Category: Breaking the Law

Federal Prosecutors Subpoena Minnesota Democrats on Immigration

Federal prosecutors issued subpoenas on Tuesday to at least five Minnesota Democratic officials, including Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, State Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. The subpoenas demanded documents related to their policies on immigration enforcement and represent an expansion of the Department of Justice investigation into their response to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations in the state.

The investigation centers on whether elected officials in Minnesota conspired to impede federal immigration agents who have been deployed to the state since last month. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused Frey and Walz of “encouraging violence against law enforcement” and referred to their actions as “terrorism,” though there is no evidence either man incited violence or engaged in terrorist activity. The subpoenas do not cite a specific criminal statute, but prosecutors are examining the officials’ public statements and conduct regarding the federal crackdown.

The investigation follows the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, an unarmed mother of three, by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis this month. The shooting triggered sustained protests against federal agents in the city, prompting Frey to publicly demand that agents leave and Walz to criticize their conduct. The Justice Department has vowed to arrest anyone impeding the agents’ mission.

The inquiry into the Minnesota officials’ speech and conduct targeting federal immigration enforcement directly examines political expression protected by the First Amendment. The investigation’s expansion to include state and county prosecutors suggests the Trump administration intends to use federal law enforcement to punish Democratic officials for criticizing immigration operations. The Department of Justice has previously initiated investigations into Walz and Frey regarding allegations they conspired to impede Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations through public statements.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/us/politics/subpoena-minnesota-democrats-immigration.html)

Trump Says Elections Unnecessary After Accomplishments

President Donald Trump stated in a Reuters interview published Thursday that “we shouldn’t even have an election,” expressing frustration over the possibility that Republicans could lose control of the House or Senate in the 2026 midterm elections. Trump acknowledged that a president’s party typically experiences midterm losses following a presidential victory, framing this as a “deep psychological thing,” but argued his administration had accomplished enough that elections should not occur.

Trump dismissed a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing only 4% of Americans support his plan to absorb Greenland as “fake,” insisting he follows his own instincts rather than public opinion on major policy decisions. He stated, “A lot of times, you can’t convince a voter. You have to just do what’s right,” claiming that controversial actions he has taken, including a criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, ultimately proved correct when results materialized.

During the same interview, Trump addressed Iran, where authorities have killed thousands of demonstrators. He previously pledged “help” to anti-government protesters but became noncommittal when discussing future administration plans, telling Reuters: “We have to play it day by day.” Trump’s equivocation drew backlash from members of his own party after he suggested the killing was “stopping.”

The president’s assertion that elections should not occur reflects a pattern of rejecting democratic constraints, consistent with administration positions claiming presidential authority above legal and constitutional limits. His dismissal of public opinion on major foreign policy decisions and rejection of electoral processes demonstrates a disregard for democratic principles and popular consent governing authority.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-tells-reuters-we-shouldnt-even-have-an-election-ahead-of-midterms/)

Trump Links His Push for Greenland to Not Winning Nobel Peace Prize – The New York Times

President Trump sent a text message to Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store on Sunday, stating that he is pursuing Greenland acquisition partly because Norway did not award him a Nobel Peace Prize. In the message, Trump claimed he had “stopped 8 Wars PLUS” and said that failing to receive the prize means he no longer feels obligated to prioritize peace, instead focusing on “what is good and proper for the United States of America.” Trump also disputed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, asserting “There are no written documents” supporting Danish claims and demanding “Complete and Total Control of Greenland” for global security.

The text message escalates Trump’s campaign to seize Greenland, an Arctic territory that has been part of the Danish Kingdom for over 300 years. Trump’s claim that lack of a Nobel Prize justifies shifting away from peace-focused policy to territorial acquisition contradicts his stated commitment to peaceful resolution. Trump has previously threatened to acquire Greenland through either an “easy way” or “hard way,” rejecting questions about financial incentives or local consent.

Trump has directed military planners to prepare an invasion plan for Greenland, with advisers accelerating efforts following operations against Venezuela. Trump has declared his commander-in-chief powers are constrained only by his “own morality,” rejecting international law as binding on military action.

