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
justice department
Why Trump's Attack on Minneapolis Is Also an Attack on Our Elections
This armed assault on a major American city, coupled with a thuggish offer implying that the bully boys might be pulled back if state officials will betray their voters, shows the damage that can be done without outright canceling the midterms.
Jan 29, 2026
The nation has been convulsed by the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Millions now see with sickening clarity a lawless assault by federal officers on an American city and its people. As The Wall Street Journal editorialized, it is a “moral and political debacle for the Trump presidency.”
The videos were followed by a fusillade of lies from senior government officials. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti had engaged in “domestic terrorism.” White House aide Stephen Miller called Pretti an “assassin” who tried to “murder federal agents.” Border official Gregory Bovino declared, “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” The instant impulse by these high officials was to bully and smear.
Another outrageous statement by a cabinet official has not gotten enough attention.
On Saturday, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz linking the violence in Minneapolis to a demand that the state give the Justice Department complete access to the state’s sensitive voter rolls, among other things. There’s no explicit quid pro quo offered—but anyone familiar with Grade B gangster movies won’t miss the implication. Certainly that’s how state officials have read it. Let that sink in: Federal agents have killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And the response of the attorney general of the United States is to use it as leverage to illegally access voter data. That is an unambiguous abuse of power.
That sense of crisis, consciously instigated, can create opportunities to undermine the election and sow doubt and division.
As my colleague Wendy Weiser has written, “What do voter rolls have to do with ICE? Nothing. But they have a lot to do with the administration’s ongoing efforts to meddle in elections.”
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon provided Bondi with the only legal and responsible answer (a simple “no”), describing her offer as “an apparent ransom.”
Make no mistake: The federal government has no authorization to demand confidential voter information from the states. In our constitutional system, states are responsible for maintaining and protecting voter rolls. Indeed, various state and federal laws limit how much data the federal government can collect.
But that hasn’t stopped it from trying. Bondi’s Justice Department has demanded access to the voter records of 44 states and Washington, DC, and it has sued more than 20 states for not complying. Two courts have already ruled on the side of the states.
Why would the administration want to hoover up this data? It would give election deniers new ammunition to push false claims of voting by people who are not US citizens. It would help the federal government pressure states into reckless voter purges, which would kick eligible citizens off the rolls just as November rolls around.
Plainly, it’s all part of a broader strategy to meddle with our elections. Last weekend, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Republicans are looking into yet another version of the unpopular SAVE Act—the bill that would require American citizens to produce a birth certificate, passport, or similar document to register to vote. At least 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents, according to our research. The bill narrowly passed the House but stalled in the Senate last year after massive public pushback.
Bondi’s letter is a gross escalation of this effort—an explicit abuse of this moment to coerce Minnesota to step into line.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) worries that this escalation is by design. Over the weekend, he warned that the “Trump administration is creating this mayhem, particularly in cities in swing states, in order to take control of the election.”
When Donald Trump took office the first time in 2017, he talked of “American carnage.” Shooting of bystanders, squads of masked armed men, terrorized immigrants, clouds of tear gas, vague claims of conspiracy, and more—all bring that “carnage” to life. That sense of crisis, consciously instigated, can create opportunities to undermine the election and sow doubt and division.
To be clear (and I get asked this a lot): Donald Trump cannot cancel the midterms. Presidents have no power to do that.
But this armed assault on a major American city, coupled with a thuggish offer implying that the bully boys might be pulled back if state officials will betray their voters, shows the damage that can be done nonetheless.
The dignified and angry public response from around the country to the latest killing suggests maybe something has snapped. It would not be the first time in our history that government violence kindled an even more powerful reaction.
It’s not only the safety and sanity of people in Minnesota that’s at stake. As we are reminded once again, our democracy is on the line.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Latest Epstein Gambit
The next time you hear that Trump has somehow reversed his earlier resistance to releasing the Epstein files, remember that he hasn’t. He could have ordered their disclosure long ago; he never needed a congressional resolution compelling it.
Nov 20, 2025
Jeffrey Epstein may have committed suicide in 2019, but he remains an albatross around President Donald Trump’s neck. During the 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release all of the Justice Department’s Epstein files. As president, he could honor that pledge with the stroke of a social media post. Instead, he has done everything in his power to prevent such disclosure.
Some pundits claim that Trump has finally reversed his earlier resistance to releasing the files. He hasn’t. Rather, he has deployed yet another strategy to achieve his true objective—continued secrecy. And he’s relying on his faithful sycophant, Attorney General Pam Bondi, to execute it.
Attempt #1: Stonewalling
Back in July, Bondi’s Justice Department, together with FBI Director Kash Patel, declared that after an exhaustive review of the entire file, the investigation into Epstein’s sex trafficking of minors was over: “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
The department would release no additional materials from the Epstein files: “No further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”
Attempt #2: The Attack
As Trump’s MAGA base erupted over his administration’s refusal to release the files, he lashed out at fellow Republicans. He called supporters clamoring for greater transparency “stupid,” “foolish,” and victims of a “Democrat hoax.”
It didn’t work.
Attempt #3: The Disingenuous Directive
MAGA’s anger grew. So Trump directed Bondi to ask that the courts release the grand jury transcripts in the cases against Epstein and his coconspirator, Ghislane Maxwell.
It was a ruse. Trump and his lawyers knew that the courts were not likely to release the material, which was a tiny fraction of the DOJ file anyway. Sure enough, they didn’t. And several judges wrote blistering opinions exposing the farce and blasting Bondi for pursuing the effort.
Attempt #4: The Illusion of Transparency
Bondi’s next ploy on Trump’s behalf was the production of documents in response to a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee. It turned out that only 3% of the 20,000 documents was new. And courts had confirmed that there were 100,000 documents in the Epstein files. Where were the rest?
Attempt #5: The Shutdown
A Democrat won the Arizona special election to the US House of Representatives. As a result, a discharge petition on the resolution demanding disclosure of the Epstein files would now have the crucial 218th signature required to force a vote on the House floor.
But Trump’s lackey in the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), refused to swear in the newly-elected member. He claimed that because the House was in recess due to the government shutdown, he could not admit her. It was a subterfuge that gave Trump time to twist arms in an effort to change votes.
Attempt #6: The Strongarm
Three Republicans had sided with the Democrats to reach the 218-vote threshold required to move the Epstein resolution forward in the House. Bondi and Patel met with one of them, Rep. Laura Boebert (R-Colo.), in the White House Situation Room. A second target was Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Trump attacked the third GOP defector, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), publicly: He withdrew his endorsement and called her “wacky,” “a disgrace,” “a traitor,” and “a nuisance.”
None of the Republicans budged. Trump was going to lose the House vote.
Attempt #7: Back to Bondi
Faced with the reality that he couldn’t stop the House from passing the resolution requiring release of the Epstein files, Trump said that he would sign the resolution after it passed the Senate.
That’s a ruse too. And once again, he turned to Bondi for another escape hatch. In a social media post, Trump declared:
I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.
Only 217 minutes later, Bondi responded:
Thank you, Mr. President. SDNY U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country, and I’ve asked him to take the lead. As with all matters, the Department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people.
Now the punchline: The Justice Department will not release materials relating to an active investigation. The investigations that Trump has ordered could well suffice. Jay Clayton, who has no criminal law experience but enjoyed a stellar pre-Trump reputation as a corporate partner in the elite firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, now faces a crucial test of character.
The stated basis for the DOJ rule is that disclosure could compromise the investigative process. Never mind that in July, Bondi said that the department’s thorough investigation of the entire file “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
And the department can release—or not release—whatever it chooses. There is no meaningful enforcement mechanism. If DOJ withholds Epstein material related to Trump, the public will never know, unless there’s a whistleblower somewhere. But Trump, Bondi, and Patel have purged the top ranks of the Justice Department of anyone who is not a Trump loyalist.
The next time you hear that Trump has somehow reversed his earlier resistance to releasing the Epstein files, remember that he hasn’t. He could have ordered their disclosure long ago; he never needed a congressional resolution compelling it.
But Pam Bondi has reversed her position that the files contain nothing that warrants further investigation of anyone associated with Epstein.
Leading America’s Department of Justice is someone whom no one can trust—except Donald Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Comey Indictment 'Isn’t Justice–It’s Revenge': Trump Weaponizes DOJ
"Installing a hand-picked prosecutor to bring a meritless case demonstrates the danger our democracy is in from this wannabe dictator."
