Category: Crime

Border Patrol Faces Backlash for Disrupting Chicago Halloween Parade

The U.S. Border Patrol is facing criticism from residents of Chicago after agents disrupted a children’s Halloween parade amidst an immigration enforcement operation. This incident occurred on October 25, 2025, in the Old Irving Park neighborhood, where complaints about aggressive tactics and tear gas use have sparked outrage among the community.

During the immigration raid, Border Patrol agents allegedly deployed tear gas without warning and detained several individuals, including U.S. citizens. Video footage showed these confrontations, which led to resident Carlos Rodriguez expressing his concerns directly to federal agents, stating, “You’re scaring our children to death.” Following the incident, neighborhood residents moved the Halloween event to a local school to ensure the children’s safety.

Greg Bovino, Border Patrol’s Chicago commander, is scheduled to appear before federal judge Sara Ellis after allegations surfaced that he had controversially used tear gas on demonstrators. Judge Ellis has previously raised concerns regarding Border Patrol’s tactics and has issued a temporary restraining order against the use of aggressive measures without prior notice.

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, defended the actions of Border Patrol agents, asserting that the use of crowd control measures was necessary due to hostile interactions with the crowd. She stated that the operation resulted in the arrest of an individual with a notable criminal record and emphasized the agents’ need to ensure their safety during confrontations.

Illinois State Representative Lindsey LaPointe condemned the federal actions as “harmful, traumatic, illegal and uncalled for,” voicing the community’s disapproval of the enforcement methods. The controversy surrounding the incident reflects ongoing tensions between federal immigration authorities and local communities, particularly in contexts involving public safety and children’s events.

Comey Indictment Looms Amid Trump’s Legal Vendetta

Former FBI Director James Comey is anticipated to face indictment soon in federal court in Virginia, according to MSNBC. This development aligns with longstanding animosity directed toward Comey by President Donald Trump, who previously dismissed him from his post. The potential charges against Comey follow recent upheaval in the U.S. Attorney’s office, where Erik Siebert resigned under pressure after opposing the indictment.

Comey’s target status has intensified, especially after Trump, in a recent Truth Social post, declared him and other figures like New York Attorney General Letitia James “guilty as hell.” This sentiment resonates with Trump’s long-standing efforts to undermine adversaries, reflecting an alarming trend toward using the justice system against political opponents. Trump’s actions evoke concerns about authoritarian overreach, reminiscent of fascistic tendencies throughout his political career.

Reports indicate that part of the expected charges may center on accusations that Comey lied during his congressional testimony in September 2020, where he denied authorizing leaks related to an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Trump’s influence in these judicial proceedings continues to raise serious questions about the impartiality of the judicial process and the weaponization of political power.

Senator Ted Cruz has asserted inconsistencies between Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, suggesting perjury and calling into question the integrity of Comey’s previous statements. This narrative has been fueled by an unverified claim of a leak authorization that Cruz alleges undermines Comey’s credibility.

The resignation of Siebert and the subsequent appointment of Lindsey Halligan, who has previously represented Trump, further illustrates the troubling dynamics at play. As the situation unfolds, it is imperative to scrutinize the implications of these actions on American democracy and the rule of law. This ongoing saga not only highlights Trump’s vendetta against Comey but also threatens to compromise fundamental legal standards in favor of political retribution.

Trump Attacks Pritzker Over Chicago Crime, Claims D.C. Safe

Donald Trump recently targeted Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, calling him “CRAZY” and “pathetic” regarding Chicago’s crime rates, which remain among the highest in the U.S. He highlighted a weekend where six people were killed and 24 were shot, portraying Pritzker’s comments on crime as dismissive and out of touch. Trump’s tirade took place on his Truth Social platform, where he expressed his intention to take action against crime if Chicago didn’t get its act together.

In his post, Trump criticized Pritzker for suggesting that he didn’t require help from federal authorities to combat crime, emphasizing the seriousness of Chicago’s situation in light of its 573 homicides in 2024, which is the highest for any U.S. city. Despite the alarming statistics, some local leaders maintain there is no significant crime issue in Chicago, creating a backdrop for Trump’s politically charged statements.

In a follow-up post, Trump exaggeratedly claimed that Washington, D.C. had become a “CRIME FREE ZONE,” a statement that contradicts the realities of crime statistics and the pressing safety concerns voiced by residents. This rhetoric aims to position Trump as a tough-on-crime leader while he continues to point fingers at Democrat leadership in urban centers.

