

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
US attorneys offered no justification for their sudden decision to dismiss the case.
Federal prosecutors on Thursday moved to drop criminal charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent last month in Chicago's Brighton Park neighborhood.
As reported by local news station WTTW, prosecutors filed a one-page motion asking the court to dismiss the indictment against both Martinez and Anthony Ian Santos Ruiz, who had been accused of assaulting a federal immigration officer by intentionally ramming their vehicle into the officer's car.
The US attorneys who filed the motion to dismiss offered no further explanation for their decision to drop the case.
In the indictment, prosecutors alleged that Martinez and Ruiz were part of a larger group of people in cars that was trailing immigration officers' vehicles as they conducted operations in Brighton Park.
Prosecutors said that the Border Patrol agent who shot Martinez had been acting in self-defense, and that he had only opened fire after Martinez's car collided with his vehicle.
However, recently uncovered text messages showed the Border Patrol agent apparently bragging about shooting Martinez, as he boasted that he "fired five rounds and she had seven holes" in a message sent to fellow agents.
An attorney representing Martinez claimed last month that he had seen body camera footage that directly undermined the US Department of Homeland Security's claims about how the shooting unfolded.
Gregory Pratt, an investigative reporter at the Chicago Tribune, said the dismissal of the case was yet more evidence that the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement operations appear to be backfiring.
"This follows several dropped prosecutions against protesters," he wrote on Bluesky. "To say the immigration raids have been all around mess is an understatement."
Why are members of Congress, with so few exceptions, so short on ideas for fighting back against Trump's manifold abuses of power?
On October 23, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker filed an executive order establishing a state commission charged with recording abuses inflicted by federal agents sent to tyrannize the streets of Chicago during President Donald Trump’s tellingly named “Operation Midway Blitz.” The point of the new commission was to give the abused somewhere to go with their bruises, smashed windows, and shattered lives, and to compile evidence that could be brought to bear in checking the abuse, and perhaps even (at some point) punishing it.
It is this last point, not made explicit in the executive order, that I find so encouraging about Pritzker’s executive order. It puts the Trump administration on notice that their days of reckless self-indulgence are numbered and that a case against them is being compiled.
Not only does Pritzker’s List send a message. It gives people something, if only a very little thing, to do. It reminds the abused citizens of Chicago that they, not the camouflaged out-of-state goons patrolling their streets, are in charge, and that they have a personal role to play in taking those streets back.
All of which causes me to wonder: Where are the JB Pritzkers of Washington DC? Why are members of Congress, with so few exceptions, so short on ideas—good at “pearl clutching” in response to the president’s manifold abuses of power (here, for once, Donald Trump isn’t lying), but so clueless about fighting back? Where, for example, is the commission that Senate democrats have set up to compile evidence of criminal abuses of power in Pete Hegseth’s extrajudicial killings off the coasts of Columbia and Venezuela? How have they not gotten around to founding it?
Had someone with a backbone and big ideas taken the lead in DC, they might have come up with a plan that would both hit back at the Republicans for their cruelty and bring some real benefit to those affected by it.
In fact, dozens of such commissions are needed to collect evidence of criminal malfeasance, and to create a public record of the dates, times, and details of the crimes, from those working in the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and so on. All have been dragooned into abusing rights, flouting the Constitution, and telling Trump’s lies. If nothing else, the very existence of such de facto grand juries, organized by elected officials and helped by the efforts and evidence of affected citizens, will put the Trump administration on notice that a case against it is being compiled.
But Democrats don’t operate this way. They tell us that the midterms are looming, that something good is bound to happen in a year’s time, so “Donate Now”—as if we had that kind of time to waste, and as if there were nothing that they should be doing for us, and with us, right now.
Evidence of the DC Democrats’ well-meaning incompetence was on full display in their recent handling of the government shutdown. To their credit, they did manage to make Donald Trump look mean-spirited (as if that needed emphasizing), but the final cave-in made them look weak and, yet again, satisfied with just getting by, without a plan. The whole initiative ended up imploding because it depended on saner heads prevailing among the Republicans, and that was never going to happen.
With no Pritzker in sight, the dearth of ideas really showed. Had someone with a backbone and big ideas taken the lead in DC, they might have come up with a plan that would both hit back at the Republicans for their cruelty and bring some real benefit to those affected by it. The federal healthcare subsidies were scheduled to expire. Given the Republicans’ determination to see them dead, they were beyond rescue. So why not let Republicans bake that poisoned cake, then force them to eat it!
Here's how it might have worked. Subsidies expire and healthcare costs soar. That’s entirely on them. As a counter move, and to actually help those in need, Democrats could have undertaken to set up funds (via a consortium of state-sponsored and charitable efforts) to help those affected deal with, and cover at least some of, their soaring costs. But, in doing so, they could also make clear up front that this aid is temporary, merely a stop-gap measure, and that the charitable subsidies will expire, say, six weeks before the midterm elections next fall. They would then assure those depending on these subsidies that further help is both wanted and can be expected after the elections, but only if those in the House and Senate who supported Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” are voted out of office—“Oh, and here, by the way,” they would add, “are the names of those who voted for it.”
