SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
department of justice
What Todd Blanche Failed to Learn From Watergate
Will Todd Blanche see how his loyalty to Trump personally—rather than to the nation he has taken an oath to serve—is leading him to an unfortunate destination? Probably not.
Jul 16, 2026
In 1974, Watergate culminated in the first-ever resignation of a sitting US president. As Richard Nixon left office, his closest advisers were in prison—or heading there. Among them were attorneys who broke the law that they had sworn to uphold, including his former attorney general John Mitchell.
Acting AG Todd Blanche now seeks Mitchell’s job.
- Like Mitchell, Blanche was a successful lawyer at a prominent New York law firm before joining the president’s team.
- Like Mitchell, Blanche has served the president slavishly. He personally interviewed Jeffrey Epstein’s imprisoned co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell who then got reassigned to a Club Fed; he guided the unlawfully incomplete release of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Epstein files; he spearheaded the effort to prosecute President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies; and he defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents publicly after they killed innocent Americans.
- And like Mitchell, Blanche’s ploys for Trump are sending him to a dark place.
The Latest Court Ruling
Blanche figures prominently in the recent opinion of Judge Kathleen Williams of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She ruled that Trump’s purported settlement of his $10 billion case against the IRS was a collusive farce.
The government had strong defenses to Trump’s lawsuit claim, including the statute of limitations bar; it asserted none of them. That's not surprising: Trump controlled the executive branch (including the IRS), which put him on both sides of the supposed dispute. Such a clear conflict of interest meant that there was no real “adverseness” between the plaintiff and defendant and, therefore, no “justiciable case or controversy” for the court to decide.
The purported settlement agreement established a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate, among others, January 6 insurrectionists whom Trump had pardoned. A separate, three-paragraph “release order” forever immunized Trump, his family members, and related parties from IRS investigations, claims, and audits that have haunted him for decades.
The court had harsh words—and sanctions—for the lawyers involved in perpetrating this abuse of the court process at taxpayers’ expense:
- Alejandro Brito represented Trump as plaintiff in the case. The judge referred him to the Florida Bar for consideration, review, and determination as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate.
- Daniel Z. Epstein’s name appeared on the complaint, and he signed the purported “settlement agreement” on behalf of plaintiff Trump. Epstein was a former White House senior associate counsel and special assistant to President Trump from 2017 until 2020. Because he is licensed to practice in Texas, not Florida, the judge barred his future applications to practice pro hac vice (special admission for a particular case) in the Southern District of Florida for a year or until her further order.
- Stanley Woodward Jr., associate attorney general under Blanche at the Department of Justice, signed the bogus “settlement agreement” on behalf of the DOJ. The court observed that Woodward had “represented several individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. He also represented Walt Nauta, who was President Trump’s personal aide and a co-defendant in the criminal matter involving the return of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.” The judge directed the clerk to send a copy of her 56-page ruling to the District of Columbia bar, where disciplinary proceedings are ongoing against Woodward.
Blanche’s Plight
And the court turned repeatedly to Todd Blanche:
- His signature alone was on the IRS “release order.” Its attempt to waive tax audits contravened federal law prohibiting “executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations.”
- Judge Williams was “extremely troubled” by Blanche’s congressional testimony on May 19, 2026, as to why the settlement agreement was not submitted to the court for review. She found his answer “at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous.”
- The court noted, “In this case,… notwithstanding his prior representation of President Trump, Blanche did not recuse [himself]” from the IRS matter.
- Blanche’s congressional testimony that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” aspect of the settlement would not go forward proved that the entire agreement was collusive: “Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.” That party was Donald Trump.
- Finally, she directed the clerk to send a copy of her ruling to the State Bar of New York, where Blanche is licensed. On June 22, 2026, more than 100 former state and federal judges had already filed a 73-page ethics complaint against him there.
A Freudian Slip and an Unhappy Ending
Early in Blanche’s confirmation hearing on July 15, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked him about his relationship with Trump.
“I’m his lawyer,” Blanche replied, before correcting himself to say that he “was” his lawyer.
Blanche’s initial impulse was closer to the mark. And he has already compromised his professional reputation and personal integrity.
In the service of Nixon personally, John Mitchell was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury in connection with his role in the Watergate break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent cover-up. He spent 19 months in prison and lost his law license.
Will Todd Blanche see how his loyalty to Trump personally—rather than to the nation he has taken an oath to serve—is leading him to an unfortunate destination? Probably not.
Will he learn anything from Judge Williams’s stunning rebuke or the ethics complaints he already faces? Probably not.
Will enough Republican senators stand up and refuse to confirm Blanche, who is blatantly unqualified to be the next attorney general? Probably not.
All Americans will bear the consequences of his failures.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Be Warned: Trump May Still Pull the Insurrection Act Trigger
During his first term, Donald Trump was reportedly dissuaded from invoking the act by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and other “grown-ups” in his first administration; this time around, there are no grown-ups in the building.
Feb 13, 2026
Donald Trump hasn’t forgotten about the Insurrection Act, and neither should you. In the face of plummeting poll numbers and public outcry over the deaths of Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, Trump may appear to be retreating from his threats to deploy the military to Minneapolis and other blue state cities, but any retreat is likely to prove temporary and tactical rather than a reversal of policy.
Throughout his career, Trump has been guided by the “lessons” he learned as a young real estate hustler from his odious one-time mentor and fixer Roy Cohn: Never retreat, apologize, or admit wrongdoing, and always remain on the offensive. In keeping with Cohn’s teachings, Trump has made threats to invoke the Insurrection Act dating to June 2020, when he vowed to use it to quell mass demonstrations related to the murder of George Floyd. He was reportedly restrained at the time by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and other “grown-ups” in his first administration.