Chicago’s current mayor, Brandon Johnson, has since responded to Trump’s provocations by ordering the city’s police not to participate in any federal operations should Trump choose to implement a crackdown. Johnson emphasized that Chicagoans had not requested federal intervention, asserting the city’s autonomy in handling its own crime issues.

The ongoing exchange between Trump and Pritzker exemplifies the escalating tensions in political commentary surrounding crime, public safety, and local governance. While Trump seeks to leverage crime in his narrative against Democratic leadership, critics argue this politicization ignores the complex realities of urban safety and community resilience.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/he-is-crazy-trump-trashes-weak-and-pathetic-pritzker-over-chicago-killings-calls-d-c-a-crime-free-zone/)

Trump Threatens Federal Control Over Washington DC

Donald Trump issued a third warning in recent weeks about his intentions to take control of Washington, DC, citing escalating crime as his justification. On his Truth Social platform, he lamented what he called a crime wave perpetrated by local youths and gang members, some of whom are as young as 14. This rhetoric plays into Trump’s narrative that progressive policies have failed to address crime effectively.

In his posts, Trump called for legal changes that would allow these young offenders to be prosecuted as adults and sentenced to substantial prison time. He claimed that the fear of legal consequences is nonexistent for these criminals, which he attributes to “soft” law enforcement. Trump’s comments underscore his longstanding tough-on-crime stance but also reflect an alarming trend toward authoritarianism, as he suggested he would federalize the city if local governance does not improve.

Trump previously expressed the desire to manage DC’s operations himself, believing he could drastically reduce crime rates. However, experts point out that he cannot simply impose his will through executive actions; an act of Congress would be needed to alter the city’s self-governance. His audacious remarks about controlling the police department further hint at an overreach that disregards the city’s autonomy.

In July, Trump criticized the local administration for the perceived rise in homelessness and crime across major cities, asserting that he had the right to control DC. Such comments not only highlight his continued grasp for power but also raise questions about his commitment to democratic norms. Trump’s insistence on dictating management of the capital reflects a concerning trend of undermining established governance structures.

The implications of Trump’s rhetoric are profound, signaling a potential shift toward centralizing power in ways that threaten local autonomy. As he continues to wield divisive language to frame urban crime issues, it is clear that his approach is less about public safety and more about reinforcing a narrative that promotes an authoritarian governance style.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/federalize-this-city-trump-threatens-to-take-over-washington-dc-to-get-crime-under-control/)

Trump Threatens Citizens With Rendition to El Salvador Gulag

President Donald Trump’s recent comments regarding vandalism targeting Tesla vehicles have highlighted his increasing authoritarian tendencies and his support for draconian measures against dissent. In a post on social media, Trump suggested that individuals convicted of damaging Tesla cars should be sent to El Salvador’s notorious prisons, which are infamous for their inhumane conditions. He referred to the vandals as “sick terrorist thugs” and expressed anticipation for long prison sentences, demonstrating his willingness to endorse extreme punitive actions.

This disturbing rhetoric comes after a series of protests against Elon Musk’s policies that critics argue undermine public welfare. The United States has recently deported Venezuelans to El Salvador, linking these deportations to Trump’s broader anti-immigrant agenda that disproportionately targets marginalized communities. Critics note that human rights concerns arise from such deportations, particularly when they involve sending individuals back to environments characterized by violence and overcrowding.

Trump’s remarks were also prompted by a journalist’s suggestion at a public appearance, which implies a blatant disregard for the implications of labeling protesters as domestic terrorists. This follows a pattern in Trump’s administration where individuals opposing the administration’s policies are vilified and unjustly labeled, creating a climate of fear and repression. Attorney General Pam Bondi supported Trump’s stance, previously accusing the vandals of being part of a coordinated plot, further normalizing a punitive approach to dissent.

Notably, Trump’s fixation on harsh penalties for Tesla vandals stands in stark contrast to his previous pardons for individuals involved in the January 6 insurrection. This inconsistency raises questions about the underlying motivations behind his calls for punishment: whether they stem from genuine concern over property damage or are strategically aimed at consolidating power and suppressing opposition. The framing of such protests as ‘terrorism’ serves to delegitimize social movements and stymie dissent against the government.

As Trump continues to entwine his political ambitions with the interests of wealthy elites like Musk, his comments signal a dangerous erosion of civil liberties under a Republican agenda that embraces fascistic tendencies. The targeting of dissenters, coupled with an increasing authoritarian posture, represents a significant threat to American democracy—an agenda that favors punitive measures over constructive dialogue based on human rights and social justice.