Sep 26, 2025
The federal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey on Thursday night unleashed a deluge of contempt directed at President Donald Trump, who pursued the case from his perch in the Oval Office, shattering the line that has long separated the operations of the Justice Department from direct presidential influence.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the charges against Comey—filed by one of Trump's former personal defense attorneys, Lindsey Halligan, installed as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia just days ago, show that Trump "refuses to allow the facts or the law to stand in the way of his wrath and vengeance campaign."
Comey is charged with lying to Congress and obstruction of congressional proceedings related to testimony he gave to a US Senate committee in 2020. Still, the previous prosecutorial team in the Eastern District concluded there was not sufficient evidence to bring such a case. Earlier this week, Trump forced Halligan's predecessor, Erik Siebert, to resign after he refused to bring the charges. "He didn't quit," Trump said of Siebert, "I fired him."
Trump has named Comey as a political enemy and accused the former director of misconduct in relation to the 2016 FBI investigation into Trump and his staff over alleged ties to Russian interference with that year's presidential campaign, which Trump ultimately won against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
"This vindictive prosecution shows just how far Trump and his toadies will go to exact retribution on perceived enemies."
The relentless pursuit of Comey by Trump since then, and now a federal indictment, say critics, shows that Trump is the one willing to weaponize the Justice Department against perceived political enemies, regardless of the existence or quality of evidence.
As The New York Times notes:
[The indictment] represents the most significant legal step yet by theTrump administration to harry, punish and humiliate a former official the president identified as an enemy, at the expense of procedural safeguards intended to shield the Justice Department from political interference and personal vendettas.
The bare-bones, two-page indictment was signed only by Ms. Halligan, a former defense lawyer for Mr. Trump who personally presented the case to the jury, despite her lack of any previous prosecutorial experience. Typically such filings are also endorsed by career prosecutors who have gathered the evidence in the case.
The president, said Raskin in his statement, "forced Mr. Seibert to resign in order to replace him with one of his former defense attorneys, Lindsey Halligan, who has literally no prosecutorial experience but is clearly willing to blindly carry out the president’s orders. As if by magic, within mere days of being appointed, Ms. Halligan delivered for the president by filing the exact baseless charges against Mr. Comey that her predecessor had rejected."
Trump responded to the charges on Thursday night by declaring, "Justice in America!" in a social media post, while Comey professed his innocence in a statement, saying he looks forward to defending himself at trial and that he would not be cowed. “We will not live on our knees," said Comey, "and you shouldn’t either.”
The indictment of Comey, said Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, "isn’t justice – it’s revenge."
“By weaponizing the DOJ to settle political scores," said Harvey, Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi "have shredded the last scraps of the Department’s independence. Americans do not want our president using taxpayer-funded prosecutors and law enforcement to exact revenge.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, called Comey's indictment "a perversion of our justice system" and a worrying sign of what's to come.
"This vindictive prosecution shows just how far Trump and his toadies will go to exact retribution on perceived enemies. And how large perceived slights loom on the president’s priorities list," warned Gilbert. "Installing a hand-picked prosecutor to bring a meritless case demonstrates the danger our democracy is in from this wannabe dictator."
The co-chairs of the Not Above the Law coalition, which includes Public Citizen, the Constitutional Accountability Center, MoveOn, and Stand Up America, released a joint statement, saying the prosecution of Comey represents the "dangerous ongoing weaponization of our justice system" and continued:
This has all the hallmarks of a vindictive and meritless prosecution. Yet Trump's handpicked replacement is proceeding anyway, ignoring both DOJ guidelines and prosecutorial ethics. When the Department of Justice becomes a tool for settling personal grudges rather than protecting Americans from real threats, our liberties are in grave danger. Agencies that should investigate terrorism and organized crime must not become personal revenge squads for the president. Congress must act to restore independence to our justice system and stop this authoritarian abuse of power—Trump’s attorney general has made clear she won’t.
For Raskin's part, he said, "I have no doubt that a jury of his peers will acquit and vindicate Mr. Comey after being afforded the opportunity to hear all the relevant evidence. But, until that happens, Mr. Comey will be forced to spend time, money, and energy defending himself against this blatantly fraudulent and vindictive indictment."
"The rule of law was supposed to replace vendettas, blood feuds, and mad kings exacting vengeance on their perceived enemies," he added. "This sordid episode is one more savage assault on justice in America.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular