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
u.s. department of justice
Trump Chief of Staff Wiles Subpoenaed in Foreign Lobbying Criminal Case
“This kind of entanglement shows exactly why a person with Wiles’ lengthy record of controversial corporate and foreign lobbying clients is too conflicted to be running the White House," said one advocate.
Feb 06, 2026
A court filing in a federal criminal lobbying case against a former Republican congressman confirmed what the government watchdog Public Citizen warned against as soon as President Donald Trump appointed Susie Wiles to be his chief of staff: that her "lobbying client list is both extensive and littered with controversial clients who stand to benefit from having their former lobbyist running the White House."
The court filing was submitted Thursday by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and sought to "quash" a subpoena that was served to Wiles in December.
Wiles was called to testify as a witness in the case against former Rep. David Rivera (R-Fla.) and his political associate, Esther Nuhfer. They are accused of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) by lobbying on behalf of the sanctioned Venezuelan businessman Raul Gorrín.
According to a grand jury indictment from December 2024, Rivera sought to lobby top US government officials to remove Gorrín from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. He allegedly worked to conceal and promote Gorrín's criminal activities by creating fraudulent shell companies using names associated with a law firm and with a government official.
Rivera received over $5.5 million for his lobbying activities and did not register under FARA as required by law, according to the DOJ.
The Miami Herald reported late last month that Rivera and Nuhfer are "also accused of trying to 'normalize' relations between the [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro regime and the United States while Rivera’s consulting firm landed a head-turning $50 million lobbying contract with the US subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company."
Attorneys for Rivera subpoenaed Wiles at the White House, seeking to compel her to testify about her lobbying work for Ballard Partners on behalf of Globovision, a Caracas-based TV station owned by Gorrín.
As the Herald reported, Wiles worked at Ballard shortly after running Trump's presidential campaign in Florida. Due to her presidential ties she "brought an instant cachet" to the firm, where Gorrín was "hoping to gain access to the new Trump administration, which was threatening economic sanctions against the Maduro regime and Venezuela’s oil industry."
Gorrín was working with Ballard in an attempt to expand Globovision to the US as a Spanish-language affiliate—an aim that presented challenges due to the government sanctions and the Federal Communications Commission's limits on foreign ownership of US TV stations.
Rivera and Nuhfer's lawyers are seeking Wiles' testimony to show that her lobbying firm was trying to influence Trump, "on behalf of Gorrín, to bring about a regime change in Venezuela."
The subpoena document said the defendants' lawyers want to question Wiles on her "extensive communications" regarding Ballard's work with Gorrín and efforts to help the businessman gain access to Trump.
They are also seeking similar testimony from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who as a senator met privately with Rivera, Nuhfer, and Gorrín at a hotel in Washington in 2017, according to the Herald.
In the court filing, the DOJ said Wiles had "no apparent connection to any of the allegations in the superseding indictment concerning defendants’ activities as unregistered agents of the government of Venezuela."
Public Citizen noted Wiles' work with Ballard in November 2024 when it published the report Meet Susie Wiles’ Controversial Corporate Lobbying Clients, which revealed 42 lobbying clients the chief of staff had between 2017-24.
The client list was "extensive and littered with controversial clients who stand to benefit from having their former lobbyist running the White House," said Public Citizen on Friday.
In addition to Gorrín's TV station, Wiles' represented a waste management company that resisted removing nuclear waste from a landfill, a tobacco firm that sought to block federal restrictions on its candy-flavored cigars, and a foreign mining private equity firm seeking approval to develop a gold mine on federal public lands.
Jon Golinger, Public Citizen's democracy advocate, said Friday that the subpoena in the Rivera case raises even more questions about Wiles' potential conflicts of interest.
“This kind of entanglement," he said, "shows exactly why a person with Wiles’ lengthy record of controversial corporate and foreign lobbying clients is too conflicted to be running the White House."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Launches Probe After Serial Liar Trump Accuses DC of Faking Crime Stats
The move comes amid the president's military occupation of the nation's capital, despite an official drop in violent crime.
Aug 19, 2025
He didn't like the latest jobs numbers, so he fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and tapped a notorious yes-man to replace her.
He doesn't like "woke" history, so he ordered federal agencies and institutions to whitewash official accounts of the nation's troubled past.
Now US President Donald Trump's Department of Justice is investigating whether police officials in Washington, DC manipulated crime data as the president, a proven prolific liar, tries to justify his federal takeover of a city where violent crime is officially at historic lows.
"DC gave Fake Crime numbers in order to create a false illusion of safety. This is a very bad and dangerous thing to do, and they are under serious investigation for so doing!" Trump wrote Tuesday on his Truth Social network. "Until four days ago, Washington, DC was the most unsafe 'city' in the United States, and perhaps the World. Now, in just a short period of time, it is perhaps the safest, and getting better every single hour! People are flocking to DC again, and soon, the beautification will begin!"
According to Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report data from 2024, Trump's statement wildly diverges from reality, as 28 cities had higher violent crime rates than Washington, DC.
Now, the same US Attorney's office that just this April lauded the drop in crime in the capital is probing the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) amid pushback against Trump's federalization of the force and deployment of National Guard troops from five jurisdictions and other federal agents onto the streets of the city. The DOJ criminal probe will be led by the office of US Attorney Jeanine Pirro.
There have been multiple internal allegations that MPD manipulated crime data. In 2020, former MPD Sergeant Charlotte Djossou filed a lawsuit alleging that senior department officials routinely misclassified more serious crimes to artificially reduce their reported rate. The DC Police Union, led by Gregg Pemberton, has also accused MPD supervisors of ordering officers to downgrade violent crimes to lesser offenses.
Last month, MPD suspended Michael Pulliam, a senior officer who allegedly altered crime statistics in his district. However, Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, told The Washington Post Tuesday that MPD Chief Pamela Smith had investigated all seven of the city's police districts for possible crime data manipulation and found problems only in Pulliam's jurisdiction.
"We are not experiencing a spike in crime," Bowser insisted in a recent interview with MSNBC. "In fact, we're watching our crime numbers go down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Slammed for 'Desperate' Attempt at Retribution After Subpoenas for NY AG James
"Attorney General James took on Trump's fraud... and won," said New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. "So it's little wonder that Trump's politicized DOJ is now coming after her."
Aug 08, 2025
A lawyer representing New York's top law enforcement official, Attorney General Letitia James, said Friday that the news of the Trump administration's investigation into James and her successful legal cases against President Donald Trump amounted to "the most blatant and desperate example" of the president's "political retribution campaign."
In recent days, The Washington Post reported Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a subpoena to James as part of an investigation into whether the attorney general, a longtime adversary of Trump, violated the president's civil rights when she successfully sued him and his real estate business for fraud.