(h/t: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/us/politics/trump-tesla-vandalism-prison.html)

Trump Administration’s Lawless Deportations Spark Constitutional Crisis

The Trump administration has instigated a significant constitutional crisis by deporting hundreds of Venezuelan gang affiliates despite a federal court’s restraining order prohibiting such actions. President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a controversial law from the 18th century, to expedite these deportations, asserting that they were critical for national security. This wartime authority, previously used during major conflicts like World Wars I and II, has been criticized for its misuse in this context, especially considering its historical implications.

On Saturday night, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary injunction barring any deportations under the law. Nonetheless, the administration proceeded with flights carrying individuals associated with the Tren de Aragua gang, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the judicial system. White House officials claimed they had arrested nearly 300 of these alleged criminals, insisting their removal was essential to protecting American lives.

Legal experts, including Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy, denounced the administration’s actions, stating that it openly defies court orders and undermines the rule of law. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries also condemned the use of the Alien Enemies Act, citing a violation of legal standards that must be upheld by any administration. This reckless maneuver highlights the Trump administration’s insatiable quest for power, often at the expense of civil liberties and judicial integrity.

This incident is not an isolated case; it exemplifies a broader pattern of authoritarian behavior under Trump’s leadership. History shows that such executive overreach can lead to irreversible damage to democratic institutions. The ACLU has actively challenged these deportations, revealing the necessity of vigilance against attempts to erode constitutional protections, even as the administration claims to act on behalf of public safety.

As the situation unfolds, it is imperative to recognize the implications of these actions on U.S. democracy. The Trump administration’s declaration of a national security crisis through unlawful means not only jeopardizes the rights of countless individuals but also sets a dangerous precedent for future governance. A commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability is paramount to preventing the rise of authoritarianism in America.

Trump’s Dangerous Proposal to Outsource American Criminals Exposes Authoritarian Shift

Former President Donald Trump recently expressed enthusiasm for the possibility of sending American criminals to foreign prisons, such as those in El Salvador. During a press conference, he seemingly endorsed the idea as a cost-effective measure to deal with “hardened criminals” in the U.S., implying that relocating these individuals would alleviate the burden on American prison systems. Trump’s comments reveal a troubling willingness to offload responsibility for crime management onto other countries, reinforcing a disturbing trend toward authoritarianism.

Trump’s rationale included disturbing references to violent crimes, suggesting that these individuals are nothing short of “animals” who threaten public safety. His categorization of offenders and the characterization of them as being beyond rehabilitation reveals a fascist perspective, prioritizing punitive measures over restorative justice and rehabilitation. This reflects a broader Republican mindset that often demonizes individuals rather than seeking to understand the complexities of crime and societal issues.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent discussions with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, who offered to house American criminals in his country’s notorious prisons, illustrate the potential implications of Trump’s proposal. This arrangement would not only evade the complexities of U.S. justice but also facilitate a troubling outsourcing of law enforcement responsibilities to a nation with its own serious human rights issues. Such a move underscores the ethical concerns surrounding the treatment of individuals in foreign prison systems.

This proposed plan connects to Trump’s ongoing anti-immigration rhetoric, where he conflates illegal migrants with American criminals, furthering a narrative that fosters division and fear. By suggesting that criminals could be relocated while simultaneously dehumanizing them, Trump seeks to distract from systemic issues in law enforcement and the justice system itself, aiming to shift the narrative away from Republican failures to address crime effectively.

Ultimately, Trump’s idea highlights a regression in values that is emblematic of Republican ideologies—favoring retribution over rehabilitation, and authoritarian solutions over democratic discourse. The unsettling implication of such proposals only reinforces the urgency for a critical reevaluation of how criminal justice is approached in America, as well as a rejection of the divisive and unethical tactics employed by Trump and his allies.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/id-be-very-happy-trump-floats-sending-jailed-u-s-citizens-to-prisons-in-el-salvador/)

Trump’s Disturbing Push for Capital Punishment After Biden’s Commutation

Donald Trump has pledged to aggressively reinstate capital punishment following President Joe Biden’s recent commutation of sentences for 37 federal death row inmates. This move by Biden was seen as an effort to halt Trump’s push for executions, demonstrating a stark contrast in their approaches to justice and punishment. Trump’s declaration to pursue the death penalty highlights his alarming agenda, which prioritizes punitive measures over rehabilitation and justice reform.

In his criticism of Biden’s decision, Trump insinuated that Biden’s actions were a disservice to the victims’ families, further politicizing an already sensitive issue. Trump’s rhetoric around the death penalty has consistently sought to amplify fear and anger, positioning himself as a champion of harsh justice while ignoring the complexities of the legal system and the moral implications of state-sanctioned executions.

Experts have pointed out that Trump’s promises may largely be symbolic, as the practical implementation of his death penalty agenda faces significant legal and logistical hurdles under current federal law. Despite this, Trump has persistently used the death penalty as a political tool, attempting to rally support among his base by invoking violent crimes and sensational cases, while neglecting the broader conversation about criminal justice reform.

Public sentiment around the death penalty has shifted dramatically over the years, with support waning significantly. Trump’s reliance on capital punishment as a solution to crime reflects a regressive mindset that fails to address the root causes of criminal behavior. His approach is further compounded by the fact that many of the crimes he seeks to punish with death are often better addressed through comprehensive social programs and community support.

Ultimately, Trump’s fixation on the death penalty aligns with his broader authoritarian tendencies, reinforcing a punitive culture that undermines the principles of justice and humanity. This obsession is not only unethical but also indicative of a dangerous political agenda that disregards the sanctity of life and the possibility of redemption.

(h/t: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-vows-pursue-executions-after-biden-commutes-federal-117096736)

Trump Advocates Death Penalty for Drug Dealers in Erratic Rant

Donald Trump, the former president, recently took to the stage at the Detroit Economics Club and delivered a bizarre eight-minute monologue on his parenting style. This rant took a dark turn when he suggested that drug dealers should face the death penalty, demonstrating a shocking lack of clarity in his thoughts. Amid softball questions about his accomplishments and advice for young adults, Trump’s response to inquiries about fatherhood was particularly unsettling.

During the Q&A session, Trump, who is on his third marriage and has five children, began by expressing his luck in having ‘smart children.’ He claimed he instilled values of sobriety by telling them, ‘No drugs, no alcohol, no smoking.’ This is ironic, considering his previous praise for flavored vaping during his presidency, highlighting his contradictory stance on substance use.

Trump’s comments morphed into a rambling discussion about his relationship with China’s President Xi Jinping, who he claimed would eliminate drug issues by imposing the death penalty on those involved in trafficking fentanyl. Trump asserted that countries with such harsh penalties do not experience drug problems, a claim that overlooks the complex realities of drug addiction and law enforcement.

While attempting to present himself as a tough-on-drugs leader, Trump’s arguments lack factual support. Contrary to his assertions, data from China indicates there are nearly 900,000 registered drug users in the country, undermining his narrative that extreme measures effectively solve drug issues.

In summary, Trump’s Detroit speech encapsulated his erratic thought process and dangerous rhetoric on public health issues. His suggestion of capital punishment for drug dealers is not only alarming but also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of drug addiction and its societal impacts.

(h/t: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-parenting-style-fatherhood/)

Trump says he’s received a target letter from special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 investigators – POLITICO

