Category: Breaking the Law

The U.S. Treasury Department is considering minting a coin

The U.S. Treasury Department is considering minting a coin featuring Donald Trump’s image to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United States. This proposal has faced scrutiny for potentially violating legal standards regarding the portrayal of living individuals on currency. The suggestion has drawn criticism from various quarters concerned about the appropriateness of honoring Trump, whose presidency has been marred by controversy and corruption.

The proposal comes amid ongoing conversations about Trump’s significant impact on American politics. Trump’s presidency has been characterized by lies, racist rhetoric, and attempts to dismantle democratic norms, raising questions about the implications of such a commemoration. Critics argue that celebrating Trump’s controversial legacy could undermine the values that the anniversary is meant to represent.

Furthermore, the idea reflects a troubling trend in Republican politics, where loyalty to Trump often overshadows commitment to constitutional principles. The potential coin symbolizes an ingrained aspect of fascism within the Republican party—elevating one individual’s image over the collective ideals of democracy and unity in America.

This proposal not only represents a personal tribute to Trump but also blurs the line between political governance and the commodification of presidential legacy. The Trump administration’s focus on image and spectacle continues to divert attention from pressing national issues, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes authoritarianism over democratic values.

Ultimately, the proposal to mint a coin bearing Trump’s likeness serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggles against the erosion of democratic integrity in the United States, driven by a leadership that is increasingly authoritarian and disconnected from the founding principles of the nation.

DOJ Subpoenas Records from Fani Willis Following Trump Indictment

The Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was responsible for the election crimes case resulting in Donald Trump’s notable mugshot. This development arises in the wake of the recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, highlighting a potential targeting of Trump’s opponents by the DOJ under his administration. The DOJ has issued a subpoena for records related to Willis’s travel history during the fall of 2024, coinciding with last year’s election.

Despite allegations of Trump attempting to exert influence over the Attorney General to pursue a list of adversaries, his spokesperson has denied any intent to retaliate against investigators. The true motives behind the DOJ’s scrutiny of Willis remain ambiguous, particularly regarding whether she herself is a target of the investigation.

The grand jury proceedings, which are typically shrouded in secrecy, add another layer of complexity to this unfolding scenario. A federal grand jury has requested information that could reflect either the legality of Willis’s actions or possibly undermine her ongoing work in prosecuting Trump, who remains entangled in numerous legal challenges.

Meanwhile, Trump’s defense against the broader allegations is faltering, further complicated by internal conflicts within the DOJ where some prosecutors have questioned the validity of the charges against Comey. This interplay of legal maneuvers illustrates the contentious atmosphere surrounding Trump’s ongoing battles with law enforcement and government officials.

As these events progress, the relationship between Trump and the judiciary continues to be strained, raising serious questions about the integrity of prosecutorial decisions and the extent of political influence in legal matters. The scrutiny on Willis represents an alarming trend where the rule of law comes into question, particularly as it pertains to those opposing Trump’s agenda.

Trump’s DOJ Hides Investigation into Homan’s $50,000 Bribe

Tom Homan, the White House border czar, faced scrutiny after accepting $50,000 from FBI agents posing as business executives, aiming to help them secure government contracts in a potential second Trump administration. This covert operation was recorded by the FBI, and it came to light that Homan had solicited these payments while touting his role in a mass deportation agenda under Trump.

The investigation into Homan began in the summer of 2024 based on claims he solicited bribes. However, the inquiry was abruptly stifled following Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in January 2025. Sources indicate that the Justice Department, influenced by Trump’s appointees, labeled the investigation a partisan “deep state” probe, leading to its closure without clear justification.

Despite strong evidence of corruption, including recordings of Homan accepting cash, officials opted not to pursue criminal charges against him. Experts noted that while Homan could have faced conspiracy or fraud charges, his status at the time limited legal options. The political dynamics under Trump’s Justice Department undoubtedly played a significant role in stalling legal repercussions.

