The increasing use of masks and obscured identities by federal immigration officers during raids and protests has raised significant concerns. Mike German, a former FBI agent, argues this practice is unprecedented and erodes democratic controls, making it difficult to trust legitimate authority. He notes that masking, along with a post-9/11 shift towards secrecy and intelligence-led policing, has made it harder to distinguish between law enforcement and imposters, potentially leading to increased resistance and dangerous confrontations. German stresses the importance of clear identification and accountability from law enforcement leaders to maintain public trust and uphold the rule of law.
Read More
The Department of Justice (DOJ) will not release Mahmoud Khalil from detention, despite a court ruling prohibiting his detention based solely on Secretary of State Rubio’s assertion that his pro-Palestinian activism contravenes U.S. foreign policy. The DOJ cites the court’s failure to order unconditional release and maintains the right to detain Khalil on other grounds, specifically alleging fraud in his green card application. Khalil’s lawyers contend he meets the conditions for release and have requested his immediate freedom. The DOJ counters that Khalil should pursue release through standard immigration procedures.
Read More
President Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Joe Biden, a move unprecedented in US history, based solely on unsubstantiated claims stemming from a past debate. This investigation, lacking evidence of wrongdoing, follows two similar investigations ordered by Trump against former officials Christopher Krebs and Miles Taylor, also without evidence of criminal activity. These actions represent a pattern of using the presidency to target political opponents, raising concerns about abuse of power and the erosion of the rule of law. The lack of public outcry risks normalizing such behavior and emboldening further abuses of presidential authority.
Read More
Former Justice Department official Greg Rosen defends the department’s handling of January 6th cases, asserting that prosecutions were fair, thorough, and upheld the Constitution. He criticizes President Trump’s pardons of rioters, arguing they condone political violence and undermine the rule of law. Rosen further condemns the Trump administration’s targeting and dismissal of federal employees involved in the investigation, claiming this hinders future efforts to prevent similar crimes. He concludes that the historical record of the prosecutions should serve as a testament to the rule of law despite ongoing political efforts to distort the events of January 6th.
Read More
In a recent interview, former President Bill Clinton decried President Trump’s disregard for the rule of law, characterizing his actions as unprecedented and ultimately detrimental to his popularity. Clinton emphasized the importance of elections in addressing this issue, expressing optimism that the courts and increased Democratic victories could provide checks on Trump’s actions. He also cautioned against solely focusing on antipathy towards Trump within the Democratic Party, urging unity and a focus on shared values to preserve the nation’s legacy. Finally, Clinton addressed his own health and briefly commented on President Biden’s fitness for office.
Read More
A court halted his deportation. The Trump administration deported him 28 minutes later. This stark and unsettling scenario highlights a concerning pattern of disregard for judicial authority and due process. The sheer audacity of this action, occurring within a mere 28 minutes of a court order, speaks volumes about the prioritization of expediency over the rule of law.
It raises serious questions about the accountability of government agencies and the potential for widespread abuse of power. The brevity of the time elapsed between the court’s decision and the deportation suggests a pre-planned operation, designed to circumvent legal processes. This intentional circumvention of judicial authority is deeply problematic, eroding the very foundation of a just legal system.… Continue reading
Court says Trump doesn’t have the authority to set tariffs. This ruling, stemming from a full court decision, finally puts a stop to a practice many believed was unconstitutional from the start. The decision clarifies a fundamental principle of our system of government: the power to impose tariffs rests with Congress, not the executive branch.
Court says Trump doesn’t have the authority to set tariffs, and this impacts far more than just the immediate economic consequences. The ruling highlights a crucial separation of powers, a cornerstone of our democratic framework. It underscores the importance of adhering to the checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual, regardless of their position.… Continue reading
Donald Trump’s “Big Ugly Bill” would drastically redistribute wealth upward, benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor and working class. The bill also includes a provision effectively eliminating the courts’ power to hold the administration in contempt, rendering judicial orders unenforceable. This would allow Trump to ignore court rulings, including Supreme Court mandates, with impunity. This measure, if enacted, would severely weaken the federal judiciary and effectively end checks on executive power, culminating in a de facto autocracy.
Read More
Trump’s pardon of a Virginia sheriff convicted of federal bribery charges is a deeply unsettling event, raising serious questions about the rule of law and the integrity of the justice system. The sheriff, who received over $75,000 in cash payments for appointing businessmen as auxiliary deputies, clearly abused his position of power for personal gain. This blatant act of corruption resulted in a ten-year prison sentence, a sentence that now seems meaningless given the presidential pardon.
The pardon itself is particularly galling because it directly contradicts the principles of justice and accountability. The sheriff’s actions were not simply a minor lapse in judgment; they were a calculated scheme to exploit his authority for financial enrichment.… Continue reading
A federal judge’s recent decision to block the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke the enrollment of foreign students at Harvard University highlights a significant clash between executive power and judicial oversight. The administration, seemingly anticipating this legal challenge, likely hoped to create a chilling effect, deterring international students from applying to American universities. This strategy, while potentially successful in reducing international enrollment numbers, directly contradicts the core principles of the American legal system.
The administration’s argument, suggesting that unelected judges lack the authority to impede their immigration and national security policies, fundamentally misrepresents the balance of power enshrined in the U.S.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood