Category: Law and Order

Trump Appeals Judge’s Ban on ICE Retaliation Against Protesters

President Trump’s administration appealed a federal court order issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez that restricts Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from retaliating against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis. The order prohibits federal agents from arresting protesters engaged in peaceful demonstration, using crowd-dispersal weapons like pepper spray, or detaining drivers without reasonable suspicion of obstruction. The appeal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, with the administration seeking relief from the Eighth Circuit, a panel dominated by Republican-appointed judges.

Judge Menendez, a Biden appointee, issued the protective order following escalating protests over ICE operations in the city and multiple incidents in which federal agents killed or seriously injured people. The ruling specifically addressed the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, who was shot by a federal agent while attempting to drive around agents attempting to box in her vehicle. The order explicitly bars agents from retaliating against persons observing or documenting federal operations designated “Operation Metro Surge.”

Trump responded to the court order with a False statement on Truth Social, praising Menendez as a “highly respected judge” while simultaneously misrepresenting her ruling by claiming she had “declined to block ICE operations.” In reality, the judge imposed significant restrictions on federal agent conduct, directly contradicting Trump’s characterization. This occurred one day after Trump claimed Menendez had delayed her decision to allow the Justice Department time to respond, framing her judicial independence as a favor to his administration.

The appeal reflects the Trump administration’s resistance to judicial oversight of federal law enforcement tactics during immigration enforcement operations. By appealing to the Eighth Circuit, Trump’s Justice Department seeks to overturn protections for peaceful protesters that federal courts determined were necessary following documented harm. The move demonstrates the administration’s pattern of challenging state and local criticism of ICE operations, including investigating state officials who have publicly opposed the deployment.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2674908994/)

DOJ Investigates Walz, Frey Over ICE Criticism Allegations

The Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey regarding allegations they conspired to impede Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations through public statements. Federal prosecutors are examining whether their criticism of the deployment of nearly 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents to the region violates 18 U.S.C. § 372, a statute that criminalizes conspiracies to obstruct federal officers through force, intimidation, or threats, according to CBS News sources.

The investigation follows an ICE agent’s fatal shooting of Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good, which triggered local protests and confrontations between demonstrators and federal law enforcement. Walz and Frey have publicly stated that the federal operation fuels instability rather than enhancing public safety, with Frey warning the situation was “not sustainable,” while both leaders repeatedly called for peaceful demonstrations.

Public criticism of federal policy typically receives constitutional protection unless prosecutors demonstrate coordination or direct incitement to physically obstruct law enforcement. CBS News noted that the rare statute under review requires evidence of conspiracy to use force, intimidation, or threats—a high legal threshold that distinguishes criminal obstruction from protected speech.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem accused Walz and Frey on social media of “encouraging impeding and assault against our law enforcement,” characterizing their statements as federal felonies. Noem’s public allegation preceded the DOJ inquiry by one day, linking criticism of the federal operation to an incident in which an ICE agent fired a weapon after being attacked by three individuals with snow shovels and broom handles.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the investigation to CBS News. Trump has previously amplified unfounded conspiracy theories targeting Walz, establishing a pattern of using federal agencies to pursue political opponents.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/doj-reportedly-investigating-tim-walz-and-jacob-frey-over-alleged-conspiracy-to-impede-federal-agents/)

Stephen Miller Announces Chilling Hunt for “Fifth Column” | The New Republic

Stephen Miller announced a government crackdown on what he termed a “violent fifth column of domestic terrorists” following the Department of Justice’s claim to have stopped a bombing plot in California. Miller’s statement referenced NSPM-7, a September Trump administration memo directing federal agencies to focus on domestic extremism and defining it to include anti-capitalism, anti-immigration positions, and subjective stances on race and gender.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stated the DOJ foiled a New Year’s Eve bombing plot allegedly planned by “The Turtle Island Liberation Front,” described as a far-left, pro-Palestine, anti-government group. The memo’s expansive definition of extremism—which encompasses common liberal and left-wing viewpoints—creates a framework enabling the government to target broad categories of political dissent under the guise of counterterrorism.

Miller’s invocation of “fifth column,” a term historically used by authoritarian regimes to delegitimize internal opposition, signals an intent to brand political adversaries as traitors requiring state suppression. His known history of advancing xenophobic and anti-immigrant policies compounds the threat, as administration officials have already coordinated military deployments against civilian protesters.

The memo’s vague language and Miller’s pattern of attacking judicial independence demonstrate how executive power is being weaponized to criminalize dissent. By framing opposition to Trump policies as terrorism, the administration constructs legal justification for deploying federal resources against political opponents rather than genuine security threats.

This framework mirrors authoritarian governance models, where state repression targets ideological enemies under security pretexts. Combined with officials relocating to military housing, the pattern reflects institutional militarization designed to insulate power holders from accountability while enabling mass surveillance and prosecution of ordinary citizens exercising constitutional rights.