A second subpoena was related to James' litigation against the National Rifle Association, in which a New York jury found last year that former NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and other executives had engaged in rampant corruption.
The civil rights statute that the Trump administration is reportedly using to investigate James' case against the president is typically used in cases related to law enforcement officers discriminating against or mistreating people based on race, religion, sex, or ethnicity. According to The New York Times, the DOJ is arguing that James used her law enforcement authority to deprive Trump of his rights.
James filed a civil fraud case against Trump and the Trump Organization in 2022 and won a $450 million judgment against the president in penalties plus interest. The interest the president owes has grown to half a billion dollars as he has refused to pay and has appealed the ruling.
New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engeron said that Trump and his company's executives were "incapable of admitting the error of their ways" regarding the "blatantly false financial data" they used to misrepresent of the value of their properties, which allowed them to get better loan and insurance rates.
The Democratic candidate in the New York City mayoral race, state Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-36), expressed little surprise that Trump was apparently retaliating against the attorney general who won against him in court.
"Attorney General James took on Trump's fraud and the NRA's rampant corruption—and won both cases," said Mamdani. "So it's little wonder that Trump's politicized DOJ is now coming after her. The people of New York stand with their lawyer and champion."
The subpoenas were issued months after the DOJ appeared to try another tactic to punish James when it opened a criminal investigation into alleged mortgage fraud, accusing the attorney general of lying on loan documents for a home that she purchased in Virginia and saying the home would be her primary residence. James' attorneys have said the error was an honest mistake.
Dana Nessel, the Democratic attorney general of Michigan, came to James' defense on Friday and condemned "the depths to which Trump and his cronies will go to exact vengeance upon anyone who has dared to hold him accountable."
But the subpoenas, said Nessel, are not just a concern for James.
"Americans should know and understand how deeply compromised our federal law enforcement agencies are," she said. "If this can happen to AG James, it can happen to anyone."
Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for James, agreed that "any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American."
"We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers' rights," said Burgan.
Abbe Lowell, the attorney general's lawyer, said that "weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration."
"If prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth," said Lowell, "we are ready and waiting with facts and the law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
First-of-Its-Kind Lawsuit Seeks to Force Trump Administration to Release Epstein Files
"The only thing transparent about the Trump-Vance administration is how clearly they continue to disregard our nation's laws," said the head of the group behind the suit.
Aug 08, 2025
A pro-democracy legal advocacy group on Friday sued the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation for not releasing documents concerning deceased child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein amid President Donald Trump's stonewalling and attempted deflection of all things related to his former close friend.
In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Democracy Forward—which has lodged multiple Freedom of Information Act requests with the DOJ and FBI for Epstein-related material—accuses the Trump administration of violating FOIA by failing to produce the files. The suit seeks an order compelling the government "to produce the requested documents in an expedited manner, as required by public records laws."
Tanya Chutkan, the federal judge presiding over the suit, previously oversaw Trump's federal election interference case concerning his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential contest and his incitement of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
BREAKING: We just filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit demanding records related to the Trump-Vance admin’s handling of the Epstein Files.The only thing transparent about this administration is how clearly they continue to disregard our nation’s laws.
[image or embed]
— Democracy Forward (@democracyforward.org) August 8, 2025 at 6:52 AM
"In January 2024, unsealed court documents disclosed the names of dozens of powerful men with alleged connections to Epstein, including President Donald J. Trump, British Royal Prince Andrew, former President Bill Clinton, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and others," the lawsuit states.
"This and other information raise persistent questions about what the government uncovered during the years of investigation into Epstein's criminal activity," the filing continues. "Accordingly, there is broad-based public pressure for the government to release that information by disclosing records that are often referred to as the 'Epstein files.'"
"There is widespread public speculation that the Epstein files contain a roster of powerful clients to whom Epstein trafficked underaged girls," the lawsuit adds. "This list has become known as the 'Epstein list' or the 'client list.'"
The suit notes that Trump said during his 2024 presidential campaign that he was inclined to release the Epstein files. The filing also references U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's claim that the list was "sitting on my desk right now to review," and highlights reported "frantic scrubbing" of Trump's name from relevant documents by DOJ and FBI teams.
Furthermore, the lawsuit recounts Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's recent meetings with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's erstwhile procurer who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for child sex trafficking, and the Trump administration's subsequent transfer of Maxwell to a lower-security correctional facility. The suit also notes that Trump has refused to rule out clemency for Maxwell.
"President Trump has repeatedly said he would release the Epstein files, his spokesperson claims his administration is 'the most transparent in history,' and yet, they continue to hide from the American people," Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement. "The only thing transparent about the Trump-Vance administration is how clearly they continue to disregard our nation's laws."
"Public records laws outline a clear and simple process that requires the government to immediately produce important documents in response to urgent public information requests, and yet again, this administration is ignoring the law," Perryman added. "The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation."
Trump's efforts to deflect and distract from the Epstein scandal have outraged even many of his hardcore supporters and resulted in calls for transparency from both sides of the political aisle. The president denies any wrongdoing related to Epstein, calling the controversy over the files a "hoax" while denouncing Republicans demanding transparency as "weaklings." Trump also sued The Wall Street Journal over reporting that he wrote a "bawdy" letter for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.
On Thursday, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) led 15 Democratic colleagues in a letter urging House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) to hold a hearing with victims of Epstein and Maxwell.
Congress must stand up for Epstein’s victims, not protect his rich and powerful friends.@pressley.house.gov is demanding a public Oversight hearing to give these survivors the opportunity to share their stories with the American people.
[image or embed]
— Oversight Dems (@oversightdemocrats.house.gov) August 7, 2025 at 2:19 PM
"If we are to hold powerful people to account, our investigation must center the voices they tried to silence," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "To ensure that our investigation is comprehensive and credible, we urge the committee to allow survivors the opportunity to provide their testimony if they wish to do so."
Pressley—a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and rape in college—told The 19th* that if Comer refuses to hold such a hearing, "I will remind people why it didn't happen and that those elected officials are on the side of predators, while the Democrats are on the side of survivors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Third DOJ Whistleblower Unveils New Allegations That Bove Misled Senate About Adams Case
"What will come out next about Bove?" said one senator as a confirmation vote loomed. "That's precisely the problem with this disaster of a nominee. And why Senate Republicans are rushing through his nomination."
Jul 29, 2025
With the U.S. Senate poised to vote as early as Tuesday on Trump administration official Emil Bove's nomination for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge, a third whistleblower came forward with information about Bove's conduct at the Department of Justice and Democratic senators made their latest push to stop his confirmation.
