
7a. The law is my shield, but not your sword.
One very obvious hallmark of an authoritarian government is selective enforcement.
These assholes aren't going to investigate the perp - they're going after the victim.
So I'm pretty sure we'll be hearing some very fucked reports of what a rotten black-hearted agitator Renee Good was - because they have to make it look like she had it coming, and the noble ICE agent did us all a big favor and blah blah fucking blah.
God damn these assholes all to hell.
At least there are (or were) a few decent people who'll stand up and do what they can to serve our the interests, and the interests of actual justice.
Top DOJ officials quit after their division refused to probe Minnesota ICE shooting
At least four leaders of the Civil Rights Division resigned because the section's head, Harmeet Dhillon, decided not to investigate shooting of Renee Good.
At least four leaders of a Justice Department unit that investigates police killings have resigned in protest over the administration’s handling of the fatal shooting of a motorist in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, according to three people briefed on the departures.
Top leaders of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division have left their jobs to register their frustration with the department after the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon decided not to investigate the ICE officer’s fatal shooting of Renee Good last week. The criminal section of the division would normally investigate any fatal shooting by a law enforcement officer and specializes in probing potential or alleged abuse or improper use of force by law enforcement.
The departures – including that of the chief of the section, as well as the principal deputy chief, deputy chief and acting deputy chief – represent the most significant mass resignation at the Justice Department since February. At that time, five leaders and supervisors of the department’s Public Integrity Section, which investigates public officials for possible corruption, resigned rather than comply with an appointee of President Donald Trump’s orders to dismiss the bribery case against then-New York mayor Eric Adams.
One source briefed on the reasoning for the resignations said the handling of the ICE shooting was not the only concern for the unit leaders and that some were concerned about other decisions by division leadership.
“Investigating officials to determine if they broke the law, defied policy, failed to deescalate, and resorted to deadly force without basis is one of the Civil Rights Division’s most solemn duties,” said Kristen Clarke, who led the division in the Biden administration.
“Prosecutors of the Civil Rights Division have, for decades, been the nation’s leading experts in this work.”
A Justice Department official did not dispute the departures but said the officials had requested early retirement prior to the Minnesota shooting, adding that “any suggestion to the contrary is false.”
Good’s shooting on Jan. 7 has galvanized Democrats and civil libertarians but also frustrated Minnesota politicians and state police investigators. On Jan. 10, the FBI announced it would be handling the investigation of Good’s shooting on its own and blocked Minnesota authorities from their typical role in reviewing evidence and investigating the shooting themselves. On Tuesday night, the state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul filed a lawsuit attempting to block the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement actions there, which Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced would grow following Good’s death.
Vice President JD Vance has defended the ICE officer, saying one day after Good’s death and with no investigation, that the shooting was justified. Trump himself made inaccurate claims that Good had “run over” the ICE officer, which video evidence contradicts.
Democrats accused the Trump administration of trying to seize the evidence in the shooting as part of what they called a coverup.
Late last week, according to a source briefed on the matter, a deputy for Dhillon relayed to the criminal section that Dillon had decided the office would not conduct a separate DOJ investigation of the ICE officer and whether he improperly used deadly force. Dhillon’s decision not to have her criminal section investigate the ICE officer’s shooting of Good was first reported by CBS News.
In the days after the ICE officer shot Good, Dhillon retweeted a post on X in which a prosecutor warned people not to ram ICE officers because they will use deadly force. While federal officials claim Good was driving into the officer, video evidence shows her wheels were turned away from him when the officer opened fire and killed her.
The department’s Civil Rights Division was created in the wake of the 1957 Civil Rights Act to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. The division had about 380 attorneys when Trump took office in January but quickly saw a large exodus after Dhillon took the helm, as she insisted the division would align itself with the president’s priorities. She said in April that she welcomed the departures of civil rights lawyers.
“I think that’s fine,” Dhillon said. “We don’t want people in the federal government who feel like it’s their pet project to go persecute police department based on statistical evidence or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence.”
“The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws — not woke ideology.”
Top DOJ officials quit after their division refused to probe Minnesota ICE shooting
At least four leaders of the Civil Rights Division resigned because the section's head, Harmeet Dhillon, decided not to investigate shooting of Renee Good.
At least four leaders of a Justice Department unit that investigates police killings have resigned in protest over the administration’s handling of the fatal shooting of a motorist in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, according to three people briefed on the departures.
Top leaders of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division have left their jobs to register their frustration with the department after the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon decided not to investigate the ICE officer’s fatal shooting of Renee Good last week. The criminal section of the division would normally investigate any fatal shooting by a law enforcement officer and specializes in probing potential or alleged abuse or improper use of force by law enforcement.
The departures – including that of the chief of the section, as well as the principal deputy chief, deputy chief and acting deputy chief – represent the most significant mass resignation at the Justice Department since February. At that time, five leaders and supervisors of the department’s Public Integrity Section, which investigates public officials for possible corruption, resigned rather than comply with an appointee of President Donald Trump’s orders to dismiss the bribery case against then-New York mayor Eric Adams.