Now that would be hardball! But DC Democrats have nothing like this up their sleeve. They are quicker to tell you why any such plan could never work than to come up with one that can. But there are some out there, such as Pritzker with his list, who are writing a new playbook, one to “get going on” right now, based on fighting back, getting things done, and giving Trump and his conspiracy of fools far more to worry about than they can handle.
“The department I once served is engaging in fascist shows of force,” said Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security during the first Trump administration.
Late at night on September 30, over 300 federal agents stormed an apartment building in one of Chicago's lowest-income neighborhoods. After descending from Black Hawk helicopters, they broke down residents' doors, destroyed furniture and belongings, deployed flash-bang grenades, and dragged sleeping people—some naked—out into the cold evening. Dozens of people, including children and American citizens, were held in zip ties and detained for hours.
As part of the highly publicized raid at the South Shore complex, which was filmed and edited into a miniature action film by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at least 37 Venezuelan residents of the apartment complex were taken into custody.
On Thursday, an investigation by ProPublica revealed that the raid, heralded by the Trump administration as a counterterrorism victory, has resulted in zero charges against the people who were detained.
In the wake of public backlash to the militarized raid’s extraordinary, indiscriminate brutality, the assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, Tricia McLaughlin, claimed that the operation "successfully resulted in the arrest of two confirmed Tren de Aragua members,“ describing the cartel as ”a terrorist organization.“ She added that ”One of these members was a positive match on the terror screening watchlist.“
She added that others who were detained had their own rap sheets, including "domestic battery, family violence, battery against a public safety official, aggravated unlawful use of a firearm, retail theft, soliciting prostitution, possession of a controlled substance," while another "had an active warrant and was listed as armed and dangerous [with] weapons offenses."
Stephen Miller, a senior advisor to President Donald Trump and an architect of his "mass deportation" policy, said that the building was "filled with TdA terrorists" and that the raid had “saved God knows how many lives."
But ProPublica's report called many of the government’s claims into question. The government has not released the names of the 37 Venezuelans detained in the raid, but reporters identified the names of 21 of them and interviewed 12.
The report found that contrary to the government's claims of their rampant criminality, federal prosecutors have not filed criminal charges against a single person who was arrested. They have also not provided any evidence that two of the men arrested were part of the Tren de Aragua gang.
The names of the two supposed gang members have not been made public, but ProPublica managed to track down one of them—24-year-old Ludwing Jeanpier Parra Pérez—using another government press release that described him as a “confirmed member” of the terrorist cartel.
While the release also described him as a “criminal illegal alien,” the only criminal charges ever filed against him—for drug possession and driving without a license after a traffic stop last year—were dropped. No other charges against him, related to gang activity or anything else, have been filed.
"I don’t have anything to do with that,” Parra told ProPublica from the Indiana jail where he's detained along with 17 others nabbed in the raid. “I’m very worried. I don’t know why they are saying that. I came here to find a better future for me and my family.”
ProPublica said its reporters have also observed eight immigration court hearings for the detained individuals, many of whom have asked to be deported back to Venezuela. In not a single one of the hearings has a government attorney mentioned any pending criminal charges against them while arguing for their deportation, nor have they alleged that any of them have affiliations with Tren de Aragua.
Judges have instead ordered them deported or granted voluntary departure, which the outlet noted is "a sign that they are not seen as a serious threat and can apply for return to the United States."
Mark Rotert, a former federal prosecutor and defense attorney in Chicago, told ProPublica that if these detainees actually had the long criminal histories the government claimed they do, they would likely pursue charges.
“Do they really believe they have people who are members of a violent organized crime gang?" he said. "If they believe they have people who fit that criteria, I would be very surprised if they were satisfied with only deporting them.”
As far as other crimes, ProPublica found that 18 of the 21 detainees they identified had no criminal charges against them. Meanwhile, the other three, who were charged with offenses “ranging from drug possession to battery,” have all had their charges dropped.
Among those rounded up at the South Shore apartment who spoke to ProPublica were a man with a steady job at a taco restaurant who has a daughter in elementary school, and a construction worker and former Venezuelan army paratrooper who is raising four children.
The investigation's findings are in line with how the Trump administration has attempted to sell its militaristic Operation Midway Blitz and other prongs of its mass deportation crusade to the public.
While the White House has persistently claimed to be targeting “the worst of the worst” criminals, the latest immigration data shows that around 72% of current detainees have no criminal convictions. Previous data from the libertarian Cato Institute has shown that 93% of ICE book-ins were for non-criminals and nonviolent offenders.
Michael D. Baker, an immigration and criminal defense lawyer based in Chicago, described it as laughable that a "300-agent raid" was being "called a terrorist victory" even while it had "zero criminal charges."
"The Trump administration’s showcase anti-gang operation was built on spectacle, not evidence," he said.
In response to the story, Miles Taylor, who served in the DHS from 2017-19, including as its chief of staff, during the first Trump administration, lamented on social media that the department "is no longer recognizable."
"The department I once served is engaging in fascist shows of force," he said, "violating the rights of Americans—only to satiate the creepy desires of an old man who wants to seem macho."