Skip to Main Content POLITICO Politico Logo Congress Pro E&E News Search Search WASHINGTON & POLITICS Congress White House Elections Legal Magazine Foreign Affairs 2024 ELECTIONS News GOP Candidate Tracker STATE POLITICS & POLICY California Florida New Jersey New York GLOBAL POLITICS & POLICY Brussels Canada United Kingdom POLICY NEWS Agriculture Cannabis Cybersecurity Defense Education Energy & Environment Finance & Tax Health Care Immigration Labor Sustainability Technology Trade Transportation NEWSLETTERS Playbook Playbook PM West Wing Playbook POLITICO Nightly POLITICO Weekend The Recast Huddle All Newsletters COLUMNISTS Alex Burns John Harris Jonathan Martin Michael Schaffer Jack Shafer Rich Lowry SERIES & MORE Breaking News Alerts Podcasts Video The Fifty Women Rule Matt Wuerker Cartoons Cartoon Carousel POLITICO Live Upcoming Events Previous Events Follow us Twitter Instagram Facebook My Account Log In Log Out legal Trump says he’s received a target letter from special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 investigators It’s the clearest sign yet that Trump may soon face his third criminal indictment — this time for his effort to subvert the 2020 election results. While the specific crimes that former President Donald Trump may be charged with are not clear, Smith’s team has been eyeing potential obstruction charges related to Trump’s actions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 and on that day itself. | Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images By Kyle Cheney 07/18/2023 09:32 AM EDT Updated: 07/18/2023 10:07 AM EDT Link Copied Donald Trump said Tuesday he expects to be indicted by special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 grand jury, citing a “target letter” he received from investigators on Sunday. Such a letter “almost always means an arrest and indictment,” Trump, who has already been criminally indicted twice in recent months, wrote on Truth Social. Trump said the letter, which is prosecutors’ typical precursor to a charging decision, offered him a chance to speak to the grand jury, which meets at the federal courthouse in Washington D.C., later this week. Targets of criminal investigations rarely speak to grand juries, and Trump has not exercised that right in the two other criminal cases in which he’s been charged. Legal Tracking the Trump criminal cases By POLITICO Staff The letter is the clearest sign yet that Smith is close to seeking an indictment for Trump’s role in the effort to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021. While the specific crimes that Trump may be charged with are not clear, Smith’s team has been eyeing potential obstruction charges related to Trump’s actions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 and on that day itself — including pressuring his vice president, Mike Pence, to unilaterally block the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. Investigators have also examined Trump’s consideration of a plan to seize voting machines from the states, his campaign of false claims that the election was stolen and his role in advancing a plan to assemble bogus slates of presidential electors to stoke a conflict ahead of Jan. 6. It’s unclear whether other figures associated with Trump’s effort are also in Smith’s sights. Investigators have interviewed dozens of prominent figures in Trump’s orbit, including Pence, in recent months. Attorneys John Eastman and Jeff Clark — two Trump associates considered key allies in his effort — had their phones seized last year. Trump revealed the target letter as he prepares to fight on another front to delay a criminal trial — also resulting from charges brought by Smith — related to his hoarding of national security secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump’s attorneys will be in court in Fort Pierce, Fla. on Tuesday afternoon asking for the trial to be postponed until after the 2024 election, a prospect that Smith’s team has vehemently opposed. Trump is facing an extraordinary array of criminal charges and investigations. In addition to the two cases Smith has mounted, he’s facing charges in Manhattan for allegedly falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment scheme to a porn actress accusing him of an extramarital affair in 2016. And a district attorney based in Fulton County, Ga. has convened a grand jury that is expected to consider charging Trump and allies for efforts to subvert the 2020 election in Georgia. Many aspects of Smith’s Jan. 6 investigation were previously pursued by the House select committee on Jan. 6, which interviewed hundreds of figures associated with Trump’s scheme to seize a second term despite losing the election. The committee concluded that Trump was at the center of a complex, months-long effort to sow doubt about the election results and then orchestrate several attempts to reverse the outcome despite no evidence of significant fraud. The panel focused in particular on Trump’s effort to pressure state and local officials to appoint “alternative” slates of presidential electors in seven states won by Biden and then use those slates as a pretense to disrupt the Jan. 6 session of Congress — when the Constitution and federal laws require Congress to meet and certify the election. That session, also according to the Constitution and law, is managed by the vice president, who doubles as president of the Senate. When no state officials acquiesced, Trump turned to a cadre of lawyers, including Eastman, who promoted fringe alternatives to keep Trump’s prospects alive. Eastman famously pressured Pence and his top aides to violate provisions of the Electoral Count Act — the law that has governed the Jan. 6 session of Congress since 1887 — to advance the effort. Prosecutors and the select committee have also focused on Trump’s effort to assemble a massive crowd in Washington on Jan. 6, part of his plan to pressure Pence and GOP lawmakers to help reverse the results, and then to steer it toward the Capitol after Pence made clear he wouldn’t go along with the plan. Trump inflamed the crowd with his rhetoric and then stoked anger further when he attacked Pence — even as violence was underway at the Capitol — accusing him of lacking “courage.” Pence and lawmakers were forced to evacuate and delay the count of electoral votes for six hours while law enforcement and the National Guard worked to clear the mob. Filed under: Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2024, 2020 Presidential Candidates, 2020 Elections, Jack Smith, Trump Indictment POLITICO Link Copied About Us Advertising Breaking News Alerts Careers Credit Card Payments Digital Edition FAQ Feedback Headlines Photos POWERJobs Press Print Subscriptions Request A Correction Write For Us RSS Site Map Terms of Service Privacy Policy Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information and Opt Out of Targeted Advertising © 2023 POLITICO LLC

@[100044274887410:2048:Donald J. Trump] will be indicted again for his scheme to stop the peaceful transfer of power by planning on the DOJ to seize voting machines, assembling fake electors, his fake electors submitting fraudulent votes, pressuring state officials to ignore votes and hand him the election, and of course for sending an armed mob to the Capitol to stop his Vice President from participating in the certification of the election.

[https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/18/trump-says-hes-received-a-target-letter-from-special-counsel-jack-smiths-jan-6-investigators-00106776]

1 2 3