As The Washington Post reported, a whistleblower shared evidence with lawmakers that Bove, the principal associate deputy attorney general and a former personal attorney to President Donald Trump, misled the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his role in the DOJ's dismissal of corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
During his confirmation hearing in June, Bove told senators that U.S. District Judge Dale Ho granted the DOJ's motion to dismiss the Adams case because it "reflected a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion."
He denied the existence of the DOJ deal with Adams to drop the charges in exchange for the mayor's cooperation with Trump's mass deportation agenda, saying that "the suggestion that there was some kind of quid pro quo was just plain false."
The decision to drop the charges led several prosecutors to resign from the DOJ in protest.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and condemned Republicans' decision to advance Bove's nomination earlier this month, first received evidence from the third whistleblower, according to the Post. Several other Democrats have also reviewed the evidence, which Booker told the outlet was "significant."
"We have substantial information relevant to the truthfulness of the nominee," Booker said on the Senate floor, calling on Republicans on the committee to review the new evidence.
"Another whistleblower has come forward with evidence that raises serious concerns with Emil Bove's misconduct. Senate Republicans will bear full responsibility for the consequences if they rubber stamp Mr. Bove's nomination."
Lawyers for the anonymous whistleblower told the Post on Tuesday that they had turned over the new information provided by the person to the DOJ inspector general.
Booker was joined by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Tuesday in calling on the DOJ's inspector general to promptly open an investigation into Bove in light of the latest whistleblower complaint.
"In the event these whistleblower complaints and other reports have not already prompted investigations by your office, we urge you to undertake a thorough review of these disclosures and allegations," said the lawmakers.
Two other whistleblowers have come forward in recent weeks, alleging Bove told DOJ lawyers to ignore court orders that would impede Trump's mass deportation agenda. Former DOJ attorneys and federal and state judges have urged the Senate to oppose his nomination.
Schiff condemned Republicans on the committee for attempting to dismiss the whistleblowers' complaints.
"What will come out next about Bove?" said Schiff. "That's precisely the problem with this disaster of a nominee. And why Senate Republicans are rushing through his nomination. Before more disqualifying information can come out."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) emphasized that the fight to stop Bove's confirmation "isn't over, even when subservient Senate Republicans ignore another whistleblower and shove this character through their new-low, hide-the-ball Senate confirmation process and onto the bench."
Republicans can afford to lose only three votes for Bove and still confirm him with a tie-breaker vote from Vice President JD Vance. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are expected to oppose him.
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, said the latest complaint is "another damning indictment of a man who should never be a federal judge."
"Another whistleblower has come forward with evidence that raises serious concerns with Emil Bove's misconduct," said Sorbe. "Senate Republicans will bear full responsibility for the consequences if they rubber stamp Mr. Bove's nomination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Huge Win for the American People' as House Subcommittee Votes to Subpoena Epstein Docs
"The public deserves to know who was complicit in Epstein's heinous crimes, including people with immense power in our government," said the top House Oversight Committee Democrat.
Jul 23, 2025
A congressional subcommittee voted Wednesday to subpoena the U.S. Department of Justice to hand over files related to deceased convicted child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, thwarting an apparent effort by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson to delay further action on the matter until after summer recess.
The House Oversight Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement voted 8-2 on a motion by Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) to subpoena the DOJ for all records related to the investigation into Epstein. The longtime former friend of President Donald Trump was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008 and faced federal child sex trafficking charges at the time of his suspicious 2019 jailhouse death, which was officially ruled a suicide.
"Numerous members of this committee and this subcommittee have called for answers and transparency," said Lee, the top Democrat on the subcommittee. "So let's do something about it."
In addition to Lee, the motion was backed by Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Reps. Wesley Bell (D-Mo.), Brian Jack (R-Ga.), Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.).
"Today, Oversight Democrats fought for transparency and accountability on the Epstein files and won," Garcia said in a statement. "House Republicans didn't make it easy, but the motion was finally passed to force the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files."
"Let's be clear: This is a huge win for the American people," he added. "The public deserves to know who was complicit in Epstein's heinous crimes, including people with immense power in our government. Today's vote was just the first step toward accountability, and we will continue pushing for the truth."
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) must now sign the subpoena so it may be officially issued to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. Comer agreed to subpoena Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell—who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for child sex trafficking and other crimes as part of Epstein's alleged operation—following a separate Oversight subcommittee's vote on Tuesday.
Johnson (La.) on Tuesday said the lower chamber would adjourn on Wednesday, one day earlier than scheduled. Critics called the move a blatant attempt to thwart a vote on the Epstein documents, pointing to other recent moves, including the House Rules Committee blocking an amendment that would have forced the DOJ to release the full files to the public, as proof of GOP stonewalling.
Epstein allegedly ran a sex trafficking network involving underage girls, whom he is accused of flying aboard his personal jet—dubbed the "Lolita Express"—to his private island, Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the billionaire financier and his guests abused the children.
Trump partied with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s and flew on the "Lolita Express" numerous times—although there is no evidence that he ever visited Little St. James or was involved in any of Epstein's crimes. Still, the president has appeared eager to move on from the issue after he and key members of his administration repeatedly advocated for the release of the Epstein files. Trump has accused Democrats of amplifying the Epstein "hoax" and has derided his supporters demanding full disclosure of all related documents as "weaklings."
Apparently confirming what estranged Trump adviser Elon Musk and others have asserted, Bondi informed the president in May that his name appears in the Epstein files, according to Wall Street Journal reporting published Wednesday. Trump is suing the paper and two reporters, as well as parent company News Corp and its founder Rupert Murdoch, over reporting about a bawdily illustrated letter Trump allegedly wrote for Epstein.
Asked by CNN Wednesday whether her constituents care about the Epstein case, Lee replied, "Yes, I think the American people want transparency."
"At the end of the day, we have to send a message that whether you are the littlest guy or you are the most powerful person in this nation, that if you commit a crime, if you do things that we aren't supposed to do, that there will be some accountability," she added. "Right now, if we don't vote on this, or if we don't release these files, we're sending a message that if you are a powerful abuser... you'll be covered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dozens of Former Judges Join Call for Senate to Reject Bove's Judicial Nomination
"Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position."
Jul 15, 2025
With two days to go until the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on advancing the judicial nomination of President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Emil Bove, more than 75 former federal and state judges wrote to lawmakers to demand they reject the "deeply inappropriate" appointment.
Confirming Bove to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit would not only "compromise the integrity of the courts" and "set a dangerous precedent" that "personal fealty rather than constitutional duty" can secure judicial power, said the judges, but would also elevate someone who has allegedly "plotted to violate court orders," according to a recent whistleblower report.
The judges noted that the whistleblower, former Department of Justice lawyer Erez Reuveni, has offered to testify under oath and has provided the committee with "compelling evidence" that Bove told DOJ staffers to "ignore" any court orders that challenged Trump's mass deportation operation—yet the Republican-controlled panel has not invited Reuveni to speak to lawmakers.