World leaders have condemned Trump’s push to acquire Greenland, viewing it as a violation of international law and Danish sovereignty. The message to Norway’s prime minister reveals Trump’s willingness to weaponize personal grievances—in this case, not receiving an international peace prize—to justify geopolitical aggression and abandonment of stated principles.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/world/europe/trump-norway-greenland-nobel.html)

Trump Pardons Puerto Rico Ex-Governor Vázquez in Campaign Finance Case

President Donald Trump intends to pardon former Puerto Rico Governor Wanda Vázquez, who pleaded guilty in August 2025 to a campaign finance violation involving acceptance of a promised campaign contribution from a foreign source that was never received. Vázquez was set for sentencing later in January, with federal prosecutors seeking one year in prison, though her attorneys argued the sentence violated a prior guilty plea agreement that had resulted in dismissal of bribery and fraud charges.

A White House official stated that Trump views the case as political prosecution, citing the timing of the investigation's initiation approximately ten days after Vázquez endorsed Trump in 2020. The official, speaking anonymously without authorization to disclose the pardon plan publicly, characterized the prosecution as retaliatory rather than justified. Vázquez is a Republican aligned with Puerto Rico's pro-statehood New Progressive Party.

According to authorities, Vázquez allegedly accepted a bribery offer from Venezuelan banker Julio Martín Herrera Velutini and former FBI agent Mark Rossini between December 2019 and June 2020 while serving as governor. In exchange, she demanded the resignation of Puerto Rico's financial institutions commissioner and appointed a new commissioner of Herrera's choosing, actions authorities documented as occurring after the alleged bribery agreement was made.

Pablo José Hernández, Puerto Rico's congressional representative and member of the opposition Popular Democratic Party, condemned the planned pardon, stating that "impunity protects and fosters corruption" and that the pardon undermines public integrity and faith in justice. Vázquez was the first former Puerto Rico governor to plead guilty to a federal crime and served as the territory's second female governor before losing her party's 2020 primary.

The pardon decision demonstrates Trump's use of executive clemency to benefit political allies, circumventing sentencing for federal prosecutors' recommended penalty. Vázquez's case involved foreign-sourced campaign funding and an abuse of gubernatorial authority to benefit a foreign banker, violations Trump's administration has now chosen to erase through presidential pardon rather than allow judicial process to conclude.

(Source: https://abc7.com/post/trump-pardon-ex-puerto-rico-governor-vzquez-campaign-finance-case-official-says/18417246/)

Trump Illegally Cuts Funding to Blue States

President Donald Trump announced February 1 as the date he will begin withholding all federal funding from sanctuary cities and states with sanctuary jurisdictions, claiming they “protect criminals at the expense of American citizens.” The Bay Area faces potential losses in the billions of dollars that fund emergency management, child support, and human services; San Francisco alone could lose nearly $1 billion annually, representing 6% of its general fund based on fiscal year 2025 figures.

California operates as a sanctuary state by law, with state and local law enforcement generally limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents. State leaders argue the federal government lacks authority to compel local officers to enforce federal immigration law. Trump’s previous threats to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions have already been declared unlawful by courts during both his first and second terms.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated he will file suit immediately if the cuts proceed, declaring “We will go to court within seconds, and we will win if he does this, it’s already proven unlawful.” Bonta expressed anger at what he characterized as Trump’s attack on California’s residents, state, and values, while San Francisco and other cities have successfully litigated this identical issue in prior litigation.

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee countered that the city’s sanctuary policies enable residents to report crimes and access services without fear, and stated no federal threats would alter that commitment. The White House provided no specific executive order or actionable directive when asked about the funding mechanism, instead referring only to Trump’s public remarks made at a Detroit economic club event.

(Source: https://abc7news.com/post/bay-area-could-lose-billions-trump-cuts-funding-sanctuary-cities-attorney-general-rob-bonta-says-unlawful/18401281/?ex_cid=TA_KGO_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook)

Trump DOJ Memo Claims President Above International Law

A classified 20-30 page Justice Department legal opinion presented to Congress on Tuesday argues that President Trump faced no constitutional or international legal constraints when he ordered the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Office of Legal Counsel memo asserts Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution permitted the operation, codenamed Absolute Resolve, without prior congressional approval.

The opinion builds directly on a 1989 legal memo authored by William Barr, Trump’s current Attorney General, which claimed presidents possess “inherent constitutional authority” to order law enforcement operations in foreign countries even when doing so violates international law. The new memo treats that premise as settled and argues the Maduro operation did not constitute war in the constitutional sense, therefore bypassing the War Powers Act requirement for congressional authorization. An unclassified version released simultaneously states that international law “does not restrict the president as a matter of domestic law” regarding rendition operations.

The memo conceded that Trump personally justified the operation by stating control of Venezuelan oil reserves was the objective, though the administration maintains it was solely a law enforcement action targeting Maduro as the leader of a narco-trafficking organization. A White House official stated the operation was lawful and that “the Department of Justice routinely executes federal arrest warrants abroad,” framing the military-backed seizure as standard law enforcement practice.

Democratic lawmakers directly contradicted this characterization, arguing that removing a foreign head of state by military force constitutes an act of war regardless of law enforcement justifications. The administration has also used success in the Maduro operation to embolden plans for military actions against other targets, with officials accelerating preparations that extend beyond Venezuela.

The memo stipulated that any military support must remain proportional to the law enforcement objective and acknowledged that military commanders had not assessed Maduro’s actions as a direct or imminent threat to U.S. forces. Nevertheless, the opinion concluded the likelihood of armed resistance justified deploying U.S. military assets. The opinion was provided to lawmakers after the operation had already been executed, establishing legal justification retroactively rather than constraining executive action beforehand.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/politics/memo-maduro-capture-olc)

Military Disguised Civilian Aircraft in Caribbean Drug Strike

The U.S. military deployed a disguised aircraft painted to resemble a civilian plane to conduct its first strike against an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean in September, according to officials briefed on the operation. The craft lacked visible weapons and military markings, tactics that retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, former deputy judge advocate general for the U.S. Air Force, stated could constitute “perfidy”—a war crimes violation prohibiting combatants from impersonating civilians to deceive enemies. Lepper told The New York Times that an unidentifiable aircraft should not engage in combat operations.

The Pentagon defended the practice, stating aircraft undergo “rigorous procurement processes” to ensure compliance with domestic law, department policies, and international standards including laws of armed conflict. However, the September 2 strike that killed 11 people previously generated controversy over orders to eliminate two survivors clinging to wreckage—a “double-tap strike” that critics said violated war laws. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a Navy admiral, not he directly, ordered the follow-up strike under his general authorization, though Hegseth stated he fully supported the decision.

The Trump administration’s anti-drug campaign has killed at least 123 people across 35 strikes in the Caribbean region, yet the military has not released extensive evidence identifying individuals on targeted boats or establishing their drug-trafficking connections. Legal scholars and critics argue these strikes constitute illegal extrajudicial killings against non-combatants outside conventional war zones, challenging the administration’s claim of valid “armed conflict” with non-state drug groups. Hegseth announced in December that the Pentagon would withhold unedited video of the September strike.

The campaign expanded significantly when U.S. forces entered Venezuela and captured leader Nicolas Maduro, whom the U.S. accuses of collaborating with drug organizations. Lawmakers stated they received no advance briefing on the Venezuela operation, and a bipartisan Senate group voted last week to block Trump from authorizing further military force in or against Venezuela without Congressional approval.

(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-caribbean-drug-boat-venezuela-b2899245.html)

Trump Makes Sure Everyone Knows Why He Invaded Venezuela

President Trump publicly justified the U.S. invasion of Venezuela by stating the operation would secure control over Venezuelan oil reserves. Trump announced he would personally oversee the sale of 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market price following Delta Force operatives’ capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, with the military action resulting in hundreds of deaths in Caracas and surrounding areas.

Trump’s original pretext that the invasion targeted drug trafficking has been abandoned despite continued repetition by right-wing media allies. The administration’s actual focus on Venezuelan oil became unmistakable when Trump suggested American taxpayers would reimburse oil companies for reconstructing Venezuela’s energy infrastructure, explicitly linking military intervention to corporate profit extraction.

The invasion violates international law by overthrowing a foreign government without lawful cause, establishing a precedent that powerful nations can unilaterally remove leaders they deem objectionable. This directly contradicts Trump’s stated support for a rules-based global order, as the administration simultaneously maintains close relationships with authoritarian regimes including Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, whose government also oppresses its population and controls vast oil reserves.