(Source: https://newrepublic.com/post/204449/stephen-miller-fifth-column?utm_campaign=SF_TNR&utm_source=Facebook&utm_social_handle_id=161419311535&utm_social_post_id=624140450&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwdGRleAOty3ZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEewS58jQJO2GedKIE5XxJHDrOeOt2Cf3qrTaYXcL2jPF_87-w5t1hVzqEHRY8_aem_3eybXmmt1E8x4bN-0QM4fg)

A surgeon faced 35 years in prison for ‘sabotage’ of US. Pam Bondi ordered charges dropped

Dr. Kirk Moore, a Utah plastic surgeon, faced up to 35 years in prison for distributing falsified COVID-19 vaccination cards and discarding government-supplied doses. After five days of trial in July, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered all charges dropped, ending his two-and-a-half-year prosecution and reversing the Biden administration’s approach to COVID-19 fraud cases.

Moore admitted to the charges, stating he signed up for the federal vaccine distribution program to provide patients with fake vaccination cards to circumvent employer and business mandates. He distributed cards through his plastic surgery clinic in exchange for $50 donations via Venmo, using oranges as a signal system for staff. Moore also administered saline injections to children instead of vaccines at parents’ request and treated COVID-19 patients with ivermectin, an FDA-unapproved treatment.

Bondi’s decision came after pressure from Republican lawmakers including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who urged her to dismiss the case. Bondi framed Moore’s actions as providing patient choice when government refused, while federal prosecutors had characterized his conduct as deliberate sabotage of the vaccine program. At least 11 other healthcare workers faced similar charges under the Biden administration; Moore was one of only two to go to trial.

The dismissal emboldened the “medical freedom” movement and those convicted of vaccine card fraud, who formed the group Covicted Patriot to seek pardons and case review. Moore rebranded his practice as Freedom Surgical & Aesthetics and continues advocating to remove COVID vaccines from the market. His medical license remains in good standing despite falsifying federal records.

Public health experts warn the decision undermines disease surveillance and vaccine confidence. Brian Dean Abramson, an immunization law expert, stated that falsified records destroy trust in medical systems and increase infectious disease outbreak risk. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary, has replaced vaccine advisory panel members and restricted CDC vaccine access, signaling broader federal rejection of established public health guidance.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/a-surgeon-faced-35-years-in-prison-for-sabotage-of-us-pam-bondi-ordered-charges-dropped/)

Trump’s Weaponization Group Targets Perceived Enemies Across Agencies

A wide-ranging assembly of U.S. officials is reportedly collaborating to advance President Donald Trump’s agenda of seeking retribution against his perceived adversaries. This Interagency Weaponization Working Group, which has been active since at least May, includes representatives from various government agencies such as the White House, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), CIA, and the Justice and Defense Departments.

Formed after Trump issued an executive order on his inauguration day instructing action against past misconduct by government agencies, the working group’s mission aligns with Trump’s long-standing narrative of a “Deep State” undermining his presidency. Notably, Attorney General Pam Bondi and ODNI Director Tulsi Gabbard have publicly emphasized the group’s role in identifying those they allege misused government power against Trump.

Documentation reveals that the group’s focus includes high-profile figures such as former FBI Director James Comey and Anthony Fauci, in addition to broader discussions surrounding individuals and entities tied to government operations perceived as targeting Trump. The group’s activities suggest a systematic effort not only to investigate but also potentially to retaliate against former officials from the Obama and Biden administrations.

Although the exact actions the group can undertake remain unclear, officials assert that its operations reflect a deeper commitment to exploring claims regarding the politicization of federal resources. Some involved have vocalized Trump-supporting narratives, calling into question the legitimacy of past election outcomes and government responses, particularly in relation to events surrounding January 6, 2021.

As ongoing scrutiny mounts from both major political parties over the scope of the group’s operations and its implications, officials maintain that its primary objective is to foster transparency and accountability within federal operations, countering the allegations of weaponization leveled at previous administrations.

Trump Hints More Indictments for Political Rivals After Comey

President Donald Trump, speaking outside the White House, expressed his belief that former FBI Director James Comey’s indictment is just the beginning. Trump, responding to reporters’ inquiries, hinted that there will be further indictments of what he termed “corrupt” Democrats. This alarming proclamation continues Trump’s pattern of using the Justice Department to target political adversaries, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the legal system in America.

Trump’s comments came after Comey was indicted for alleged leaking, an action many analysts, including those from Fox News, consider questionable, as prior investigations found no wrongdoing. Trump characterized Comey as worse than a Democrat, demonstrating his extreme animosity towards those he sees as political enemies.

This rhetoric embodies Trump’s ongoing campaign against perceived opposition, which many argue amounts to political persecution. His public demand for Attorney General Pam Bondi to escalate legal action against his foes indicates a dangerous trend toward weaponizing the justice system for personal vendettas.

While Trump’s remarks were framed as a response to news of Comey’s charges, they illustrate a broader ethos of retribution and fear that he aims to instill among those who challenge him. His willing embrace of the concept of further indictments threatens to erode the foundations of democracy and due process in the United States.

Legal experts have voiced concerns that these actions amount to a troubling precedent where political disagreements could lead to personal legal persecution, jeopardizing judicial impartiality. Trump’s call for further retribution reveals his authoritarian tendencies and his detrimental impact on American democratic norms.

James Comey Indicted in Trump’s Ongoing Legal Vendetta

Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted by a federal grand jury, marking a drastic move in President Donald Trump’s contentious campaign against his political adversaries. This indictment, possibly spurred by Trump’s relentless vendetta, specifically accuses Comey of providing false statements and obstructing congressional proceedings during investigations tied to Trump’s initial presidential campaign and its alleged collusion with Russia.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, facing pressure from Trump to pursue criminal charges against his foes, released a public statement asserting that “no one is above the law.” This rhetoric, however, is seen as an attempt to leverage the Justice Department for personal vendettas, a tactic consistent with Trump’s efforts to portray his opponents as corrupt while shielding himself from criticism concerning his actions.

Information about the case suggests internal hesitations among prosecutors regarding the legitimacy and strength of the charges against Comey. Notably, Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with the legal system’s handling of his past investigations, demanding that rapid actions be taken against those he deems guilty. “I just want people to act,” Trump stated, indicating his belief that swift justice should be meted out against opponents regardless of detailed legal considerations.

Some observers inside the White House believe the prosecution of Comey may stem from a toxic blend of personal animosity and political ambition, underpinned by Trump’s strategy of retaliating against those who oppose him. Stephen Miller, a prominent Trump aide, has even gone so far as to label Comey as “corrupt” and part of a larger conspiracy against Trump, further fueling the narrative of political weaponization within the Justice Department.

As this indictment unfolds, it exemplifies the increasing polarization of American politics and raises significant concerns about the erosion of judicial independence in favor of partisan objectives. Trump’s method of utilizing legal mechanisms as instruments against opponents signals an alarming trend in undermining democratic institutions in pursuit of personal and political power.

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 Administration Slashes DOJ’s Corruption Team from 36 to 2 Lawyers

The Trump administration’s assault on accountability has dramatically slashed the number of attorneys dedicated to combating public corruption at the Justice Department from 36 to a mere two. This striking reduction highlights a disturbing trend that prioritizes political interests over the integrity of American democratic institutions.

During his tenure, Trump systematically dismantled the Public Integrity Section, which has a storied history of investigating corrupt officials. With the majority of its staff now reassigned or having quit under pressure, this unit can no longer effectively advise U.S. attorneys on important corruption cases, raising alarm over the potential for political misuse of legal resources.

Critics within the Justice Department have raised concerns that Trump’s administration is paving the way for targeted prosecutions against political adversaries, particularly Democrats. Recent policy changes that eliminate the protocols ensuring oversight in federal elections signal a clear shift towards allowing partisan motivations to influence legal actions.

Former members of the Public Integrity Section emphasize that this diminishment represents more than just staffing cuts; without adequate resources, meaningful oversight and guidance have become gravely reduced, essentially rendering these requirements a mere formality. The result is a justice system increasingly vulnerable to corruption and political manipulation.

The implications of this dismantling extend beyond mere logistics; they signify a broader campaign against ethical governance that threatens to undermine public trust and institutional integrity. This rollback of Nixon-era reforms establishes a dangerous precedent that could normalize corruption under the guise of restoring order, creating a chilling effect on accountability within federal law enforcement.

Trump Demands Bondi Target Political Rivals Amid Legal Struggles

In a brazen display of authoritarian tendencies, President Donald Trump has aggressively pushed Attorney General Pam Bondi to expedite actions against his political enemies, signaling a dangerous inclination toward weaponizing justice. At a recent press engagement, Trump declared that “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” against opponents including Senator Adam Schiff, former FBI Director James Comey, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. This intervention not only reveals Trump’s notorious disregard for legal norms, but also exemplifies his ongoing campaign to silence dissent through intimidation.

During an interaction with reporters, Trump expressed impatience, insisting that the legal system should act swiftly against those he perceives as adversarial. He stated, “They have to act and we want to act fast,” reflecting a troubling perspective where guilt is presumed, and actual judicial processes are dismissed in favor of fervent vendettas. Trump’s rhetoric echoes authoritarian regimes that manipulate legal frameworks to eliminate opposition, highlighting a concerning trend toward the consolidation of personal power.

Bondi, already under scrutiny for previous criticisms of political opponents, now faces intensified pressure from Trump to act on his directives, potentially compromising her integrity and the independence of the Department of Justice. Trump’s insistence that those named should be prosecuted without due process aligns with his historical inclination toward exerting power over institutions meant to operate independently of political influence, thus undermining democratic principles.

This authoritarian maneuvering comes amidst the backdrop of Trump’s own legal challenges, including multiple indictments, raising the specter of retribution against those investigating his actions. Trump’s administration has a documented history of employing intimidation tactics and manipulating governmental resources, further cementing his position as a figure who prioritizes personal vendetta over equity and justice. The resignation of U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, amid pressure to pursue baseless charges against James, further underscores the toxic environment fostered under Trump’s influence.

Ultimately, this episode serves as a stark reminder of the lengths to which Trump will go to silence dissent and the serious implications it holds for the integrity of American democracy. By pressuring the Justice Department to act on his behalf against political opponents, Trump continues to erode public trust in governmental institutions while simultaneously positioning himself above the law.

1 2 3 … 15