Category: Breaking the Law

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)

US seizes second vessel off Venezuelan after Trump’s blockade threat, reports say | The Independent

The United States Coast Guard seized the Panama-flagged tanker Centuries off the coast of Barbados in the Caribbean Sea, marking the second vessel confiscated in recent weeks as part of Trump’s blockade of Venezuelan oil. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated the Coast Guard would “continue to pursue the illicit movement of sanctioned oil that is used to fund narco terrorism in the region,” though legal experts dispute the justification for seizing unsanctioned vessels.

Jeremy Paner, a former U.S. Treasury Department sanctions investigator, directly contradicted Trump’s stated policy by confirming the Centuries had not been sanctioned by the United States. Paner stated the seizure of an unsanctioned vessel “marks a further increase in Trump’s pressure on Venezuela” and “runs counter to Trump’s statement that the U.S. would impose a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers,” exposing the operation’s scope beyond its stated legal framework.

The Centuries carried 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for China under a false vessel name and was part of a shadow fleet designed to evade sanctions. Since Trump’s first tanker seizure last week, Venezuelan crude exports have collapsed sharply, with an effective embargo forcing loaded vessels to remain in Venezuelan waters rather than risk confiscation, despite many not being under U.S. sanctions.

Trump’s military campaign against Venezuela has killed at least 100 people through more than two dozen strikes on vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean, with announced plans for imminent land operations. Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro contends the military buildup aims to overthrow his government and seize the nation’s vast oil reserves, the world’s largest crude deposits.

The seizure strategy contradicts international law governing unsanctioned vessels and exposes economic objectives beyond counter-narcotics claims. If the blockade persists, the loss of nearly one million barrels daily will drive global oil prices higher, shifting market leverage and destabilizing energy markets while demonstrating Trump’s use of military and economic coercion to control foreign governments and resources.

(Source: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-seizing-vessel-venezuela-trump-blockade-oil-tanker-b2888347.html)

Trump Administration Will Withhold SNAP Aid from Democratic States

The Trump administration has announced its intention to withhold SNAP food aid from 42 million Americans in predominantly Democratic states unless those states provide detailed recipient information, including names and immigration status. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated that this measure aims to combat fraud in the program, despite many Democratic governors challenging the requirement in court as an invasion of privacy.

This decision comes at a time when SNAP, which offers about $190 in monthly benefits per person, has recently been scrutinized amid broader political maneuvers. Supporters of the plan argue it is essential, while opponents emphasize the detrimental impact on low-income families who heavily rely on this assistance for their daily needs.

Most Republican-led states have complied with the request, while Democratic-led states have fought back, pushing back against what they view as an unfair imposition. The administration had initially sought this information back in February, framing it as a necessary step to ensure program integrity.

Legal disputes continue to evolve around the issue, particularly following the recent federal government shutdown, which resulted in temporary interruptions to SNAP benefits. The ongoing debates highlight the deeper political divides as states navigate their responsibilities to assist vulnerable populations while facing federal mandates.

This situation not only affects food security but raises critical questions about the federal government’s role in regulating state-level welfare programs and the privacy of those who benefit from them.

Trump Attacks Jewish Voters Supporting Zohran Mamdani as ‘Stupid’

President Donald Trump launched a shocking tirade on Election Day against Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor. Trump labeled Mamdani a “Jew hater” and controversially remarked that any Jewish individual voting for him is “stupid.” This inflammatory rhetoric adds to Trump’s history of targeting Jewish voters, previously asserting that they should be ashamed for supporting Democrats.

Trump’s tirade signals a desperate attempt to bolster support for former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent. Trump criticized Mamdani’s stance towards Israel and the Jewish community, citing his failure to condemn Hamas and his controversial statements surrounding the October 7 terrorist attacks. These accusations reflect a troubling trend in Trump’s continuous use of anti-Semitic language and baseless claims against his political opponents.

In a similar vein, Trump has previously implied that Jewish voters should reconsider their affiliation with the Democratic party, suggesting that their loyalty is misplaced. His recent comments not only reflect a blatant disregard for the complexities of political identity but also serve to further polarize the electorate in a deeply sensitive and divided political climate.

Trump’s warning about the consequences of a Mamdani victory struck fear into the hearts of New Yorkers, as he threatened to withhold federal funding should Mamdani be elected. He painted a grim picture of the city’s future under Mamdani, claiming that it would devolve into a “Complete and Total Economic and Social Disaster.” This kind of scorched-earth political rhetoric aims to intimidate voters and eliminate support for Mamdani based on fear rather than factual concerns.

As the election unfolds, it is imperative for voters to analyze the substance of Mamdani’s platform rather than succumb to Trump’s incendiary remarks. Engaging in constructive dialogue and dispelling misinformation is essential for promoting a more informed electorate in the face of blatant manipulation and divisive tactics from Trump.

The Pentagon’s Illegal $130 Million Donation

The Pentagon has confirmed the acceptance of a $130 million anonymous donation aimed at supporting military pay during the current government shutdown. This unprecedented action falls under the Pentagon’s general gift acceptance authority, enabling private contributions for specific uses.

According to Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, this donation is designated to offset costs associated with service members’ salaries and benefits. He expressed gratitude toward the donor, describing them as “a patriot” who wanted to assist troops amid funding shortages created by stalled negotiations in Congress.

However, this contribution addresses only a minor portion of the military pay needs. Recent reports indicate that typical military pay periods cost about $6.5 billion, which means the donation only represents a fraction of a day’s payroll for service members.

Trump, during a White House event, praised the donor as a “friend” who supports the military. The move also raises legal questions regarding compliance with the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits agencies from spending funds beyond congressional appropriations. Furthermore, any gifts over $10,000 that benefit military personnel require an ethics review.

As discussions continue around military funding, a Republican measure called the Shutdown Fairness Act of 2025, intended to protect pay for active-duty troops during this crisis, failed to pass in the Senate. The vote fell short at 54-45, reflecting a division along party lines.

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)

1 2 3 … 21