Trump has installed Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president from the previous regime, as successor rather than holding promised democratic elections. The administration demanded Rodríguez crack down on drugs, expel foreign operatives from U.S.-designated hostile countries, and cease oil sales to those nations, while explicitly postponing elections indefinitely—revealing the occupation prioritizes geopolitical control and resource extraction over democratic governance.

The military operation, which killed over 100 people in boat bombings designed to provoke Maduro into an aggressive response, demonstrates Trump’s disregard for the sovereignty of nations unable to defend themselves militarily. By stating “We’re going to keep the oil,” Trump discarded pretense and openly acknowledged the invasion as resource seizure justified by military dominance rather than law or humanitarian concern.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/trump-tells-everyone-why-he-illegally-invaded-venezuela-were-going-to-keep-the-oil/)

Trump Tells Jared Polis and Colorado ‘RINO’ to ‘Rot in Hell’

President Trump attacked Colorado Governor Jared Polis and a Republican district attorney in a December 31st Truth Social post, calling Polis a “scumbag” and the DA “disgusting” while telling both to “rot in Hell.” Trump’s outburst targeted officials responsible for prosecuting former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who is serving nine years in prison for seven state-level charges related to 2020 election interference, including providing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s associate unauthorized access to county election software.

Trump falsely claimed earlier in December that he had pardoned Peters, stating she was being “relentlessly” targeted for “demanding honest elections.” However, Trump lacks authority to pardon individuals convicted of state-level crimes; Peters’ conviction and imprisonment remain valid regardless of any presidential pardon claim. Trump characterized her prosecution as evidence that Democrats prosecute election-security advocates while ignoring their own alleged mail-in ballot fraud, assertions contradicted by documented fact patterns showing no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Colorado or nationally.

Trump previously weaponized disaster aid to Colorado, denying federal assistance following wildfires and flooding while Governor Polis governed the state. This pattern of targeting Colorado’s Democratic leadership demonstrates Trump’s use of presidential authority to punish political opponents, further illustrating the authoritarian consolidation of power through weaponized governance.

Trump’s attack on a fellow Republican official as a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) reflects his ongoing purge of party members who do not demonstrate absolute loyalty to him personally. His refusal to accept Peters’ lawful conviction—despite her documented actions undermining election integrity through unauthorized system access—prioritizes Trump’s electoral narrative over institutional accountability and rule of law.

The Truth Social post exemplifies Trump’s pattern of attacking state officials and judicial processes when outcomes conflict with his interests, framing legitimate prosecutions as political persecution while simultaneously attempting to overturn state convictions through false pardon claims that carry no legal weight.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-tells-scumbag-governor-and-disgusting-rino-to-rot-in-hell/)

Outrage and legal threats: Trump justice department slammed after limited Epstein files release | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Trump’s justice department released a limited, heavily redacted batch of Jeffrey Epstein files on Friday, violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated near-complete disclosure by December 19 with only narrow exemptions for ongoing investigations, national security, and victim protection. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer, announced in advance that the department would withhold documents and release materials piecemeal over weeks, directly contradicting the law’s requirements.

Representative Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, the bipartisan co-authors of the transparency legislation, publicly condemned the release as non-compliant. Khanna stated they are exploring all legal options, including possible impeachment of justice department officials, finding them in contempt of Congress, and referring obstructionists for prosecution. Massie emphasized that future administrations could prosecute current Attorney General Pam Bondi and others, as the transparency act’s obligations do not expire with Congressional sessions.

At least 16 files disappeared from the justice department’s public webpage without explanation, including a photograph showing Trump alongside Epstein, Melania Trump, and Ghislaine Maxwell inside a drawer. House Democrats noted the removal of this image and questioned what else was being withheld, demanding transparency.

Democrats across both chambers condemned the rollout. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Robert Garcia called the release a coverup, with Ocasio-Cortez demanding Bondi’s resignation. The House oversight committee Democrats, led by Garcia and Jamie Raskin, stated Trump’s administration is violating federal law by continuing to conceal facts about Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and announced they are examining all legal options.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the release violated both the transparency law’s spirit and letter, pledging to pursue every option to ensure the truth emerges. The justice department defended itself on social media, claiming no politically exposed persons were redacted and pointing to released Clinton photographs as proof of compliance, despite the law’s explicit mandate for comprehensive disclosure absent narrow statutory exceptions.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/20/trump-justice-department-legal-threats-epstein-files-release)

1 2 3 … 22