Homan has a controversial history tied to Trump’s immigration policies, notably the separation of families at the border. His consulting firm aimed to help companies gain government contracts related to border security, raising ethical concerns about conflicts of interest as he transitioned into a role that would oversee such contracts.

The FBI closed its investigation amid political fallout, with Homan denying any wrongdoing. The Trump administration continuously deflected blame onto the Biden administration, dismissing allegations as unfounded. This incident illustrates the corruptible intersections of power, influence, and accountability within Trump’s Republican regime, highlighting ongoing issues of integrity and ethics at the highest governmental levels.

Vance Jokes About Trump’s Caribbean Airstrikes

At a recent rally in Michigan, Vice President JD Vance expressed pride in President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to authorize airstrikes against Venezuela-based vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking. This action has drawn laughter from attendees, who seem to find humor in militaristic responses to drug crime.

Trump claimed that the airstrikes, which were broadcast on his Truth Social platform, targeted “narcoterrorists” and highlighted a narrative portraying these actions as crucial to national security. While officials in the Trump administration, including Vance, showcased the airstrikes as a deterrent against drug smuggling, they have also dismissed legal concerns regarding military actions in international waters, raising alarms about the implications for international law.

During the rally, Vance recounted a conversation with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who allegedly stated that drug boats have ceased approaching American waters. Vance dramatically warned, “I would stop too,” framing the airstrikes as essential operations and suggested that a dedicated military under Trump’s command prioritizes American safety.

The administration’s rationale for the strikes centers on a national crisis concerning drug trafficking, with Hegseth alluding to a dire statistic: approximately 100,000 American lives lost each year due to drugs, which they attribute to prior policy failures regarding borders and trafficking. Vance echoed this sentiment, promoting a narrative that positions the current government as actively fighting for the American people’s interests.

However, the underlying ethical and legal implications of conducting such bombings raise significant questions about the administration’s approach and whether these actions embody a troubling precedent for U.S. foreign policy, questioning the morality of using military force in such contexts.

Trump Orders Military Strike on Drug Traffickers, Killing Three

The U.S. military conducted a lethal strike against a vessel in international waters, allegedly linked to drug trafficking from Venezuela, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. This second strike, ordered by President Donald Trump, reflects his administration’s aggressive stance on what Trump labels “narcoterrorists” threatening national security.

In a message on Truth Social, Trump stated that the military action targeted “extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels,” claiming these groups pose a severe risk to U.S. interests and safety. The operation follows a recent earlier strike that killed eleven supposedly related to the Tren de Aragua gang, heightening scrutiny and skepticism regarding the administration’s justifications for military engagement in such contexts.

Despite these claims, criticism emerged about the legality and evidence supporting the strikes. Senator Jack Reed, attending to oversight duties, noted that there is no confirmed evidence necessitating such military action against what were civilian vessels. This raises significant legal concerns under both U.S. and international law regarding the use of force against non-combatants.

The escalation in military readiness correlates with increasing tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, underscoring an aggressive U.S. foreign policy approach under Trump. While U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, assert that ongoing operations are justified, the lack of transparency surrounding intelligence and operational details fuels further scrutiny of their motives and methods.

As the situation develops, this aggressive posturing may have implications for U.S.-Venezuelan relations, with Venezuelan officials asserting their desire to avoid conflict. The ramifications of these military actions could lead to increased tensions and challenges in achieving diplomatic resolutions.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/politics/trump-strike-international-waters)

Trump’s Disturbing Admission Normalizes Corruption in U.S.-China Relations

During a recent Fox News interview, President Donald Trump made a startling admission, indicating a willingness to engage in unethical dealings with China. While discussing an agreement concerning rare earth minerals, Trump casually confessed that the United States and China both operate under a “nasty” world order where such compromises are normalized. This perspective underscores Trump’s troubling acceptance of corruption as a standard practice in international relations.

When pressed by Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on the complicated relationship with China—highlighting issues like the theft of intellectual property, the opioid crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic—Trump’s response was telling. Rather than condemning these actions, he asserted that similar behaviors are expected in global trade. His statement that “we do that to them” reveals a disturbing mindset that justifies unethical transactions instead of prioritizing integrity and national security.

This troubling rhetoric is emblematic of Trump’s administration and the Republican Party’s broader acceptance of corrupt practices. By suggesting that the exploitation of loopholes and engaging in deceitful negotiations is just a part of “the way the world works,” Trump blatantly disregards the principles of ethical governance and diplomacy. Such an outlook not only undermines trust in U.S. leadership but also raises serious questions about the potential ramifications for future foreign policy.

The former president’s callous attitude promotes a dangerous narrative where manipulation and dishonesty are rationalized in international dealings. This aligns with a pattern of behavior that reflects Trump’s prioritization of profit—and his own interests—over ethical considerations and American ideals. The implications of this mindset extend beyond mere political rhetoric, impacting how America is perceived on the global stage.

Trump’s comments ultimately serve as a stark reminder of how a former president can openly endorse corrupt practices while sloughing off their significance, further entrenching the idea that such behaviors are acceptable. This normalization of corruption within the upper echelons of American politics is not merely an unfortunate consequence; it poses a tangible threat to the basic tenets of democracy and the rule of law.

(h/t: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-china-crimes/)

Trump Administration Limits Congressional Oversight on Military Operations Amidst Iran Nuclear Strike Controversy

President Donald Trump’s administration is set to restrict Congress’s access to classified information following claims of a leak regarding U.S. military actions against Iran. This decision comes after reports indicated that recent airstrikes did not effectively damage Iran’s nuclear capabilities, contradicting Trump’s proclamations of success.

CNN’s report described how the targeted strikes allegedly only delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by several months, a claim firmly rejected by Trump and his administration. They branded the report as “flat-out wrong,” dismissing the purported leaker as a “low-level loser” within the intelligence community. Trump’s aggressive rhetoric highlights the administration’s intent to shape the narrative surrounding military operations.

On social media, Trump extended his outrage to specific journalists. He targeted CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand, demanding her dismissal over what he termed “Fake News.” He insisted that the media’s portrayal of the airstrikes was misleading and asserted that they had achieved “TOTAL OBLITERATION” of the nuclear sites, despite evidence to the contrary.

In an alarming move, reports from Axios reveal that the Trump administration’s restriction on sharing classified information, particularly through the CAPNET system, serves to limit Congressional oversight and scrutiny. This change in policy underscores a dangerous trend of increasing secrecy and a lack of accountability regarding military actions.

The implications of these developments are significant, as limiting access to critical information undermines democratic processes and heightens risks of authoritarian control over military narratives. This shift represents a broader pattern of dismissing dissenting opinions and facts that contradict the administration’s agenda.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-admin-to-limit-sharing-classified-info-to-congress-despite-president-calling-iran-leak-fake-news/)

Trump’s TikTok Delay Reveals Self-Serving Agenda and Lawlessness

President Donald Trump’s decision to delay the TikTok ban raises serious concerns about his commitment to upholding the rule of law. After Congress passed a ban on the app, which has connections to the Chinese government through its parent company ByteDance, Trump has extended the deadline for compliance three times. This move, occurring just as a bipartisan law was set to enforce the ban, highlights Trump’s blatant disregard for constitutional authority and established legal processes.

Initially, the ban on TikTok aligned with Trump’s anti-China agenda; however, his recent actions reveal a troubling shift. Many believe that Trump has developed a soft spot for TikTok because he perceives it as a platform that aided his reelection campaign. This personal motive undermines the integrity of his duty, breaching his role as an enforcer of the law. His arbitrary extensions to TikTok’s operational timeline deviate from the law and appear to serve his interests rather than those of the American public.

Despite the law’s allowance for a one-time 90-day extension under specific circumstances—none of which are being fulfilled by TikTok—Trump’s repeated approvals of delays are overtly illegal. He cannot selectively choose which laws to enforce based on his political whims or alliances. Legal requirements exist for a reason, and by ignoring them, Trump exemplifies lawlessness, setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations.