On Tuesday, committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) rejected a request to hold additional hearings on Bove's nomination before voting, saying they were "unnecessary."
"The Senate has a duty to hear that testimony," said the former judges, including Republican-nominated former circuit judges J. Michael Luttig, Timothy Lewis, and Paul Michel.
The judges wrote that "Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position."
The letter is only the latest push to stop senators from confirming Bove, currently the principal associate deputy attorney general at the DOJ. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 civil society organizations, wrote to senators last month, saying Bove does not meet the "basic requirements" to be a federal judge, including being "fair-minded, well-qualified, and committed to civil and human rights."
Like the Leadership Conference, the judges on Tuesday pointed to Bove's views on and conduct regarding the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which the DOJ official "refuses to condemn." Bove also investigated and fired dozens of FBI agents who had been involved in probing the attacks, which were aimed at stopping lawmakers from certifying Trump's 2020 election loss.
"It is disqualifying alone that Mr. Bove targeted or terminated Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel and career DOJ prosecutors for honorably investigating violent criminals who assaulted police officers and intended to murder members of Congress and our nation's vice president on January 6, 2021," wrote the judges.
They also pointed to Bove's role in dropping corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, which prompted the resignation of several disgusted staff attorneys, and his record of belittling and abusing staffers when he was a federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District—a pattern that made him the subject of an email from defense attorneys who expressed concern about Bove's "power plays" and "professionalism."
"Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position," wrote the lawyers.
Gregg Nunziata, executive director at the Society for the Rule of Law, said the "remarkable" letter demonstrated how "the case against Mr. Bove's confirmation" is "about fundamental unfitness for the judicial role."
The Senate committee is set to vote on Bove's nomination on Thursday, and Republicans on the panel are expected to approve the appointment—even though Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) previously said he would not support nominations of people who refused to condemn the January 6 attacks. After the committee vote, Bove would need to be confirmed by the full chamber.
On a questionnaire given to him by the Senate as part of his confirmation process, Bove said "the characterization of the events on January 6 is a matter of significant political debate," and declined to comment on his views.
On the same document, Bove did not rule out Trump's potential run for a third term—which would violate the U.S. Constitution's 22nd Amendment.
While the judges outlined Bove's unfitness for the lifetime appeals court seat, journalist Lydia Polgreen noted that as the committee moved toward a likely confirmation, condemnation should also be aimed at members of the Democratic Party who "caved to anti-Muslim smears" last year and failed to confirm veteran lawyer Adeel Mangi for the seat on the 3rd Circuit—leaving the spot open for Trump's former personal attorney.
As Common Dreams reported last year, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned whether Mangi condemned the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel in October 2023. They also accused Mangi of antisemitism due to his membership on the advisory board for the Rutgers Center for Security, Race, and Rights, which hosted speakers who—like more than half of U.S. adults currently—were critical of Israel.
The "monthslong onslaught of baseless, disgusting attacks on Mangi," as HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery called them, were successful, and convinced Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to vote against the "highly qualified, widely endorsed, successful litigator."
"The history of trying to fill this powerful court seat," said Bendery, "is just as infuriating as where it could be headed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump, Epstein, and the GOP’s Planned Rape Culture
The question is not why they hid the list. The question is why they need it at all when the ledger is already written in their laws.
Jul 15, 2025
By the time the U.S. Justice Department released its memo in July 2025, the faithful were already starting to turn. There was no “client list,” no smoking gun, no perverted cabal of global elites laid bare for public vengeance. What they got instead was a cold government document and a half-mumbled shrug from President Donald Trump, who barely remembered the man everyone else had turned into a folk demon. “Are people still talking about this guy, this creep?” he asked, blinking like he’d just wandered out of a golf simulator.
The betrayal was almost elegant. For years, Trump’s people had promised the black book. Attorney General Pam Bondi said it was on her desk. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel practically branded his political future with it. Counselor to the President of the United Staes Alina Habba promised flight logs and names. And then the punchline: nothing. Or rather, a truckload of documents scrubbed clean and a memo telling the public to move on. The frenzy turned inward. MAGA loyalists melted down on camera. Laura Loomer called for a special counsel. Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino stopped showing up for work. Right-wing media turned on itself like rats in a pressure cooker.
But the Epstein file was never the point. The real story was not buried in a locked safe or hidden by the FBI. It was out in the open. It is still out in the open. The political movement that once pledged to drain the swamp has spent its second tour of duty building a legal and bureaucratic fortress around some of the oldest crimes in the book. Modern conservatism has come to rely not just on outrage but on inertia, and nowhere is that more visible than in its handling of child sexual abuse.
We are not talking about a secret ring or coded pizza menus. We are talking about a system that tolerates child marriage in over half the states. A system that forces raped minors to carry pregnancies to term. A system that slashes funding for shelters and trauma counseling. A system that lets rape kits pile up in warehouse back rooms while politicians pose in front of billboards about protecting kids.
This is not a moral failure or a bureaucratic oversight. It is an architecture. It is built from votes, funded by budgets, signed into law by men who say they fear God but fear losing donors more. The Epstein affair may have collapsed in a cloud of whimpering and spin, but what it revealed is far more corrosive than any one man’s crimes. The question is not why they hid the list. The question is why they need it at all when the ledger is already written in their laws.
Legalized Child Marriage as Institutional Abuse
As of mid-2025, child marriage remains legal in 37 U.S. states. In most of these jurisdictions, statutory exceptions allow minors to marry with parental consent or judicial approval. Some states permit marriage for individuals as young as 15. Others lack any explicit minimum age when certain conditions are met. These legal frameworks persist despite growing evidence of their links to coercion, abuse, and lifelong harm.
Missouri serves as a prominent example. Until recently, it permitted minors aged 15 to marry with parental consent. Testimony from survivors has revealed how this legal permission facilitated predatory relationships cloaked in legitimacy. In one case, a girl was married off to a man nearly a decade older, and the marriage became a vehicle for sustained sexual and psychological abuse. Former child brides in Missouri have since called for a statutory minimum age of 18 with no exceptions. Legislative efforts to enact such reforms have repeatedly stalled.
Tennessee offers a more recent and pointed illustration. In 2022, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would have created a new category of marriage not subject to age restrictions. The bill failed under public pressure, but it signaled a continued willingness by some conservative legislators to bypass modern child protection norms. Even when confronted with documentation of exploitation, physical violence, and long-term trauma, these lawmakers often frame the issue around religious liberty and parental authority.
The Epstein affair was never going to end in justice. It was a mirror. What it reflected was not a single man’s sins but a political order that treats predation as a price of stability.
The prevailing rhetoric in these debates centers on traditional family values. Proponents argue that restricting child marriage infringes on the rights of families to make decisions without state interference. In some cases, advocates for maintaining the status quo invoke Christian theological justifications or present marriage as a preferable alternative to state custody. These arguments shift the legal focus away from the vulnerability of the minor and toward the autonomy of adults, particularly parents and religious leaders.
This legal tolerance undermines the enforcement of statutory rape laws. When marriage can be used as a legal shield, older adults who would otherwise face criminal prosecution gain immunity by securing parental consent or exploiting permissive judicial channels. In practice, the marriage license functions as retroactive permission for sexual contact with a minor. Law enforcement agencies are often reluctant to investigate allegations within a legally recognized marriage, even when age discrepancies raise clear concerns.
The persistence of child marriage statutes in conservative-controlled states is not simply a relic of outdated law. It reflects a policy choice. The choice is to preserve adult control over minors, particularly in contexts that reinforce patriarchal and religious hierarchies. In doing so, the state becomes an active participant in the erasure of consent. Legal recognition of these unions confers legitimacy on relationships that, in other contexts, would be subject to prosecution. The result is a bifurcated legal system where a child’s age and rights are contingent on the adult interests surrounding her.
Forced Birth Laws and the Abandonment of Minor Victims
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state legislatures moved swiftly to implement abortion bans. As of July 2025, 10 states enforce prohibitions with no exceptions for rape or incest. These laws apply equally to adults and minors. In doing so, they erase the distinction between consensual and coerced sexual activity and impose state control over the bodies of children.
The consequences are observable. In Ohio, a 10-year-old girl became pregnant after being raped by a 27-year-old man. Because Ohio law prohibited abortion past six weeks and included no exception for rape, the girl traveled to Indiana to terminate the pregnancy. The physician who provided the abortion was targeted by state officials and subjected to professional disciplinary action. The child’s identity was shielded, but her case became a national flashpoint. No changes were made to Ohio’s statute in response.
In Mississippi, a 13-year-old girl gave birth after being raped by a stranger. Her family, unable to afford travel or secure an out-of-state appointment, watched as the pregnancy advanced. Though state law permitted abortion in cases of rape, it required police reporting and formal certification by the authorities. The procedural burden, combined with lack of local providers, rendered the exception functionally inaccessible. The pregnancy was carried to term. No support infrastructure was provided beyond birth.
In Texas, multiple cases have emerged involving girls under 14 who were raped by family members or acquaintances. One minor received abortion pills through informal networks. Another did not. In that case, the pregnancy continued until birth. In both situations, school staff, health workers, and shelter employees described an atmosphere of legal ambiguity and fear. Providers worried about prosecution for aiding what could be construed as an illegal abortion. Parents feared legal action or custody loss if they sought help out of state.
These laws are not merely restrictive. They are designed to inhibit access through a combination of legal uncertainty, bureaucratic obstruction, and geographic isolation. Requirements for parental consent and judicial bypass impose additional delays. In conservative jurisdictions, judges often refuse bypass requests outright. Clinics have closed. Providers have left. In many counties, no legal abortion services exist. For minors with limited mobility, no resources, and histories of abuse, these constraints function as a full prohibition.
Psychological consequences are profound. Research conducted by trauma specialists indicates that forced pregnancy following sexual assault exacerbates the risk of suicidal ideation, self-injury, and long-term mental illness. Minors compelled to remain pregnant often experience acute dissociation and chronic anxiety. Social workers report increased incidents of runaway behavior, substance use, and refusal to attend school. The medical literature consistently describes these outcomes as preventable harm.
The political response to these outcomes has been largely nonreactive. Elected officials in affected states have declined to revisit statutory language. When presented with specific cases, responses are limited to procedural defenses or deflections. Conservative media outlets often ignore these incidents altogether or question their veracity. State agencies rarely publish disaggregated data on minor pregnancies resulting from assault. In legislative hearings, victims are not called to testify.
This absence of acknowledgment is not accidental. The architecture of forced birth laws depends on abstraction. It requires a conceptual fetus without context, a generic moral narrative without victims. The insertion of real children into that framework exposes its contradictions. In response, the system silences or discredits those who do not fit the script.
The effect is the systematic abandonment of minor victims. The state declines to intervene in the act of abuse, imposes control over the outcome, and then withdraws when support is needed. In doing so, it transforms rape from a crime to a reproductive event and reclassifies children as bearers of state policy. The result is not a deviation from conservative thought. It is one of its clearest expressions.
The Systematic Dismantling of Survivor Support
In early 2025, the Trump administration released a proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2026 that included significant funding reductions for agencies and programs supporting survivors of domestic and sexual violence. The Office on Violence Against Women removed all open funding opportunities from its website. This move came amid a broader effort to eliminate what the administration referred to as “woke” or ideologically driven programs. Internal Department of Justice (DOJ) memoranda confirmed that existing grant language was being revised to align with White House policy preferences, with particular scrutiny directed toward anything referencing diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI).
The proposed budget eliminated the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. That agency had previously overseen funding for rape prevention and domestic violence education through the DELTA and RPE programs. These initiatives provided critical infrastructure for community-based interventions, including education campaigns, prevention training, and partnerships with local law enforcement. Their elimination removed a core pillar of upstream support.
At the same time, DOJ grant freezes disrupted downstream services. Nonprofit organizations across the country reported immediate and severe impacts. In Ohio, the Hope and Healing Survivor Resource Center announced potential layoffs of its court advocates and a reduction in emergency shelter capacity. In Washington D.C., House of Ruth stated it was experiencing multiple levels of new scrutiny when seeking reimbursement for already-approved expenditures. Organizations were directed to pause hiring and halt finalization of pending grant applications. Many could not meet payroll obligations for March.
Survivors of violence were displaced not by explicit prohibition but by the withdrawal of every practical means of assistance.
In Philadelphia, Women Against Abuse reported difficulties accessing funding for its LGBTQ-specific services. In Washington state, the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center prepared to end its legal advocacy program entirely. In both cases, staff warned that client wait times for crisis response had doubled within a single quarter. Administrators noted that many of their clients were minors or undocumented women who lacked other options. Reductions in services were expected to increase reliance on emergency departments and law enforcement, systems ill-equipped to handle trauma recovery or long-term safety planning.
The effects extended to rural programs as well. In smaller counties, shelters funded primarily through DOJ block grants began closing intake lists. Survivors were told to wait or relocate. Legal assistance for restraining orders and custody cases became difficult to obtain. Mobile crisis units were discontinued. Hospital advocates who had previously accompanied victims during forensic exams were no longer available. Each removed position created a compounding absence in systems already operating at capacity.
The budget’s emphasis on eliminating federal programs associated with DEI goals shaped the targeting of these cuts. While many victim services agencies did not explicitly advertise such language, internal reviewers flagged any mention of racial disparities, LGBTQ outreach, or culturally specific programming as potentially noncompliant with revised priorities. A senior DOJ official, speaking anonymously, stated that the Office on Violence Against Women had been instructed to avoid “risk exposure” by minimizing support for identity-based initiatives.
Although the Violence Against Women Act had been reauthorized in 2022 with bipartisan support, its implementation now faced procedural obstruction. Staff who had expanded under the prior administration were informed they might be subject to termination. A memo from the Office of Management and Budget described plans for agency-wide attrition. Staff with less than three years of tenure were given no assurances. Departments were instructed to prepare for reduced grant-making capacity over the following two fiscal cycles.
The dismantling of support systems was neither sudden nor undocumented. It unfolded through administrative erasure, funding attrition, and legal recalibration. Survivors of violence were displaced not by explicit prohibition but by the withdrawal of every practical means of assistance. Those left behind were often the least able to navigate the resulting gaps. For these individuals, the state offered no replacement. Instead, it imposed a bureaucratic silence where aid had once existed. The outcome was a deliberate contraction of the public obligation to protect.
Forensic Neglect and the Rape Kit Crisis
Despite the adoption of sexual assault kit tracking systems in over 30 states, the United States continues to face a persistent national backlog. Tens of thousands of kits remain untested in police storage facilities, hospital evidence rooms, and crime labs. Many of these kits have been stored for years without analysis. Others were never submitted for processing due to departmental triage, lost documentation, or discretionary decisions by investigating officers. While some states have mandated timelines for submission and testing, enforcement mechanisms remain weak, and compliance is inconsistent.
The Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, a federal program designed to support evidence processing and data coordination, has received limited attention under the current administration. Although the initiative has produced measurable results in jurisdictions that prioritized its implementation, recent Justice Department actions suggest a deprioritization of forensic reform. The DOJ has declined to expand funding, and the program has not featured in recent public safety messaging. Internal budget documents indicate that grants for kit testing were not included in the administration’s revised funding priorities for fiscal year 2026.
As a result, survivors often experience long delays in receiving updates about their cases. Some discover years later that their evidence was never tested. Others are notified only after investigations are closed due to expired statutes of limitation. Communication is sporadic and mediated by agencies with limited resources and unclear protocols. Victims who attempt to inquire directly are frequently redirected or denied information outright. In some states, survivors have been required to submit formal public records requests to learn whether their kits were processed.
These delays compromise prosecutions. When evidence is eventually tested, witnesses may be unreachable, suspects may no longer be within the jurisdiction, and memory degradation may weaken the reliability of victim testimony. Prosecutors, facing caseload pressures and limited bandwidth, often decline to pursue cases that were mishandled in their early stages. Defense attorneys use the lag in testing to undermine credibility or introduce procedural challenges. The net effect is a collapse in accountability long before any trial begins.
The failures of evidence handling disproportionately affect marginalized populations. In rural areas, law enforcement agencies lack personnel and funding to maintain evidence integrity or pursue cold cases. In urban centers, kits from Black, Indigenous, and Latina victims are more likely to go untested. Multiple studies have found that law enforcement officers are more likely to doubt the credibility of victims from low-income neighborhoods, undocumented communities, or those with previous contact with social services. These judgments influence whether evidence is submitted for analysis and whether cases receive investigative follow-up.
The forensic crisis is compounded by data gaps. Many states do not track the number of untested kits in private hospitals or non-mandated reporting facilities. Others exclude kits from the backlog if they were collected before a specific year. The result is an undercounting that obscures the true scope of institutional failure. Federal authorities have not established a national registry or auditing mechanism to standardize reporting. This lack of oversight permits continued neglect without consequence.
Efforts to reform the system remain fragmented. Some jurisdictions have implemented notification protocols to alert survivors when their kits are tested or their cases reopened. Others have passed legislation requiring mandatory submission timelines. These efforts, however, rely on sustained funding and political will. In the current policy environment, neither can be assumed.
The accumulation of untested rape kits reflects more than a bureaucratic shortfall. It reveals a hierarchy of value embedded in forensic practice. Victims whose experiences align with prosecutorial priorities receive attention. Those who fall outside those norms are left in limbo. The backlog is not only a logistical failure. It is a measure of who is deemed worthy of pursuit.
The Performance of Protection and the Reality of Harm
In the contemporary conservative lexicon, few terms have gained as much political traction as “groomer.” Once associated narrowly with criminal prosecutions of adults who built relationships with children for the purpose of sexual exploitation, the term has been repurposed as a generalized insult. It now targets a wide array of perceived ideological enemies, from public school teachers to LGBTQ advocates to librarians. In its current usage, “groomer” does not denote a specific criminal act. It signifies dissent from cultural orthodoxy. It functions rhetorically rather than descriptively.
This shift is not accidental. The term has become a central instrument in the conservative culture war arsenal. It is applied liberally to any policy, institution, or public figure that departs from a narrow conception of sexual and gender norms. The invocation of grooming no longer requires evidence. It requires proximity to subjects deemed socially suspect. Teachers who support inclusive sex education, therapists who serve queer youth, and public health professionals working with at-risk adolescents are all subject to the accusation. The result is not the exposure of exploitation. It is the expansion of suspicion.
The logic underpinning this rhetorical turn is strategic. By collapsing the distinction between ideological disagreement and criminal intent, the conservative movement recasts public discourse as a permanent battlefield of moral danger. In this framework, policy is secondary. What matters is posture. The capacity to signal vigilance becomes more important than the provision of safety. The accusation becomes the protection. The spectacle replaces the intervention.
By focusing public energy on the symbolic boundaries of morality, policymakers insulate themselves from accountability for structural abandonment.
This performance obscures the absence of actual safeguards for children. While conservative figures warn of drag queens and inclusive curricula, they vote against background check expansions for youth workers. They resist efforts to create national child abuse registries that include religious institutions. They block legislation to raise the minimum age of marriage. They eliminate funding for school counselors and after-school programs. They cut budgets for child protective services and reduce oversight of private adoption and foster care networks.
There is no contradiction here. The performance is the policy. Protection is not measured in outcomes. It is measured in volume. The louder the accusation, the less scrutiny is applied to legislative choices. Policy failure is neutralized by narrative substitution. When a child is raped and forced to give birth, the story is not told. When a teacher reads a picture book about diverse families, the story is told at volume. One incident is silent law. The other is national scandal.
The political value of outrage lies in its ability to redirect attention. Material neglect becomes invisible behind symbolic noise. The passage of laws criminalizing drag performances near schools draws headlines. The failure to fund rape crisis centers does not. By focusing public energy on the symbolic boundaries of morality, policymakers insulate themselves from accountability for structural abandonment. The child becomes a rhetorical device. She exists in theory rather than in law.
This asymmetry is visible in legislative activity. Since 2022, Republican-controlled legislatures have introduced hundreds of bills targeting LGBTQ speech, education content, and library access. Fewer than 10 bills have addressed forensic backlog reform. Even fewer have advanced. Proposed federal legislation to protect minors from online exploitation has repeatedly failed due to concerns about regulation of private companies. At the same time, multiple states have attempted to prosecute school staff for discussing gender identity under “grooming” statutes. The alignment is clear. Threats are defined ideologically. Interventions are reserved for performance.
Media infrastructure amplifies this distortion. Conservative news outlets and online influencers produce continuous content warning of threats posed by social workers, librarians, and drag performers. The framing consistently positions adults who support youth autonomy as predators. At the same time, actual cases of child sexual abuse in religious, athletic, and political institutions are downplayed or reframed. The function of this narrative is not to inform. It is to sustain a moral panic that legitimizes surveillance and censorship while diverting attention from systemic failures.
This process also redefines harm. Under the current paradigm, harm is not measured by suffering or injury. It is measured by deviation from normative identity. A child exposed to age-appropriate information about gender is framed as endangered. A child raped and forced to carry a pregnancy is not framed at all. She exists outside the moral narrative. Her pain is illegible because it does not confirm the ideological premise. She does not symbolize anything useful. She is inconvenient.
This redefinition produces policy that protects ideology rather than people. It enshrines the fiction that surveillance and restriction produce safety. It displaces accountability by substituting criminalization for care. The result is a system in which the primary targets of protective legislation are not predators but professionals. Teachers, counselors, and medical providers are monitored more closely than the men marrying minors or the judges enabling child pregnancies. The apparatus of protection becomes an apparatus of control.
This structure is not malfunctioning. It is performing as designed. The emphasis on symbolic enforcement over material assistance ensures that power remains centered. Actual protections would require redistribution. They would require funding, oversight, and transparency. They would require confronting the institutions most closely aligned with conservative authority: churches, courts, families. That confrontation is not forthcoming. Instead, the state protects the ideology of protection while abandoning the child.
The cumulative effect is institutionalized harm. Systems nominally built to safeguard children instead categorize them. They are either politically useful or they are not. Those who conform to the narrative of victimhood receive visibility without assistance. Those who contradict it receive neither. The performance of protection absorbs public attention. The reality of harm proceeds without interruption.
This disconnect is not unique to recent years. It has precedent in every era of moral panic. What is distinct in the current moment is the speed and reach of narrative enforcement. Digital media enables rapid mobilization around symbolic events. Legislation follows quickly. Meanwhile, data on actual abuse, assault, and neglect remains underreported and underanalyzed. The disparity between visible outrage and invisible harm grows wider. The system becomes harder to map and easier to perform.
The result is a hollow institution of child protection. It possesses language without infrastructure, law without care, and policy without contact. It functions as a mirror reflecting ideology back to its authors. The child at the center of the performance is not protected. She is used. The system that claims to speak for her leaves her undocumented, unsupported, and unacknowledged. This is not a gap in the system. It is the system.
A Coherent System, Not a Series of Failures
This is not the result of a broken machine. It is the machine.
Child marriage laws that legalize statutory rape. Forced birth mandates that turn trauma into state policy. Rape crisis centers shuttered by budget design. Evidence kits rotting in closets. Drag queens banned from libraries while judges greenlight the weddings of 15-year-olds to grown men. None of this happens by accident. The patterns are too consistent, the outcomes too aligned. This is not a case of good intentions gone astray or bureaucratic confusion. It is a deliberate configuration of legal tools designed to shield abusers and discipline the abused.
The architecture holds. What looks like hypocrisy from the outside is strategy from within. It is not a contradiction to scream about “protecting children” while erasing them from legislation, data, and policy. It is not a glitch that the same people who ban books on puberty also block efforts to process rape kits. It is not ironic that the man whose administration claimed to be exposing Epstein’s secrets ended up presiding over their burial. It is structural.
The Epstein file was never about closure. It was about control. It served as a pressure valve, a vessel for all the anxiety and suspicion the base could not voice elsewhere. But when the promised reckoning finally came, it was blank pages and black ink. No fireworks. No arrests. Just a memo and a shrug. The silence that followed was not empty. It was full of meaning.
Because while they waited for the names to drop, the rest of the machine kept humming. Pregnant children were denied care. Shelters lost funding. Backlogs grew. Survivors disappeared into legal limbo. And the same men who had built their brand on outrage offered nothing but slogans and deflection. The spectacle of protection kept playing. But behind the curtain, the laws were doing exactly what they were designed to do.
It is easy to mock the true believers who spent years convinced that justice was one release away. But they were right about one thing. There is a network. It is not secret. It is written into the statutes and reinforced by the budgets. It lives in the votes cast to stall reforms and the speeches given to demonize victims. The rot is not hidden. It is codified.
The question now is not whether the system will be exposed. It already has been. The question is whether people are willing to see what has been made plainly visible. To understand that the policy scaffolding of modern conservatism is not a malfunctioning child safety program. It is a functioning disciplinary regime. Its purpose is not to protect the vulnerable. It is to sort them. To elevate the compliant and erase the inconvenient.
The Epstein affair was never going to end in justice. It was a mirror. What it reflected was not a single man’s sins but a political order that treats predation as a price of stability. The client list doesn’t need to be released. The clients wrote the laws. The machine is working.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Indicts East LA Community Defender Accused of Giving Face Shields to Anti-ICE Protesters
One group asserted that Alejandro Orellana "has done nothing wrong; speaking out against ICE terror, raids, and deportations is not a crime, protesting is not a crime!"
Jul 03, 2025
The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday indicted a longtime immigrant rights defender who allegedly distributed items including face shields and bottles of water to demonstrators during a downtown Los Angeles protest last month against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.
Alejandro Orellana, 29, of East Los Angeles was indicted by a federal grand jury for alleged conspiracy to aid and abet civil disorders. According to federal prosecutors, Orellana and others met on June 9 and loaded his Ford pickup truck with face shields, masks, bottles of water, and other items and then drove to a protest and handed out the items.
Orellana was arrested during a June 12 raid by FBI agents backed by National Guard troops and county law enforcement on his family home in East L.A. According to Los Angeles Public Press, federal agents executed a search warrant two weeks later against fellow activist Verita Topete, seizing her phone and leaving her bruised.
At a June 27 press conference at Ruben F. Salazar Park in East Los Angeles, Orellana thanked "friends, family, community, and allies" for their support.
U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli told Fox News at the time of Orellana's arrest that "we have made it a huge priority to try to identify, locate, and arrest those who are involved in organizing, supporting, funding, or facilitating these riots."
If fully convicted, Orellana—a U.S. Marine Corps veteran with no criminal record—could face up to five years behind bars.
Orellana and Topete are members of Centro CSO, a Chicano-led civil rights group that is no stranger to state surveillance and repression. Founded in 1947 by Fred Ross, Antonio Rios, and Edward Roybal—who was later elected to the Los Angeles City Council and then the U.S. House of Representatives—the group was originally known as Community Service Organization (CSO).
Notable CSO members have included César Chávez and Dolores Huerta of United Farm Workers, both of whom were targeted for FBI surveillance under longtime Director J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO program.
Centro CSO was born out of CSO in the 2000s to "fight against the war in Iraq, and military recruiters, and also the fight for public education," longtime member Carlos Montes told Los Angeles Public Press. Another Centro CSO member, Sammy Carrera, told the outlet that the arrest of Orellana and seizure of Topete's phone are a continuation of state suppression of CSO.
"I don't think they anticipated such an organized community that was willing to defend our neighbors, our family members, and so they're scrambling to see, you know, see how they can smash us to stop, you, these rebellions that are being organized," Carrera said of the government's response to the anti-ICE protests.
Responding to Orellana's arrest, the Los Angeles-based Legalization 4 All (L4A) Network said last week: "Alejandro has done nothing wrong; speaking out against ICE terror, raids, and deportations is not a crime, protesting is not a crime! As Chicanos, Mexicanos, Centroamericanos around the country are being racially profiled and viciously kidnapped, activists like Alejandro have every right to speak out."
"Protesting is not a crime, fighting against ICE terror is not a crime! Legalization for all and stop the ICE raids now!" L4A added.
Noting the numerous documented injuries suffered by anti-ICE protesters at the hands of police and the Los Angeles Police Department's long history of spying on and repressing civil rights defenders, attorney Peter Bibring told Los Angeles Public Press that "taking protective measures isn't a sign of criminal activity, it's common sense."
Centro CSO has been organizing events in support of Orellana, including a planned press conference at 4:30 pm Thursday at the Edward Roybal Federal Building and a Saturday rally in La Placita Olvera.
"Our movement will continue, even if they obtain warrants to confiscate our electronic devices," Carrera said at the June 27 press conference. "Our movement will continue, even if they bring in the National Guard to raid our members. Our movement will continue. Drop the charges now!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Beyond Unfit': Emil Bove Endorses Trump's 'Unitary Executive' Theory at Confirmation Hearing
The federal judicial nominee supports signing "a blank check for Trump to control every agency," said one government watchdog.
Jun 25, 2025
A whistleblower complaint alleging that top Justice Department official Emil Bove pressured government lawyers to ignore court orders was a primary concern for Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday as the panel held Bove's confirmation hearing to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit—but a government watchdog urged lawmakers not to overlook another key issue that came to light during the hearing.
Bove told the committee that the whistleblower complaint that was filed by ousted former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni Tuesday addressed "a dispute about the challenges posed by the unelected bureaucracy to the unitary executive and to the people that elected the president and put him in office."
Accountable.US said Bove had inserted a "buzzword" into his testimony: the far-right "unitary executive" theory, which holds that limits on presidential power over the executive branch are unconstitutional—or that the president should hold absolute power over every government agency, unencumbered by members of "the unelected bureaucracy" like Reuveni and anyone else in the federal government who would express disagreement with President Donald Trump's policies or actions.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, Reuveni's whistleblower complaint detailed allegations that just before Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to swiftly deport more than 200 immigrants to El Salvador—claiming they were gang members who were part of an "invasion" of the U.S.—Bove told DOJ lawyers that deportation flights "needed to take off no matter what" and that the agency should "consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such order" that would try to stop the forced removals.
In his testimony Wednesday, Bove took issue with the idea that a career government attorney like Reuveni, who was acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation, "was in a position or considered himself to be, to bind the department's leadership and other Cabinet officials."
Bove suggested Reuveni, who served in the department for 15 years under Democratic and Republican administrations, should not have been empowered to say in a court hearing that the Trump White House had mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was sent to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, as he did in April—just before he was placed on administrative leave and then fired.
Under the "unitary executive" theory, said Accountable.US, Trump alone would control "the DOJ, the Fed, even election oversight. No president should have that kind of power."
Bove expanded on his views regarding presidential power when Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) questioned him about "the contours of the president's authority to appoint and remove" executive branch officials.
"Generally speaking," said Bove, "I think the court used the phrase 'all of it' is committed to the president of the United States."
In a column in February, John Bergmayer, legal director of Public Knowledge, warned that with an executive order purporting to place independent regulatory agencies under Trump's control, the president had embraced the fringe "unitary executive" theory and posed "a grave threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers—cornerstones of our constitutional system."
"That this 'unitary executive' theory has made its way from the fringes of academia to the halls of power, and that it has even been accepted by some credulous judges, does not mean that it is right," wrote Bergmayer. "Many legal observers have pointed out the shoddy scholarship and selective history that underpins it. We are a nation of laws, and we cannot be ruled by executive fiat."
At the hearing, Bove denied the allegations in the whistleblower complaint, saying he "never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order." He told Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) under questioning that he "did not recall" whether he made the comments detailed in the complaint.
Accountable compiled a list of numerous concerns about Bove's potential appointment to a lifetime seat on the federal judicial bench as part of its Judicial Nominations Watch project.
In addition to the allegations in the complaint, said the group, Bove:
- Created turmoil and chaos in the Justice Department after dropping corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, prompting the resignation of multiple staff attorneys, who left in protest;
- Advanced dubious legal arguments meant to throw out or delay Trump's legal cases when he served as his attorney, including by trying to avoid discovery requirements and petitioning to move Trump's New York state criminal case to federal court; and
- Developed a reputation as a federal prosecutor who belittled subordinates and was the subject of an email from defense attorneys expressing concern about his "professionalism" and "power plays"—a document he pinned to a wall as "a badge of honor."
Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program and an adviser at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said Bove has been shown to be "beyond unfit to serve in a lifetime judgeship."
"His temperament, subversion of the rule of law, and efforts to seek retaliation while at the Justice Department demonstrate that he would not be fair-minded, independent, or committed to protecting the rights of all people in America," said Zwarensteyn. "As his actions have shown, he would only be loyal to the president—rather than to the Constitution and the law—at the expense of the American people and our democracy."
"With each day there are more and more damaging reports and questions about Bove's tenure at both the Justice Department and in the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York," she added. "Senators must take their constitutional responsibility seriously. They must reject his nomination for the 3rd Circuit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
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