One source briefed on the reasoning for the resignations said the handling of the ICE shooting was not the only concern for the unit leaders and that some were concerned about other decisions by division leadership.
“Investigating officials to determine if they broke the law, defied policy, failed to deescalate, and resorted to deadly force without basis is one of the Civil Rights Division’s most solemn duties,” said Kristen Clarke, who led the division in the Biden administration.
“Prosecutors of the Civil Rights Division have, for decades, been the nation’s leading experts in this work.”
A Justice Department official did not dispute the departures but said the officials had requested early retirement prior to the Minnesota shooting, adding that “any suggestion to the contrary is false.”
Good’s shooting on Jan. 7 has galvanized Democrats and civil libertarians but also frustrated Minnesota politicians and state police investigators. On Jan. 10, the FBI announced it would be handling the investigation of Good’s shooting on its own and blocked Minnesota authorities from their typical role in reviewing evidence and investigating the shooting themselves. On Tuesday night, the state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul filed a lawsuit attempting to block the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement actions there, which Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced would grow following Good’s death.
Vice President JD Vance has defended the ICE officer, saying one day after Good’s death and with no investigation, that the shooting was justified. Trump himself made inaccurate claims that Good had “run over” the ICE officer, which video evidence contradicts.
Democrats accused the Trump administration of trying to seize the evidence in the shooting as part of what they called a coverup.
Late last week, according to a source briefed on the matter, a deputy for Dhillon relayed to the criminal section that Dillon had decided the office would not conduct a separate DOJ investigation of the ICE officer and whether he improperly used deadly force. Dhillon’s decision not to have her criminal section investigate the ICE officer’s shooting of Good was first reported by CBS News.
In the days after the ICE officer shot Good, Dhillon retweeted a post on X in which a prosecutor warned people not to ram ICE officers because they will use deadly force. While federal officials claim Good was driving into the officer, video evidence shows her wheels were turned away from him when the officer opened fire and killed her.
The department’s Civil Rights Division was created in the wake of the 1957 Civil Rights Act to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. The division had about 380 attorneys when Trump took office in January but quickly saw a large exodus after Dhillon took the helm, as she insisted the division would align itself with the president’s priorities. She said in April that she welcomed the departures of civil rights lawyers.
“I think that’s fine,” Dhillon said. “We don’t want people in the federal government who feel like it’s their pet project to go persecute police department based on statistical evidence or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence.”
“The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws — not woke ideology.”
"For my friends, everything;
for my enemies, the law"
Jan 2, 2026
About That 1A Thing
The 1st amendment doesn't give you protection to say anything you wanna say.
Fraud is not protected by the first amendment.
When your words are used to incite violence, your ass is not covered.
No rights are absolute or unlimited.
Guilty AF
I guess my question has to do with Ex Post Facto. Is Trump "covered" by the SCOTUS Immunity Decision for actions he took before the decision was handed down?
On July 1, 2024, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts.
Unfortunately, I think the default on that one is "yes".
So we'll be heading back to SmarmSpace® to argue it out all over again - ie: when Trump incited the Jan6 mob, was he acting as President Trump, or as Candidate Trump?
Nov 23, 2025
Bye Bye
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
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.
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.
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."
So guess what.
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.
ICE NOT WELCOME: Verify, Document, and Report
WE KNOW OUR RIGHTS when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is at our door.
When ICE impersonates police, these are the types of stories they often tell:
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
- 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
If you have experienced ICE’s deceptive and illegal tactics, please share your story.
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
- Get answers to frequently asked questions about ICE impersonation of police.
- Keep this information handy: download the printable door hanger.
- Download the printable community handbook.
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.
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
- Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
- In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak, who are caught in the schemes he devises.
- He boasts about the cravings of his heart; he blesses the greedy and reviles the Lord.
- In his pride the wicked man does not seek Him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
- His ways are always prosperous; your laws are rejected by him; he sneers at all his enemies.
- He says to himself, “Nothing will ever shake me.” He swears, “No one will ever do me harm.”
- His mouth is full of lies and threats; trouble and evil are under his tongue.
- He lies in wait near the villages; from ambush he murders the innocent. His eyes watch in secret for his victims;
- 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.
- His victims are crushed, they collapse; they fall under his strength.
- He says to himself, “God will never notice; he covers his face and never sees.”
- Arise, Lord! Lift up your hand, O God. Do not forget the helpless.
- Why does the wicked man revile God? Why does he say to himself, “He won’t call me to account”?
- 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.
- Break the arm of the wicked man; call the evildoer to account for his wickedness that would not otherwise be found out.
- The Lord is King for ever and ever; the nations will perish from his land.
- You, Lord, hear the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
- 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.
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!!!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)