This time around, there are no grown-ups in the building.
Since retaking the White House, Trump has doubled down on this threat. On the first day of his second term, he issued a presidential proclamation declaring a state of emergency at the southern border that directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security head Kristi Noem to develop plans, including using the Insurrection Act, to combat the now-familiar fantasy “invasion” of “cartels, criminal gangs, known terrorists, human traffickers, smugglers, and unvetted military-age males from foreign adversaries.” The proclamation laid the groundwork for Trump’s mass-deportation program and for giving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol the largest budgets of any police agencies in the country.
Invoking the Insurrection Act would be the biggest gambit of all, likely resulting in a historic showdown before the Supreme Court.
Trump again threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act last June, in response to protests in Los Angeles, and then again in October over demonstrations in Chicago. Although he stopped short in both instances, he has ramped up the rhetoric to new heights in reaction to the growing resistance movement in Minneapolis. Taking to Truth Social on January 15, he warned:
If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State.
Despite removing Border Patrol “commander at large” Greg Bovino from Minneapolis on January 26 in a gesture some observers saw as a modest measure of conciliation, the threats have escalated.
On January 27, Trump received a letter from the House Freedom Caucus, urging him to use ”all tools necessary,” including the Insurrection Act, “to maintain order in the face of unlawful obstructions and assemblages that prevent the enforcement of the laws of the United States.” Bolstered by the endorsement, Trump returned to Truth Social three days later to denounce Pretti as an “Agitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist.” And in another Truth Social screed on January 31, he pledged to “guard, and very powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists.” In a veiled reference to Pretti, he added that anyone caught “punching or kicking the headlights of our cars” or throwing bricks or rocks “at our vehicles, or at our Patriot Warriors […] will suffer an equal, or more, consequence.”
Whether Trump ultimately pulls the Insurrection Act trigger may depend on how he applies another of Roy Cohn’s lessons: Use the legal system to crush critics and opponents. Trump’s affinity for litigation is legendary. He has been involved in over 4,000 lawsuits, including several defamation actions taken against major media outlets like the New York Times, ABC, and CBS. In his second term, he has transformed the Department of Justice into his personal law firm, imposing sanctions on liberal law firms and elite universities by executive orders, and launching prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, and scores of rank-and-file anti-ICE protesters across the country. Even when the gambits fail, as they have with Comey and James, they send the chilling message that no one who defies or offends the president is safe.
Invoking the Insurrection Act would be the biggest gambit of all, likely resulting in a historic showdown before the Supreme Court. Trump has enjoyed extraordinary success in his Supreme Court cases, and with three of his nominees on the bench, he has reason to be optimistic about any final confrontation. Still, the outcome of any such move is uncertain.
In December, the court dealt Trump a surprising setback with an interim “shadow-docket” ruling (Trump v. Illinois) that blocked him from deploying National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The ruling was widely praised by liberal legal commentators, who saw it as a hopeful sign that the nation’s highest judicial body was willing to stand up to Trump’s incessant power grabs, at least on the use of the military for domestic law-enforcement purposes.
Unfortunately, the decision was temporary—all interim orders are—and narrow. It was also a split decision, with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
At issue in the case was the administration’s interpretation of a vague phrase in a statute that empowers the president to federalize members of the Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The administration argued the phrase referred to the inability of federal civilian law enforcement to maintain order during protests. The majority ruled instead that the phrase referred to the regular military, and that because Trump had not attempted to deploy the military and shown that it was unable to maintain order, he had not met the statute’s requirements.
As Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, the decision said nothing about the president’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act. Rather, Kavanaugh suggested, it opened the door for Trump to proceed. “One apparent ramification of the court’s opinion is that it could cause the president to use the US military more than the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.
To be sure, any invocation of the Insurrection Act would face legal challenges over whether the country is facing an actual rebellion, and the extent to which the military, if activated, is subject to the same constitutional restraints as civilian law enforcement. The challenges could succeed at the district court level, but from there, all bets would be off. The mad king would no doubt follow the advice of his erstwhile mentor, refuse to retreat, and ask his friends on the Supreme Court to intervene and allow his attacks to continue.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Authoritarian Tactic': Trump's DOJ Is Investigating Minnesota Leaders Walz and Frey
"This is a clear weaponization of justice against Trump's political rivals and a desperate attempt to distract from ICE's growing brutality and Trump's lawlessness," one Democratic senator said.
Jan 17, 2026
The Department of Justice is investigating Minnesota leaders including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, alleging that they are conspiring to impede federal immigration agents due to their outspoken criticism of the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to the Twin Cities.
The investigation, first reported by CBS News on Friday, marks yet another escalation from the Trump administration following the January 6 launch of what the Department of Homeland Security claimed was its larger-ever immigration operation in the Minneapolis area and the killing the next day of legal observer Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.
"Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic," Walz wrote on social media in response to news of the investigation. "The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her."
At the time of Good's death, Walz said the violence was the "consequence of governance designed to generate fear, headlines, and conflict" and told President Donald Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, "From here on, I have a very simple message: We do not need any further help from the federal government... you've done enough."
"This is 100% political retaliation and an implicit threat to all of us standing up for the Constitution."
Frey, meanwhile, responded to the shooting by telling ICE to "get the fuck out of Minneapolis!”
A source informed CNN that the Justice Department has issued subpoenas for both Walz and Frey, but neither leader's office had received any communication from the DOJ as of Friday.