The obligation to enforce laws is a foundational principle of the American presidency. When Trump asserts his leniency towards TikTok, he undermines the very structure of governance, creating a scenario where a president can disregard laws at will. The implications of such actions are profound and extend beyond TikTok; they threaten the stability of democratic processes and the integrity of future administrations.

Moreover, the reluctance of both parties to vocally oppose Trump’s actions is telling. If a Democrat were found in a similar situation, the outcry would be deafening. This double standard exemplifies the pervasive politicization of governance, where powerful figures operate above the law, fostering an environment ripe for authoritarianism. Trump’s unlawful delay of the TikTok ban is a stark reminder of the need for accountability among our leaders.

(h/t: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/06/25/trump-tiktok-ban-delay-extended/84323075007/)

Trump Strikes Iran

The U.S. military has conducted airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities in a critical move authorized by President Donald Trump. This unprecedented escalation of military engagement in the Middle East occurs amid ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.

In a dramatic announcement from the White House, Trump declared the airstrikes a “spectacular military success,” claiming the strikes had “obliterated” key uranium enrichment sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. He framed this military action as a necessary response to what he labeled as Iran’s position as the “bully of the Middle East,” emphasizing that the country must seek peace to avert further tragedies. This marked a significant departure from previous diplomatic approaches to Iranian relations, which Trump himself had utilized.

The airstrikes, occurring on the ninth day of violent clashes in the region, pose severe risks of retaliation from Iran. Trump has warned that any attacks on U.S. interests will result in an overwhelming military response, intensifying the conflict’s implications for U.S. forces stationed across the region.

Following the strikes, Trump’s administration, including key officials such as Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has signaled support for Israel’s offensive against Iran, asserting that military tactics were necessary to dismantle perceived nuclear threats. Reports confirm that the U.S. coordinated with Israeli authorities before executing the strikes.

The Iranian government, in response to this military aggression, has vowed retaliation and criticized the U.S. for undermining diplomatic avenues. Iran’s Foreign Minister articulated that the U.S. crossed a “big red line,” indicating a potential shift toward conflict escalation that contradicts international norms of engagement.

(h/t: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/21/us-strike-iran-nuclear-israel-trump)

Trump Administration’s Plan to Weaken FEMA Threatens Disaster Response for Vulnerable Communities

A recently leaked memo reveals that the Trump administration is actively seeking to dismantle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the vital agency responsible for disaster response. Directed by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the memo outlines plans to limit FEMA’s role, including terminating aid for smaller disasters and cutting essential housing funds for survivors. This approach reflects a disturbing trend within the Republican leadership to undermine critical government functions that protect vulnerable communities.

The memo, dated March 25, elucidates how Trump and Noem have considered options to reduce FEMA’s capabilities significantly, pushing for a ‘re-branded’ and drastically smaller organization. Despite public statements by both Trump and Noem aimed at winding down FEMA, they have provided scant details, raising concerns about their commitment to upholding disaster response services vital for American citizens affected by emergencies.

These proposed cuts to disaster relief come amid rising tensions surrounding disaster preparedness, especially given the looming hurricane season. This suggests a troubling disconnect between Trump’s administration and the need for robust disaster management, risking further suffering for those impacted by natural disasters.

Significantly, only Congress possesses the authority to formally abolish FEMA. However, the fact that high-ranking officials in Trump’s administration are discussing how to strip down the agency indicates a blatant disregard for the established processes and a clear intent to prioritize ideological goals over public safety.

As Trump discourses around eliminating FEMA gain traction, Americans must confront the implications of such actions on the nation’s emergency response capabilities. A reduced FEMA could leave communities without much-needed support during crises, ultimately reinforcing the notion that the Trump administration is more aligned with promoting elite interests than safeguarding the American public.

(h/t: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/-abolishing-fema-memo-outlines-ways-for-trump-to-scrap-agency)

1 2 3 … 20