"This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, local law enforcement, and residents against the chaos and danger this administration has brought to our city," Frey posted on social media Friday. "I will not be intimidated. My focus remains where it’s always been: keeping our city safe."
Frey continued: "America depends on leaders that use integrity and the rule of law as the guideposts for governance. Neither our city nor our country will succumb to this fear. We stand rock solid."
A US official told CBS News that the leaders were being investigated under 18 USC § 372, which says it is illegal for two or more people to conspire to stop federal agents from doing their jobs through "force, intimidation, or threats." However, this statute has not historically been used against people using their First Amendment right to criticize federal operations.
Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman called the investigation "total garbage" and "a complete and utter non-starter."
He added that the statute DOJ was invoking "requires force, intimidation, or threats," and that "there’s no way they could prove that, but even more… the First Amendment prevents any kind of action unless it is imminent and lawless.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, seemed to celebrate the investigation on social media, writing, "A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law."
Several Democratic politicians joined Walz and Frey in speaking out against the investigation on social media, including several from Minnesota.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called the investigation "an assault on our democracy and the rule of law."
"Speaking out against what our government is doing is not a crime in America—not now, not ever," she continued.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) wrote, "America deserves justice, not President Trump’s use of DOJ as a weapon against his perceived enemies. I stand with Gov. Walz."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said that the investigation was "even more proof that this has never been about making Minnesota safer. It has always been about political retribution for President Trump and his allies."
Beyond Minnesota, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote: "Donald Trump’s corrupted DOJ will stop at nothing—including ridiculous theories unsupported by facts—in pursuing his revenge agenda. No one is safe from his abuse of power. It’s sick."
"This is 100% political retaliation and an implicit threat to all of us standing up for the Constitution," posted Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) "I won’t be bullied and neither will the American people."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pointed to other times that Trump's DOJ had gone after his political opponents: "First it was Tish James and James Comey. Now it’s Senators, Governors, and the Fed Chair. In Donald Trump’s America you get a bogus investigation for doing your job. Americans reject this kind of totalitarian bullying. Where are Republicans? Hiding."
Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) both redirected attention to the killing of Renee Good.
"Instead of investigating the death of Renee Good, Trump wants to investigate Governor Walz and Mayor Frey. Despicable. This is a clear weaponization of justice against Trump's political rivals and a desperate attempt to distract from ICE's growing brutality and Trump's lawlessness," Van Hollen wrote on Friday.
In a follow-up post on Saturday, he continued: "Opening fraudulent investigations into Governor Walz and Mayor Frey is a textbook example of prosecutorial misconduct. Judges must start imposing sanctions and holding lawyers accountable. To every federal official participating in these shams: One day you will be held accountable."
Sen. Warren wrote: "Instead of seeking justice for Renee Good, Donald Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department to investigate and intimidate Democratic leaders in Minnesota. We will not stand by silently and be bullied into submission."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Hegseth's Boat Strikes Are International Terrorism
It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes.
Jan 06, 2026
There has been much heated discussion of the United States Navy’s attacks, ordered by the President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, against numerous unidentified boats and their unidentified occupants. Many have characterized these lethal strikes as crimes under international law, which is valid position. However, what is less understood and more relevant is that the attacks are crimes under United States law and that they also constitute “international terrorism” as that term is defined in United States law.
Title 18 USC §2331 defines international terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that:
- “Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…;”
- Either are a crime under United States law regardless of where they are committed or would be a crime if committed within the United States; that
- "Appear to be intended... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination...; and”
- “Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
The first, third, and fourth of those conditions are clearly met by the attacks off the coast of Venezuela because:
- 1) It is unquestionably true that the attacks on the boats have been violent and dangerous to human life because they have killed over 100 people;
- 3) Despite Trump’s and Hegseth’s ridiculous claim that the destruction of the boats and their occupants is necessary to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US, the real reason, as disclosed by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, is that they were using the attacks to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, i.e. “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination…;” and
- 4) They have occurred in international waters far outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
It is the second condition, i.e. whether the attacks (a) are a crime under United States law wherever they are committed or (b) would be a crime if committed in the United States, that determines whether they meet the definition of international terrorism under the law. If either or both are true, the condition is met.
As to the first alternative, i.e. whether the attacks are a violation of federal criminal law that applies regardless of where the attacks occur, the relevant federal criminal law is 18 USC § 2280. It provides that a person “who unlawfully and intentionally… performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship" or who "destroys a ship" commits a crime punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of "not more than 20 years, or both,” and if a death results from the violence or destruction, by a sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law’s definition of “ship” includes “a vessel of any type whatsoever,” i.e. the boats are ships within the meaning of the law. Finally, there is jurisdiction under the law when a person who commits the action is a “national of the United States.”
It is indisputable that the attacks constitute acts of violence against the people on the boats and that all of the boats have intentionally been destroyed. And even though Trump, Hegseth, and others have claimed that the attacks are lawful, their arguments do not stand up to even mild scrutiny. Their claim of lawfulness is based on a fictional state of war against the US, but there is in fact no war, no direct threat to the United States or its citizens, and no authorization by Congress for use of deadly force. Therefore, the attacks are clearly unlawful. Finally, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command who participated in ordering and commission of the attacks are nationals of the United States, so they fall within the jurisdiction of USC § 2280. Because the attacks have caused the death of those on the boats, the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment, which means it is a Class A felony per 18 USC § 3559. Therefore, the attacks are a crime under United States law.
The attacks on the boats also meet the alternative standard that they “would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.” That is, the intentional killing of people without due process, i.e. unlawfully, is the crime of murder pursuant to 18 USC §1111(a).
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name.
The conclusion is that the attacks clearly constitute crimes of violence against maritime navigation and murder under United States law. Therefore, the attacks are acts of international terrorism per 18 USC §2331. That is, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command that furthered the implementation of these attacks are international terrorists. And because the attacks are being made by the United States armed forces in the name of the United States government, it follows that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Even though the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity and impunity, and even though the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi will never prosecute Hegseth, et al., under 18 USC § 2280 or for murder, that does not affect the conclusion that the attacks on the boats are acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 USC §2331, and that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism. The facts speak for themselves.
I believe it is important that the American people recognize that the attacks on the boats constitute international terrorism under United States law and that the United States has thus become a state sponsor of international terrorism. The United States government has condemned, and continues to condemn, foreign governments, e.g. Iran, as alleged state sponsors of international terrorism. That the United States government has now become the world’s most egregious state sponsor of international terrorism makes those condemnations of other countries utter hypocrisy.
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name. It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes. Only then can the United States begin to expunge the stain of being a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Trump Admin Can't Investigate Minnesota Fraud Without Scapegoating Somalis
By framing what’s occurring in Minnesota as ‘the Somali fraud network,’ the Trump administration is looking to legitimize its months-long attack on the Somali community and distract from its own unpopularity.
Jan 03, 2026
On December 26, YouTuber Nick Shirley posted a video entitled, “I Investigated Minnesota’s Billion Dollar Fraud Scandal.” So far, the video has amassed over 2 million views and has been lauded by major conservatives including Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance. Via Twitter, Vance posted that, “This dude has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 @pulitzercenter prize.”
In response to the outcry from this video, the Trump administration is reportedly freezing federal childcare funding across all states. Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill called the measure necessary given the “blatant fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country.” While each state will face new requirements to regain funding, Minnesota will be subject to stricter scrutiny.
This is a drastic response, especially since Shirley’s video didn’t reveal anything new. The Department of Justice (DOJ)—under both President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden—was already investigating fraud in Minnesota. In 2022, 47 people were charged for their role in a $250 million fraud scheme that exploited a federally funded nutrition program during the Covid-19 pandemic. Several news outlets had reported on allegations of fraud regarding federally funded childcare centers in Minnesota months prior to Shirley’s video.
Shirley also doesn’t discover any new evidence. This is unsurprising given his deeply flawed approach. For instance, in the video, Shirley and his crew visit several Somali-owned daycare centers and ask the workers: “Where are the children at? Are there children here today?” Even if fraud was occurring at the sites he visited, the workers’ refusal to take a stranger with a camera to see the kids reveals nothing. Maybe there were no kids present. Or maybe they are simply responsible workers protecting the safety of the children from a potential creep.
This is not about fraud. It’s not about justice. It’s poor political theater from a battered and desperate administration.
Ultimately, if widespread fraud is occurring anywhere, then the people responsible should be held accountable. The problem, however, is that this outrage is being manipulated by the Trump administration to further scapegoat the Somali community.
Consider for instance this comment made by Attorney General Pamela Bondi via Twitter-X. She writes that the DOJ has been investigating this alleged daycare fraud case for months. Thus far, the department has “charged 98 individual—85 of Somali descent—and more than 60 have been found guilty in court.”
There is no reason whatsoever for Bondi to draw attention to the ethnic or racial background of any of the people being charged. She is emphasizing that information in order to help fuel and justify the Trump administration’s xenophobia.
By framing what’s occurring in Minnesota as “the Somali fraud network,” the Trump administration is looking to legitimize their months-long attack on the Somali community. In December alone, President Trump remarked: “We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.” Vice President JD Vance said that Democrats “are not sending their best” in reference to Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh. He claimed that Fateh was Representative Ilhan Omar’s “candidate for mayor of Mogadishu. Wait, I mean Minneapolis.” US Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller shouted, “If Somalians cannot make Somalia successful, why would we think that the track will be any different in the United States?”
The Trump administration is exploiting public outrage to further its assault on immigrants and their families. Already House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) has called for deporting all Somalis linked to fraud in Minnesota, including naturalized citizens. He further adds, “Our nation will not tolerate those who take advantage of our charity and refuse to assimilate into our culture.” Putting aside that most fraud in the US is committed by white Americans, stipulating that the US will not tolerate those who fail to embrace US culture has far wider implications than punishing criminals. This is about punishing diversity.
This is also why the administration has moved to freeze all federal childcare funding. Again, this fraud was already known and is still being investigated. To implement a measure that so indiscriminately and callously harms Americans—during an affordability crisis—is meant to redirect people’s genuine frustrations with the Trump administration onto the Somali community.
They will be the scapegoats for Trump’s violence. And they are only the beginning. On December 31, Trump posted on Truth Social: “There is more FRAUD in California than there is in Minnesota, if that is even possible. When you add in Election Fraud, then they are tied for first. Two Crooked Governors, two Crooked States!”
Trump will capitalize on the public’s legitimate concerns about fraud to attack his political opponents, like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. He will use it to further villainize immigrants. After all, California is the state with the nation’s largest immigrant population—guess who will be blamed for fraud there?
Trump has regularly insisted that Democrats “use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens.” These fraud allegations provide him with the perfect opportunity to extend this false narrative. The fact that the DOJ’s investigation thus far has charged less than 100 people is irrelevant. Most of them are of Somali descent, and Minnesota’s governor is a Democrat (who just ran against him as Kamala Harris’ vice presidential pick). That’s all Trump and his allies care about.
This is not about fraud. A truly anti-fraud president would not commute the sentence of David Gentile, a private equity executive convicted for his role in a $1.6 billion Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors. As part of his pardon, Gentile will no longer be required to pay $15.5 million in restitution to his victims. Perhaps if Gentile were of Somali descent, then Trump would be more concerned with justice and respect for the law.
There is no legitimate rationale for withholding childcare funding from the entire country because of the actions committed by so few. Trump supporters might argue that this extreme measure simply demonstrates President Trump’s unwavering and firm commitment to law and order. That he is simply rooting out fraud from the system in the most direct way possible.
But if this is true, then why only take these measures after a YouTuber posts a video about it? Why wait until there is public outcry?
It’s because that outcry; these extreme measures; and this anti-Somali, xenophobic framing are all politically useful for the Trump administration. This is not about fraud. It’s not about justice. It’s poor political theater from a battered and desperate administration.
2025 was a difficult year for the country, and 2026 is starting off on a rough foot. As the midterm elections approach, the Trump administration will likely resort to more drastic and violent measures. We cannot give into despair. Trump is waging a battle of attrition against the American public. He wants us stressed, afraid, and divided. The only remedy is for us to remain vigilant, unyielding, and united.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Donald Trump’s First Year Report Card Made Public: D+
Trump spent 2025 in a full-throated effort to destroy US democracy.
Dec 28, 2025
We have found President Donald Trump’s second term White House report card. Before he prevents its publication—as he did for his record in business school—I present it here.
Trump spent 2025 in a full-throated effort to destroy US democracy. His preferred form of rule is totalitarianism where all institutions, political parties, and the masses are subservient to state control. In some subjects, Donald succeeded remarkably well: in forming a federal police state, controlling the media, and making money for the Trump name. But he earns only a D+ because he doesn’t pay attention, never reads, spells poorly (covfefe?), has an F in economics (Tariffs?? Inflation? Skyrocketing deficit? Affordability?), cheats at everything (golf?), and has failed to silence the American public.
Law and Order: C-
Initially, Americans accepted nighttime arrests, like those of Josef Stalin’s secret sadistic police thugs. Trump unleashed untrained, violent federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers on the public, many of whom have failed drug tests, have disqualifying criminal backgrounds, and don’t meet physical or academic requirements to serve. His minions have orchestrated the extrajudicial incarcerations and exiles, but most of those arrested have no criminal history. Ultimately, the courts rejected extralegal arrests, and the Supreme Court ruled that the dictator cannot order US troops into democratic cities.
Buying Influence and Getting Paid for It: A-
Russian President Vladimir Putin has socked away billions including in a secret palace, while his gas and oil oligarchs try to keep him content at war. Both dictator Putin and Trump succeeded well in establishing corrupt oligarchic regimes where political power and the ability to make money overlap. There is a close relationship between presidential pardons and presidential enrichment. In fact, money is the raison d'être of Trumpist totalitarianism. His one legislative success, a “big beautiful bill,” makes the rich richer; the poor more poor; and cuts funding for food, housing, and healthcare.
Crushing Political Opponents: C-
At least Trump doesn’t order the assassination of his opponents, like Putin. Instead, he orders the Justice Department to prosecute them. Trump’s arrests extend to officials who stood up to his lies. He ordered aggressive prosecution of: former adviser John Bolton, former FBI director James Comey, and others. He threatens judges, governors and congresspeople.
Quality of Appointees: D+
Purposely, Trump hires people who lack spines. They include: wide-eyed men who ferry their girlfriends around on government jets; former governors who give no-bid multimillion dollar contracts to friends; a dozen DAs who do not know the law; and Pam Bondi. It helps to be a felon—and father of his son-in-law—to become ambassador to France. The long list is covfefe.
Foreign Policy: D-
Dictators are good a bullying neighbors, but the results rarely pan out. Putin is now in the fourth year of a three-day war on Ukraine. Trump has not made Canada the 51st state; has not annexed Greenland; has picked a battle with Venezuela to distract Americans; carried out a secret attack on Yemen through an open app; and his attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was a military and financial failure. Tariffs?
Military Might: B
Trump is striving to destroy US defense capabilities. He hired Christian nationalist Pete Hegseth to purge the Pentagon of flab, women,and African Americans. (Stalin arrested and murdered tens of thousands of leading officers on the eve of World War II—destroying Red Army leadership.). Meanwhile, to augment his Star Trek Space Force, Trump ordered the production of “Trump” class battleships which are obsolete, costly, and vulnerable. Fortunately, the Pentagon is resilient.
Naming Things After Himself: A+
Like Soviet leader Stalin and his ilk, Trump likes to named things after himself, even government buildings, not content with his golf courses, resorts, and towers. He affixes faux gold leaf to his surroundings: the Kennedy Center a la Trump; the Golden Dome missile defense; the Home Depot plastic gold leaf on the White House walls; Trump games and magazines, mobile phones; a failed airline; a failed university; wines; and steaks, vodka, ice, ale, and watches. “A” for effort.
Control of the Media: C+
Donald follows the Putin path. Putin forced all major TV channels to submit to the Kremlin. As Putin said: “There should be patriotically-minded people at the head of state information resources, people who uphold the interests of the Russian Federation. These are state resources. That is the way it is going to be.” Like the coerced appointment of a censor for CBS News, Putin established an inspectorate for IT and mass media to control press and the internet.
Trump’s attack on free speech has involved removing more than 8,000 government web pages; cutting funding to public broadcasting; barring several press organizations from the White House press; and operating his Truth Social White House propaganda outlet to carry out personal attacks on journalists and the media generally, most recently the New York Times, which he called a threat to national security. The attacks on the media have been made easier by their concentration in the hands of Trump oligarchs and appointees who also censor free speech.
Sexual Depravity: D-
Stalin surrounded himself with such criminals as secret police chief and rapist Lavrenty Beria. Putin is now promoting underage marriage to fight against a plummeting Russian fertility rate. Trump stonewalled, obfuscated, and obstructed to keep references to his behavior with underage girls under wraps. But not even hardened MAGites, who at one time tolerated a president convicted of sexual assault, a man who boasted of “pussy grabbing,” think that participation of any sort in the Epstein scandal is appropriate.
The American Public: A+
The wheels of justice were assisted here both by lackeys at the Department of Justice who are failing to cleanse Trump’s name from the Epstein documents, and especially by the American people who prefer democracy to totalitarian rule under a deceitful, bloviating, and narcissistic wannabe dictator who is only in it for the money.
Keep ReadingShow Less
You Could Be on Trump's Enemies List, But the Mainstream Media Won't Warn You
A new Department of Justice memo is another giant step towards authoritarianism; however, establishment media didn’t see it that way.
Dec 12, 2025
The Trump FBI is drawing up an enemies list that could encompass well over half the US public: Do you “advance… opposition to law and immigration enforcement”? Do you have “extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders”? Show an “adherence to radical gender ideology,” meaning you think trans people exist? Do you exhibit (what the Trump administration would interpret as) “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” or “anti-Christianity”? Do you display “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality”?
Congratulations—you may be headed for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.” “Terrorism,” of course, is the magic word that strips you of all sorts of legal protections, especially in the post-9/11 era.
This is from a Justice Department memo obtained by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein (12/6/25)—which goes on to instruct the FBI to set up “a cash reward system” for people who turn in those promoting such thoughtcrime, and “establish cooperators to provide information and eventually testify against other members” of groups with these dangerous ideas.
This is the implementation of the Trump administration’s avowed policy of criminalizing dissent—in the words of the NSPM-7 decree, outlawing “organized campaigns of… radicalization… designed to… change or direct policy outcomes” (FAIR.org, 10/3/25; CounterSpin, 10/17/25)—and as such is another giant step towards authoritarianism. Establishment media didn’t see it that way, however.
To get actual coverage of the threat DOJ is posing to civil liberties and democracy itself, you had to go to independent outlets.
As Klippenstein (12/9/25) pointed out, virtually no corporate media outlets covered this catastrophic memo, and those who did report on it did a generally poor job. The Guardian headline (12/5/25) was “Pam Bondi Tells Law Enforcement Agencies to Investigate Antifa Groups for ‘Tax Crimes,’” and Bloomberg Law (12/5/25) had “Bondi Orders FBI Extremism Intelligence Review with Antifa Focus”—completely misleading framing that suggests that if you’re not “Antifa,” the memo isn’t about you.
Here’s Reuters‘ entirely unhelpful “summary” (12/4/25):
- Bondi orders FBI to prioritize domestic terrorism investigations
- Memo targets antifa and similar groups
- FBI to develop strategies to disrupt criminal networks
- DOJ calls for prosecuting extremist groups for tax crimes
The DOJ is issuing marching orders for a witch hunt, and Reuters presents it with a straight face as an effort to go after “domestic terrorism,” “criminal networks,” and “extremist groups” who commit “tax crimes.” Who could object to that?
Among corporate media outlets, only The Hill (12/5/25), a specialty outlet aimed at congressional staffers and lobbyists, conveyed the enormity of the directive. Its second paragraph read:
Bondi’s memo could be the starting point for charges against a number of left-leaning advocacy groups and nonprofits the Trump administration has accused without evidence of having ties to extremists.
The Hill‘s Rebecca Beitsch quoted Andrew Bataj of the group Whistleblower Aid, “This memo expressly seeks to redefine political dissent against the president as domestic terrorism.”
But beyond that, to get actual coverage of the threat DOJ is posing to civil liberties and democracy itself, you had to go to independent outlets like Democracy Now! (12/8/25) and the Lever (12/8/25). The counterrevolution will not be televised.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Glaring Financial Conflicts of Top Official Disclosed Only After Leaving Trump's DOJ
Chad Mizelle, third-in-command at the Department of Justice, managed to serve in Trump’s administration without disclosing his financial entanglements publicly–and now, only after his departure, can we highlight his conflicts of interest.
Nov 24, 2025
Chad Mizelle was tapped to serve as Chief of Staff of the Department of Justice before Trump’s inauguration even took place. In that critical role, Mizelle worked closely with Attorney General Pam Bondi to implement Trump’s agenda at the Department of Justice, or in Mizelle’s own words, “everything that the President wants us to do.” But after just nine months on the job, Mizelle abruptly left administration after he brokered a settlement for Hewlett Packard Enterprises’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, undermining the DOJ’s Antitrust Division for a political favor.
As a high-level government appointee, Mizelle was bound by ethics rules to submit a disclosure report detailing his sources of income and other financial entanglements. But despite our repeated requests, Mizelle’s financial ties haven’t been reported until now—nearly ten months after he first joined the administration, and weeks after his departure from Trump’s DOJ.
Mizelle’s financial disclosure report reveals up to $250,000 in investments in firms that the Department of Justice has pending lawsuits against, ongoing settlements to oversee, or the authority to investigate, which created conflicts of interest with Mizelle’s broad leadership role. Mizelle’s financial entanglements include:
- Between $15,001 to $50,000 in Apple
- In March 2024, the DOJ Antitrust Division sued Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets. The lawsuit is still set to move forward under Trump’s DOJ.
- Between $15,001 – $50,000 in Meta
- Meta is subject to regular review of compliance with a 2023 DOJ settlement, in which the DOJ alleged that “Meta’s housing advertising system discriminated against Facebook users in violation of the Fair Housing Act.”
- Between $15,001 – $50,000 in Visa
- In September 2024, the DOJ Antitrust Division sued Visa for monopolizing debit markets. The lawsuit is still set to move forward under Trump’s DOJ.
- Between $15,001 – $50,000 each in Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern
- In July 2025, Union Pacific announced a $85 billion proposed merger with Norfolk Southern. While the merger is subject to the Surface Transportation Board’s approval, the DOJ has the ability to weigh in.
Mizelle’s other eyebrow raising investments include between $15,001 – $50,000 in two more Big Tech companies, Oracle and Adobe (which apparently has an appetite for buying up smaller rivals).
Obtaining Mizelle’s Financial Disclosures
These potential conflicts become all the more damning when considering that none of Mizelle’s investments were publicly accessible until days before the government shut down at the earliest. To our knowledge, we are the first to report on his financial disclosures.
In July 2025, I requested Mizelle’s personal financial disclosure report (PFD), as well as any ethics waivers from the DOJ’s Departmental Ethics Office. Despite receiving confirmation of my request, as well as the disclosures of other officials, weeks and weeks passed without further word about Mizelle’s PFD.
Then, in late September, Axios reported that Mizelle was planning on leaving the DOJ. And yet, when I followed up with the DOJ Departmental Ethics Office soon after the news broke, I was told that Mizelle’s PFD was still “not finalized.” I followed up the next week, but by then, the government had shut down, and my email to the DOJ ethics office was met with an auto response: “The appropriation that funds my salary has lapsed, and as a result I have been furloughed and am currently out of the office.”
It took until November 13, the day the government began to reopen from the shutdown, for the ethics office to share Mizelle’s PFD.
The drawn out timeline for his filings seems too convenient to be a coincidence. Per the document, Mizelle obtained a 90-day extension to file his financial disclosure report. That his entanglements could pose a conflict of interest was not lost on the ethics official working on his disclosures. In July 2025, an ethics official commented on the document that Mizelle was “reminded of recusal obligations.” (Notably, my request for ethics documents did not return any ethics waivers that would have allowed Mizelle to work on issues with which he had potential conflicts of interest. But his apparent reluctance to submit run-of-the-mill financial disclosures creates the question of whether he would have sought waivers at all.)
All in all, this means that Chad Mizelle, the third-in-command at the DOJ for nine months, did not have to face public scrutiny of his financial ties to companies the DOJ was overseeing until after he left the DOJ altogether. Even without meddling on Mizelle’s part, it’s deeply concerning that he was able to operate his entire tenure, potentially working on matters pertaining to companies he was invested in, without any sort of oversight or public accountability. This ethics-evading playbook may be new, but I doubt it’s the last we’ll see of it during this Trump administration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Appointed Judges Give Him Green Light to Send Troops Into Portland
In a dissent, Judge Susan Graber accused her 9th Circuit colleagues of eroding "core constitutional principles."
Oct 20, 2025
Two federal judges are giving President Donald Trump the green light to send National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon on Monday.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) request to put a hold on US District Judge Karin Immergut's earlier order blocking deployment of the National Guard to Oregon's largest city.
The two judges who ruled in the DOJ's favor were appointed by Trump, while the lone dissenter in the case, Judge Susan Graber, was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
The court's majority ruled that the protests outside the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility were sufficiently disruptive to justify deploying the National Guard, despite the fact that demonstrations outside the facility in recent weeks had not disrupted operations.
Judge Ryan Nelson, one of the Trump appointees, went so far as to issue a concurring opinion stating that the president's right to deploy the National Guard, even over the objections of state and local officials, cannot be reviewed by the judiciary.
In a scathing dissent, Graber noted that "the record contains no evidence whatsoever that, on September 27... ICE was unable either to protect its Portland facility or to execute the immigration laws it is charged with enforcing." This is relevant, she said, because the law states that the president may only deploy the National Guard "to repel a foreign invasion, quell a rebellion, or overcome an inability to execute the laws."
Graber then accused her colleagues of eroding "core constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their states’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions."
Graber's argument echoed a ruling made earlier this month by Immergut, who was also appointed to the bench by Trump and who said his declarations that violent protests at the Portland ICE facility prevented the enforcement of the law were "untethered to facts."
Sandy Chung, executive director of the ACLU of Oregon, said in a statement responding to the ruling that "we are very disappointed that the majority on this 9th Circuit panel were unable to see through President Trump's political theater, divisive rhetoric, and extreme abuse of power and misuse of our military."
"The fact remains that Portland is peaceful," Chung added. "Portland protesters have shown a remarkable level of humor, creativity, and community care in the face of this administration's persistent and violent abuses of power. Inflatable frog and unicorn costumes, bike rides, and musical events are hardly a threat or reason to take the extremely dangerous and anti-democratic action of sending American troops into our communities."
In addition to Portland, Trump is also seeking to send National Guard troops to Chicago over the objections of both Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. The administration has appealed that case to the US Supreme Court.
This article has been updated with comment from the ACLU.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Comey’s Indictment: A Timeline of Weaponization
What Trump has done to Jim Comey, he can do to anyone who displeases him.
Sep 30, 2025
The Department of Justice has become US President Donald Trump’s personal weapon. Former FBI Director James Comey’s indictment crossed a line that no democracy can tolerate. The timeline tells the story.
Act I: The Setup
January 27, 2017: Trump held a private dinner at the White House with FBI Director Comey. In their meeting, Trump told Comey—twice, “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.”
On Trump’s first pass, Comey didn’t respond. The second time, Comey said, “You will always get honesty from me.”
“That’s what I want,” Trump answered. “Honest loyalty.”
February 14, 2017: In a private meeting with Comey, Trump raised the subject of former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn, who was under investigation and later pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with Russia during the 2016 campaign.
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Trump said. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey did not say that he would.
March 30, 2017: Trump asked Comey to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation.
April 11, 2017: Trump asked what Comey had done in response to his prior request to “get out” the word that he was not personally under investigation.
Act II: The Firing
May 3, 2017: During Comey’s Senate testimony, he refused to answer questions about whether Trump was under investigation relating to Russian election interference. He also said, “It makes me mildly nauseous to think we might have had some impact on the election.” Trump was furious.
May 9, 2017: Trump fired Comey.
Act III: The Mueller Report
May 17, 2017: Comey’s firing prompted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to name former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.
April 18, 2019: Mueller’s report became public and concluded:
- “[T]he Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” (Vol. I, p. 5)
- The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” (Vol. I, p. 5)
- Trump tried repeatedly to obstruct the investigation into his campaign ties to Russia.
- “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment… Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Vol. II, p. 2)
Mueller’s investigation produced 37 indictments and seven guilty pleas or convictions. More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors signed a statement that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings as Trump did, they would likely be indicted on multiple charges of obstruction of justice.
Throughout the remainder of Trump’s first term and after his defeat in 2020: Trump continued to rant that “Jim ‘Dirty Cop’ Comey” should be tried for treason—which is punishable by death. But his threats carried little weight.
Act IV: Weaponization
Department of Justice guidelines require sufficient evidence to prove and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. And charging decisions cannot be influenced by a defendant's political affiliation: “There is no place in the decision-making process for animosity or careerism….”
January 2025: Trump appointed Erik Siebert, a career prosecutor, acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Early September: With the statute of limitations on potential charges against Comey expiring on September 30, 2025, Siebert had serious doubts about the case. His views quickly made their way up the Justice Department’s chain of command.
September 19: Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he wanted Siebert “out” because he hadn’t prosecuted another Trump enemy, New York Attorney General Letitia James: “It looks like she’s very guilty of something….”
Later on September 19: Siebert resigned..
September 20, 6:44 pm: Trump claimed that he had fired Siebert and pressured Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey, Letitia James, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.):
Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.’ Then we almost put in a Democrat supported US attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT
September 20, 7:51 pm: Trump congratulated Bondi on doing a “GREAT job as Attorney General” and announced Lindsey Halligan, 36, as his choice to replace Siebert. Halligan—a former insurance lawyer—had never handled a criminal case and was a staff secretary in the White House effort to remove "improper ideology" from Smithsonian properties. She was one of Trump’s personal lawyers in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
September 22: Halligan was sworn in as acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
September 25: After Halligan personally presented evidence to the grand jury, it indicted Comey on two counts in a sparse indictment consisting of only one-and-a-half pages and signed only by Halligan.
Count 1 accused Comey of lying to the Senate when he said he “had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation.” Count 2 accused him of obstructing Congress, presumably with the same alleged lie, but it was not specified.
September 25, 5:45 pm: Bondi posted:
No one is above the law. Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.
September 25, 5:52 pm: FBI Director Kash Patel posted:
Today, your FBI took another step in its promise of full accountability. For far too long, previous corrupt leadership and their enablers weaponized federal law enforcement, damaging once proud institutions and severely eroding public trust. Every day, we continue the fight to earn that trust back, and under my leadership, this FBI will confront the problem head-on. Nowhere was this politicization of law enforcement more blatant than during the Russiagate hoax, a disgraceful chapter in history we continue to investigate and expose. Everyone, especially those in positions of power, will be held to account—no matter their perch. No one is above the law.
September 25, 7:24 pm: Trump posted:
JUSTICE IN AMERICA! One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former Corrupt Head of the FBI. Today he was indicted by a Grand Jury on two felony counts for various illegal and unlawful acts. He has been so bad for our Country, for so long, and is now at the beginning of being held responsible for his crimes against our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Act V: Who’s Next?
September 25: Trump told reporters that he expected more political enemies to face charges: “It’s not a list, but I think there’ll be others. I mean, they’re corrupt. They were corrupt radical left Democrats.”
September 26, 6:57 am: Trump posted:
Whether you like Corrupt James Comey or not, and I can’t imagine too many people liking him, HE LIED! It is not a complex lie, it’s a very simple, but IMPORTANT one.
He left himself ZERO margin of error on a big and important answer to a question. He just got unexpectedly caught. James ‘Dirty Cop’ Comey was a destroyer of lives. He knew exactly what he was saying, and that it was a very serious and far reaching lie for which a very big price must be paid.
September 26, 7:00 am: Trump posted: “JAMES COMEY IS A DIRTY COP. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”
September 27, 6:40 pm: Trump posted:
I’d like to thank Kash Patel and the outstanding members of the FBI, for their brilliant work on the recent indictment of the Worst FBI Director in the History of Our Country, James ‘Dirty Cop’ Comey. The level of enthusiasm by the FBI was incredible, but only caused by the fact that they knew Comey for what he is, and was, a total SLIMEBALL! Again, thank you to the FBI and, specifically, those that worked on this case with U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, and the DOJ. Thanks you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. President DJT.
In his 6:57 a.m. rant on September 26, Trump began his verbal assault on the judge assigned to Comey’s case:
There is no way he [Comey] can explain his way out of it. He is a Dirty Cop, and always has been, but he was just assigned a Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge, so he’s off to a very good start.
What Trump has done to Jim Comey and is now doing to the judge in the case, he can do to anyone who displeases him. And he will.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy