AG Bondi indicates investigation into military operation breach unlikely

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled that there was unlikely to be a criminal investigation into the sharing of military operation details in an unsecured text group, declaring that the specifics of when fighter jets would depart and when bombs would fall were “not classified,” reported The New York Times.

Ms. Bondi, speaking at a news conference in Virginia, was asked about the public debate surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he sent details of a coming attack on rebels in Yemen to senior administration officials in a Signal group chat that accidentally included a magazine editor.

“It was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released,” Ms. Bondi said, while praising the military operation that ensued.

“What we should be talking about is it was a very successful mission,” she said, before quickly accusing Democrats from previous administrations of mishandling classified information.

“If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton’s home,” she said. “Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage, that Hunter Biden had access to.”

The Justice Department opened investigations into Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden in those instances, but neither ultimately faced criminal charges. She did not mention the prosecution of Donald J. Trump over his handling of classified documents after his first term in office — a case that was ultimately abandoned when he won a second term.

In this case, Ms. Bondi seemed to be ruling out any similar investigation to determine all the facts.

Dating back to at least the Reagan administration, the government has considered the details of “military plans, weapons or operations” to be classified.

The F.B.I., along with the Justice Department, could still investigate the matter, but agents and prosecutors typically do not pursue cases if the information is not classified.

Under the Espionage Act, it is possible for people to be charged with crimes for mishandling national defense information that is not classified, but such prosecutions are very rare.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses arrest of fire chief on Law & Crime Network

Watch my interview with Kennedi Walker of Law & Crime Network discussing the arrest of a Pennsylvania fire chief for fracturing the skull of his three month old son.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

The most outrageous post-verdict in court celebration ever!

Watch the most outrageous post-verdict in court celebration ever! Check out my response on Court TV with host Ted Rowlands.

 

To watch the clip CLICK HERE

Louisiana seeks constitutional amendment to draw more juveniles into adult court

When Louisiana reversed its “Raise the Age” law in early 2024, moving all 17-year-olds back into the adult criminal system, it became the first and only state in the nation to enact such a reform, intended to shield youth from adult prisons, only to then repeal it. Since then, sheriffs of some of the biggest parishes in the state have struggled to accommodate the influx of minors into their jails. Now, Louisiana lawmakers are seeking to go a step further: They’ve proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would give themselves more leeway to decide what crimes can send children even younger than 17 into adult court—and potentially adult prison, reported Bolt. 

On March 29, Louisianans will vote on Amendment 3, a constitutional amendment that would hand legislators the power to add, with a two-thirds majority vote, any felony to the list of charges that would qualify a child to be treated like an adult in the eyes of the law. In Louisiana, this includes crimes like making a fake ID or stealing a phone. The state constitution currently restricts the crimes for which minors aged 14 and up can be charged as adults to a list of 16 serious felonies including murder, rape, and armed robbery. 

The amendment’s sponsor, Republican state senator Heather Cloud, says the limits on charging children as adults have “hamstringed” Louisiana from being able to address juvenile crime. Some of the bill’s supporters have expressed a deeply pessimistic view of Louisiana’s youth population; in a House committee hearing last fall, Republican lawmaker Tony Bacala told his colleagues, “Some of these kids are already lost when they’re two years old.” 

The move has alarmed advocates across the state, who are urging a no vote. “This is just casting the net wider to get young people inside the system,” Antonio Travis, the youth organizer for the group Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children, told Bolts.

“These are grasps for more power,” said Sarah Omojola, the executive director of Vera Institute New Orleans. “We’re really trying to cage up and defund Louisiana’s future.”

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry sat in chambers during the House’s debate and vote on the amendment in November, a signal of his support. Its content is consistent with a broader effort by Landry and his allies in the legislature to establish more serious and lasting consequences for young people accused of crimes. In 2023, as attorney general, Landry campaigned for a bill that would have made young people’s criminal records public—but only for residents of the state’s three most populous parishes, which are all majority-Black. The bill was sponsored by state representative Debbie Villio, a former prosecutor and ally of Landry’s who brought the constitutional amendment alongside Cloud. 

Both Landry and Villio insisted at the time that this targeting was about crime rates, not race, but organizers were appalled. “How could a person not look at the evidence and see that this is an intentional attack on certain communities?” Travis asked. The bill died in the senate amidst widespread accusations of racism. But in 2024, during a special session on crime that Landry called as his first official act as governor, Bacala brought back a new version that applied equally to every parish, which passed. Landry promptly signed it into law. 

Before 2017, the year Louisiana’s “Raise the Age” law took effect, “the education system was definitely, definitely feeding our youth justice system,” Travis told Bolts. “Kids were getting incarcerated from truancy. Kids were getting incarcerated from being suspended too much.” 

The reform moved 17-year-olds into the juvenile justice system as a default, though those accused of serious crimes could still be transferred to adult court. “This narrative of these hard criminals … that narrative was slowly being done away with,” Travis said. “The general public was recognizing that these are kids and they deserve resources.”

But this new day in Louisiana wouldn’t last long. There were a few abortive efforts to overturn “Raise the Age”: one bill that Landry, then attorney general, supported died in 2022; another was vetoed by then-Governor John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, in 2023. But this year, with Landry as governor, the legislation passed and became law last April. Landry feted the change on X, writing: “No more will 17-year-olds who commit home invasions, carjack, and rob the great people of our State be treated as children in court. These are criminals and today, they will finally be treated as such.”

The fallout was immediate: Any 17-year-olds already in custody were transferred to adult facilities, and all 17-year-olds arrested from then on were processed and treated as adults, meaning that their criminal history also becomes public record. The vast majority of these young people were not accused of home invasions, carjacking, or robbery, it turns out. Of the 203 17-year-olds arrested in the state’s three largest parishes during the first five months under the new law, ProPublica found that nearly 70 percent were charged with nonviolent crimes, like trespassing or marijuana possession. Only 13 percent were charged with serious felonies—and prosecutors already had the discretion to send young people accused of these crimes into adult court. 

Erika Jupiter, statewide organizing manager for Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children’s, told Bolts that the change has had the effect of separating young people from their families and communities. ”Parents are very worried about the experience their children are having, and also it’s harder for them to communicate with their children,” she told Bolts. “If your child is in that adult facility, you may go weeks without knowing a status on what’s happening with them.” 

Recognizing that minors are at increased risk of physical and sexual assault in prison, the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act requires them to be “sight and sound” separated from adult prisoners. This has resulted in adult prisons placing young people in solitary confinement or in “pods,” which Jupiter described as “windowless shipping containers.” “It’s still inhumane,” she said. Officials have also shipped kids to prisons over 150 miles away from their original facility since the law took effect. “You have children going so far away from home, and their parents can’t visit,” Jupiter said.

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal courts create judicial task force for security and independence

A task force of federal judges will consider how to respond to “current risks” for the judiciary, following a spate of threats against judges who have ruled against the Trump administration, reported The New York Times.

According to an internal two-page memo distributed to federal judges and obtained by The New York Times, the new Judicial Security and Independence Task Force will hold its first meeting within the next 10 days.

The announcement comes days after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare statement rebuking calls for impeaching judges. President Trump and his allies have repeatedly called for the removal of judges who have issued rulings halting or slowing the adoption of his agenda.

The formation of the task force is another sign that the judicial branch is taking seriously an increasingly hostile and politicized climate. In recent weeks, there have been hoax reports of bombs placed in mailboxes. Pizzas have also been anonymously sent to judges’ homes and the homes of their family members, which security experts have said is intended to send a menacing message that the public knows where they live.

On social media, allies of President Trump have shared posts that purport to contain the personal information of judges’ families. Elon Musk and prominent Republican lawmakers have singled out specific judges and called on Congress to impeach them.

In a statement, a White House spokesman condemned “attacks on public officials, including judges.” Such attacks “have no place in our society and President Trump knows all too well the impact of callous attacks, having faced two assassination attempts,” said Harrison Fields, the spokesman.

Threats against public officials have been rising for years.

Democrats have also used heated rhetoric on judges and their rulings. “You have unleashed the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York outside the Supreme Court in 2020, as the court was considering a major abortion case. “I shouldn’t have used the words I did,” Mr. Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, said later, after Chief Justice Roberts condemned his remarks.

According to the memo, the intent of the task force will be “to identify and help” the judicial branch “respond to current risks, and to anticipate new ones.”

“Through its efforts, it is hoped that the security of individual judges will be enhanced and that judicial independence will be assured,” the memo said.

The memo names 10 judges and one circuit executive who will be serving on the task force, with two more court clerks to be announced. Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will serve as the new group’s chair.

It was signed by Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., who oversees the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which helps oversee the system under the direction of the Judicial Conference, a policymaking body led by Chief Justice Roberts. The office declined to comment.

The establishment of the task force is an encouraging step, said Judge Michael Ponsor of the U.S. District Court for the District Massachusetts, who has written on recent threats against the judiciary. “This is a welcome initiative and a powerful expression of the judiciary’s concern and its determination to do the job that our Constitution sets out for it,” he said.

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS upholds restrictions on ghost guns

The Supreme Court upheld federal restrictions aimed at curtailing access to kits that can be easily assembled into homemade, nearly untraceable firearms, a rare move by a court that has taken an expansive view of gun rights, reported The New York Times.

In a 7-to-2 decision, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, one of the court’s conservatives, the justices left in place requirements enacted during the Biden administration as part of a broader effort to combat gun violence by placing restrictions on so-called ghost guns.

Justice Gorsuch included photographs, unusual in court opinions, to illustrate how one of the gun kits, Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot,” came with “all of the necessary components to build” a Glock-style semiautomatic weapon. He wrote that it was “so easy to assemble” that it could be put together in about 20 minutes.

“Plainly, the finished ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit is an instrument of combat,” Justice Gorsuch wrote, adding that no one would confuse the pistol “with a tool or a toy.”

The ruling in favor of gun regulations is a departure for the court, which has shown itself to be skeptical of them — and of administrative agency power. Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, both conservatives, filed dissents.

The “weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm,’” Justice Thomas wrote, important because Congress in 1968 agreed the government could legally impose some regulations on firearms. “That should end the case.”

Legal experts said the decision was a victory for those advocating more gun regulations.

“Although this is not a Second Amendment ruling, it shows that the justices are not uniformly hostile to gun regulation,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Ghost guns have been found in increasing numbers at crime scenes, and today’s decision should help the problem.”

The Biden administration in 2022 enacted rules tightening access to the weapons kits, after law enforcement agencies reported that ghost guns were exploding in popularity and being used to commit serious crimes.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimated that use of the gun components and kits in crime increased tenfold in the six years before the rules were adopted.

Among the regulations: requiring vendors and gun makers to be licensed to sell the kits, mandating serial numbers on the components so the weapons could be tracked and adding background checks for would-be buyers.

Steven M. Dettelbach, the former director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who shepherded the regulation, urged the Trump administration and Congress to “fully support” the agency to implement the ghost gun regulations. With support from the administration, he said in a statement, “today’s decision can save lives.”

Got a news tip about the courts? If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please contact us.

See how to send a secure message at nytimes.com/tips

Gun rights groups based their challenge to the regulations by claiming that the government had overstepped its bounds in regulating the gun kits because they did not meet the definition of firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Opponents of gun regulations argued that most people who bought the kits were hobbyists, not criminals. In legal filings, the groups argued that a majority of firearms used in crimes were traditional weapons that were manufactured professionally.

Lawyers for the government, arguing in October while President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was in office, said the guns kits should be regulated as firearms because they allowed “anyone with basic tools and access to internet video tutorials to assemble a functional firearm ‘quickly and easily’ — often, in a matter of minutes.”

During the oral argument in Bondi v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852, a majority of the justices had appeared to favor keeping the rules in place. At least two conservatives, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, raised sharp questions about arguments by the plaintiffs that the administration had overstepped its bounds.

The justices had wrestled with how best to draw analogies to the gun kits. Chief Justice Roberts seemed skeptical of attempts by the gun rights lawyers to say that people who put together the kits were similar to amateur car hobbyists, saying that the kits seemed to require much less effort to put together.

“Drilling a hole or two,” Chief Justice Roberts said, “doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get as working on your car on the weekends.”

Justice Gorsuch returned to this point in the opinion, explaining that the gun kits could be considered weapons even though they were unfinished objects because “their intended function is clear.”

An author might ask for an opinion on her latest novel, Justice Gorsuch wrote, even though the person was referring to an unfinished draft. A friend might talk about a table he bought at IKEA, even though he had hours of assembly ahead of him.

In both cases, the justice wrote, “the intended function of the unfinished object is obvious to speaker and listener alike.”

The same, he said, was true for the ghost gun kits.

“Yes, perhaps a half-hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit’s name says it all: ‘Buy Build Shoot.’”

Like Justice Gorsuch, Justice Thomas also included photographs of gun kits to illustrate his point. But he came to the opposite conclusion.

Justice Thomas wrote that in his view, an object that “may readily be converted” into a gun would only qualify as a firearm if it was already a weapon.

“The ordinary meaning of ‘weapon’ does not include weapon-parts kits,” he wrote.

His point echoed a debate from the oral argument, when Justice Alito disputed the idea that the gun kits could count as firearms. Justice Alito made an analogy to cooking an omelet in his questions to the government’s lawyer.

As in, when do the components of a gun become a firearm?

“If I show you — I put out on a counter some eggs, some chopped-up ham, some chopped-up pepper and onions, is that a Western omelet?” Justice Alito asked.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

CREATORS: Invoking the Alien Enemies Act Is About More Than Deportations

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
March 25, 2025

The Alien Enemies Act was enacted in 1798 to combat spying and sabotage during tensions with France. The Act authorizes the president to deport, detain or place restrictions on individuals whose primary allegiance is to a foreign power and who might pose a national security risk in wartime.

The law is explicitly predicated on the existence of a declared war, invasion or predatory incursion. The text and history of the Act indicate that invasion and predatory incursion refer to acts of war, specifically armed attacks on United States soil. Former presidents have invoked the law only in times of war.

According to an October 2024 report from The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, "There is no plausible basis for saying that migration or narcotics trafficking constitutes an invasion or predatory incursion."

Nevertheless, the Trump administration believes the Alien Enemies Act can be used to address unlawful migration and drug trafficking — acts that they frame as "a rhetorical, nonmilitary invasion or predatory incursion."

Based on that interpretation, the Trump administration invoked the Act to forcibly deport 238 alleged Venezuelan gang members. The administration asserted that the gang, Tren de Aragua, was invading the United States in order to justify their deportations under the law. The alleged gang members were flown to an El Salvador prison without due process hearings.

Some of those deported have no criminal records in the United States and no apparent ties to the gang. The Washington Post reported on four men deported who had moved to the Dallas area together, working in retail and food-production jobs to support their families back in Venezuela.

Upon an action filed by the ACLU, Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg temporarily blocked any deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, writing that the law refers to hostile acts perpetrated by another nation.

Boasberg blocked the administration's deportation action and ordered the two flights to be turned around in midair and returned to the United States. The Trump administration did not follow the order, stating later that the flights were outside of U.S. airspace and therefore outside of the judge's jurisdiction.

"You did tell them it was an order from me to turn the planes around ... to bring back people to the United States? You understood that," Boasberg said during a recent hearing according to CBS News. "Did you understand that when I said 'do that immediately,' I meant it?"

The Justice Department has argued that because Boasberg's verbal order was not reflected in a written order, it was not binding.

President Donald Trump raised the stakes by calling for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg. According to The New York Times, Trump described the judge on social media as a "Radical Left Lunatic."

A few hours later, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a statement, seemingly prompted by the president's comments, "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision." The chief justice continued, "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Concern is growing among legal scholars. "If anyone is being detained or removed based on the administration's assertion that it can do so without judicial review or due process," Jamal Greene, a law professor at Columbia told The New York Times, "The president is asserting dictatorial power and 'constitutional crisis' doesn't capture the gravity of the situation."

The Trump administration has backed off for now. First, Trump told reporters he didn't sign off on the order directing the deportation, and Border Czar Tom Homan said that deportations of migrants under the Alein Enemies Act will continue, but he conceded in the meantime that he will obey the judge's order, according to The Hill.

Homan said during a recent NewsNation interview, "I'll wait until the DOJ and the courts fight this out as far as the Alien Enemies Act (and) how far we will go."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

The dysfunctional Maverick County, TX court system, a failure of American justice

 Read about the dysfunctional Maverick County court system, where basic tenets of American justice often do not apply, according to the Texas Tribune and The New York Times.

Officials here openly acknowledge that poor defendants accused of minor crimes are rarely provided lawyers. And people regularly spend months behind bars without charges filed against them, much longer than state law allows. Last year alone, at least a dozen people were held too long uncharged after arrests for minor nonviolent crimes, interviews and records reviewed by The New York Times show.

Some defendants seem to have been forgotten in jail. Two men were released after The Times asked about them, half a year after their sentences had been completed.

“The county is not at the level that it should have been for years,” conceded Maverick County Judge Ramsey English Cantú, who oversees misdemeanor court. He said he had been trying to “revamp” and “rebuild” the local justice system since he was elected in 2022.

“It’s been a challenge for me,” he added. “But at the end of the day it is unjust.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, people facing jail time are entitled to a lawyer — paid for by the government if they cannot afford their own — and a fair and efficient court process. But these protections are tenuous, especially in rural parts of America, studies have shown. In Texas, one of the states that spend the least on indigent defense, The Times found recent examples of people held beyond deadlines without charges or lawyers in six rural counties.

Maverick County stood out. It is in one of the state’s poorest regions, and many defendants cannot afford a lawyer; some spend months in jail because they cannot pay a bail bondsman $500 or less. Yet over the past two decades, state auditors have repeatedly noted the county was failing to adequately provide indigent counsel. In 2023, when more than 240 misdemeanor defendants requested representation, the county judge appointed lawyers in only a handful of cases, records show. Nonetheless, the state has imposed no consequences.

With no one to guide them, defendants enter a disjointed justice system where it can be perplexingly difficult to figure out why someone is in jail, if there even is a reason. Misdemeanor court files are almost always missing key documents. Felony court files are often not available until more than a year after a defendant’s arrest. The jail sometimes reported having no record of people despite recently holding them for months.

Defense lawyers and constitutional law scholars, responding to The Times’s reporting, called the county’s practices “atrocious,” “Kafkaesque” and “not a criminal system at all.”

“The lack of transparency and the lack of public defenders in this jurisdiction has allowed this completely inept system to persist,” said Rachel Kincaid, an associate law professor at Baylor University in Waco and former federal prosecutor. “There’s no pressure on them to do anything differently.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Organizations file suit to stop dismantling of Department of Education

The Trump administration’s campaign to dismantle the Education Department drew a pair of court challenges on Monday, as opponents called the plan an attempt to evade congressional authority, reported The New York Times.

The first lawsuit was filed in federal court in Massachusetts by the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers union; the American Association of University Professors; and two public school districts in Massachusetts. Within hours the N.A.A.C.P., the National Education Association union and other critics had brought a case of their own in federal court in Maryland.

The challenges came four days after President Trump signed an executive order that directed the education secretary, Linda McMahon, to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the department.”

The day after the order, Mr. Trump announced that the Small Business Administration would assume control of the government’s $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio, and that the Health and Human Services Department would oversee nutrition programs and special education services.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump comes after the lawyers

Legal advocacy groups have sounded the alarms after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened new actions against lawyers and law firms that bring immigration lawsuits and other cases against the government that he deems unethical, reported Reuters.

In a memorandum to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi late on Friday, Trump said lawyers were helping to fuel "rampant fraud and meritless claims" in the immigration system, and directed the Justice Department to seek sanctions against attorneys for professional misconduct.

The order also took aim at law firms that sue the administration in what Trump, a Republican, called "baseless partisan" lawsuits. He asked Bondi to refer such firms to the White House to be stripped of security clearances, and for federal contracts they worked on to be terminated.

Ben Wizner, a senior lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new directive sought to "chill and intimidate" lawyers who challenge the president's agenda. Trump has separately mounted attacks on law firms over their internal diversity policies and their ties to his political adversaries.

"Courts have been the only institution so far that have stood up to Trump’s onslaught,” Wizner said. “Courts can’t play that role without lawyers bringing cases in front of them."

The ACLU is involved in litigation against the administration over immigrant deportations, including the expulsion of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The Trump administration has been hit with more than 100 lawsuits challenging White House actions on immigration, transgender rights and other issues since the start of the president's second term. Legal advocacy groups, along with at least 12 major law firms, have brought many of the cases.

A White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said “President Trump is delivering on his promise to ensure the judicial system is no longer weaponized against the American people."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the memorandum, which directed Bondi to assess lawyers and firms that brought cases against the government over the past eight years.

Law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters, which is working with the ACLU in an immigrant rights case against the administration, said in a statement that it was "inexcusable and despicable" for Trump to attack lawyers based on their clients or legal work opposing the federal government.

Representatives from other prominent law firms that are representing clients in cases against Trump's administration, including Hogan Lovells, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump issued executive orders this month against law firms Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss, suspending their lawyers' security clearances and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work.

The president also last month suspended security clearances of lawyers at Covington & Burling, in each case citing the firms' past work for his political or legal opponents.

The Keker firm on Saturday called on law firms to sign a joint court brief supporting a lawsuit by Perkins Coie challenging the executive order against it.

Paul Weiss on Thursday struck a deal with Trump to rescind the executive order against it, pledging to donate the equivalent of $40 million in free legal work to support some of the administration's causes such as support for veterans and combating antisemitism.

Lawyers are bound by professional ethics rules that require them to investigate allegations before filing lawsuits and not deceive the courts. Imposing disciplinary sanctions on lawyers who violate such rules falls on the court system, not federal prosecutors, though prosecutors can charge lawyers with criminal misconduct.

Some lawyers aligned with Trump faced professional discipline over claims that they violated legal ethics rules in challenging Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election win over Trump.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who later was an attorney for Trump, was disbarred in New York and in the District of Columbia over baseless claims he made alleging the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Lawyers for Civil Rights, a legal advocacy group suing the administration over deportations, called Trump's sanctions threat hypocritical in a statement to Reuters, saying Trump and his allies "have repeatedly thumbed their noses at the rule of law."

To read more CLICK HERE

Fingerprint evidence not infallible

Fingerprints have been police tools for a long time, more than a century. They were considered infallible for much of that history, according to Science News.

Limitations to fingerprint analysis came to light in spectacular fashion in 2004, with the bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid. Spanish police found a blue plastic bag full of detonators and traces of explosives. Forensic experts used a standard technique to raise prints off the bag: fumigating it with vaporized superglue, which stuck to the finger marks, and staining the bag with fluorescent dye to reveal a blurry fingerprint.

Running that print against the FBI’s fingerprint database highlighted a possible match to Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer. One FBI expert, then another, then another confirmed Mayfield’s print matched the one from the bag.

Mayfield was arrested. But he hadn’t been anywhere near Madrid during the bombing. He didn’t even possess a current passport. Spanish authorities later arrested someone else, and the FBI apologized to Mayfield and let him go.

The case highlights an unfortunate “paradox” resulting from fingerprint databases, in that “the larger the databases get … the larger the probability that you find a spurious match,” says Alicia Carriquiry. She directs the Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence, or CSAFE, at Iowa State University.

In fingerprint analyses, the question at hand is whether two prints, one from a crime scene and one from a suspect or a fingerprint database, came from the same digit (SN: 8/26/15). The problem is that prints lifted from a crime scene are often partial, distorted, overlapping or otherwise hard to make out. The expert’s challenge is to identify features called minutiae, such as the place a ridge ends or splits in two, and then decide if they correspond between two prints.

Studies since the Madrid bombing illustrate the potential for mistakes. In a 2011 report, FBI researchers tested 169 experienced print examiners on 744 fingerprint pairs, of which 520 pairs contained true matches. Eighty-five percent of the examiners missed at least one of the true matches in a subset of 100 or so pairs each examined. Examiners can also be inconsistent: In a subsequent study, the researchers brought back 72 of those examiners seven months later and gave them 25 of the same fingerprint pairs they saw before. The examiners changed their conclusions on about 10 percent of the pairings.

Forensic examiners can also be biased when they think they see a very rare feature in a fingerprint and mentally assign that feature a higher significance than others, Quigley-McBride says. No one has checked exactly how rare individual features are, but she is part of a CSAFE team quantifying these features in a database of more than 2,000 fingerprints.

Computer software can assist fingerprint experts with a “sanity check,” says forensic scientist Glenn Langenburg, owner of the consulting firm Elite Forensic Services in St. Paul, Minn. One option is a program known rather informally as Xena (yes, for the television warrior princess) developed by Langenburg’s former colleagues at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland.

Xena’s goal is to calculate a likelihood ratio, a number that compares the probability of a fingerprint looking like it does if it came from the suspect (the numerator) versus the probability of the fingerprint looking as it does if it’s from some random, unidentified individual (the denominator). The same type of statistic is used to support DNA evidence.

To compute the numerator probability, the program starts with the suspect’s pristine print and simulates various ways it might be distorted, creating 700 possible “pseudomarks.” Then Xena asks, if the suspect is the person behind the print from the crime scene, what’s the probability any of those 700 could be a good match?

To calculate the denominator probability, the program compares the crime scene print to 1 million fingerprints from random people and asks, what are the chances that this crime scene print would be a good match for any of these?

If the likelihood ratio is high, that suggests the similarities between the two prints are more likely if the suspect is indeed the source of the crime scene print than if not. If it’s low, then the statistics suggest it’s quite possible the print didn’t come from the suspect. Xena wasn’t available at the time of the Mayfield case, but when researchers ran those prints later, it returned a very low score for Mayfield, Langenburg says.

Another option, called FRStat, was developed by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory. It crunches the numbers a bit differently to calculate the degree of similarity between fingerprints after an expert has marked five to 15 minutiae.

While U.S. Army courts have admitted FRStat numbers, and some Swiss agencies have adopted Xena, few fingerprint examiners in the United States have taken up either. But Carriquiry thinks U.S. civilian courts will begin to use FRStat soon.

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida and Oklahoma carry out executions on the same day

 The 9th and 10th Executions of 2025

Oklahoma carried out its first execution of 2025 on March 20, 2025, giving a lethal injection to a Wendell Arden Grissom a confessed killer who had said in his first interview with police that he wanted the death penalty, reported The Daily Oklahoman.

Also on March 20, 2025, Florida officials executed Edward James for the killing of an 8-year-old girl and her grandmother on a night in which he drank heavily and used drugs, according to The Associated Press.

Grissom, 56, was pronounced dead at 10:13 a.m. at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

"I consider this a mercy. It's going to be all right," he said in his last words after apologizing and asking for forgiveness from "all of you that I hurt."

He did not seek any emergency stays in court and did not speak at his clemency hearing in February. He told Newsweek on Monday, "I don't want to spend the rest of my life in here."

Grissom was executed for fatally shooting a woman during a 2005 home invasion in rural Blaine County. The victim, Amber Dawn Matthews, 23, was at the isolated home near Watonga helping a friend, Dreu Kopf, pack for a move the next day.

Matthews was shot the first time in the back of the head while holding her friend's newborn baby, Gracie. She was shot again in the forehead after collapsing to the floor. Kopf also was shot but survived.

"You guys really need to remember her because she was unbelievable," Kopf said Thursday of her best friend. "She saved my kids."

Florida Prison officials said James, 63, was pronounced dead at 8:15 p.m. after receiving a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He drew the death penalty after pleading guilty to the Sept. 19, 1993, killings of Toni Neuner, 8, and her grandmother, Betty Dick, 58.

As he awaited the injection, James said he did not wish to give a final statement. Then, as the drugs were administered, James breathed heavily, his arms flinching, and then he was still.

Jared Pearson, Neuner’s brother, said afterward that the family was able to find some kind of peace with the process.

“But we lost generations because of him,” Pearson said. “It’s all pure evil. That night was horrific.”

Three other executions were carried out this week in the U.S., including the lethal injection earlier Thursday of an Oklahoma man for the fatal shooting of a woman during a home invasion. Arizona executed a man by an injection Wednesday and Louisiana used nitrogen gas for the first time Tuesday, putting a man to death as that state ended a 15-year pause on executions.

To read more CLICK HERE and HERE

Arizona executes condemned prison who volunteered to be executed

 The 8th Execution of 2025

Aaron Gunches, who has advocated for his death, was executed shortly after 10 a.m. March 19, 2025 at a prison facility in Florence, reported The Arizona Republic.

On Dec. 30, 2024, Gunches filed a hand-written motion for his own death warrant, asking the Arizona Supreme Court and the state to stop “foot dragging.” He asked to be executed on Valentine’s Day, though it’s uncertain who that romantic irony was supposed to gore, or if it was merely because the day was the anniversary of his first death sentence.

He was the first person killed by the state of Arizona since 2022 and the fourth since 2014. In 2022, three men were executed, and the state struggled to administer all three lethal injections. In 2014, it took two hours for the lethal injection drugs to kill Joseph Wood, leading to an eight-year pause in executions.

Upon taking office in 2023, Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, suspended executions pending a review of the state's capital punishment system by an independent commissioner.

At the time, Hobbs said the review was needed because "Arizona has a history of mismanaged executions that have resulted in serious questions and concerns" about the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry's execution protocols and lack of transparency.

But Hobbs ended the review before it was finished, saying she had lost confidence in the effort.

Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, had been putting pressure on Mayes to pursue Gunches' execution and eventually attempted to get his death warrant from the Arizona Supreme Court on her own, challenging the attorney general's exclusive authority to make such a request. Mitchell's efforts, however, were rendered moot after Mayes filed a death warrant request, which was granted by the court in February.

Hobbs cited an "execution preparedness" review the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry sent her on Nov. 22 as proof the state was ready to proceed with putting prisoners to death.

Gunches was sentenced to death for the 2002 murder of Ted Price, a former longtime boyfriend of Gunches' girlfriend. Gunches kidnapped and shot Price multiple times in a desert area off the Beeline Highway.

Dale Baich watched the execution of Aaron Gunches as his invited legal witness. He said appearances could be misleading, because of how the lethal drugs affect a human body.

“The witnesses did not see is what happened under the jumpsuit and sheet. We know from scientific studies that rapid administration of a high dose of pentobarbital is excruciatingly painful. Pulmonary edema develops in seconds as the lungs fill with water and one is not able to breathe," Baich told reporters afterward.

"There is a sensation of drowning from within and not being able to do anything about it. It is like being waterboarded to death," he added.

Baich said the breaths, the heaving chest and gurgling sounds were all signs we was struggling to breathe, and noted, "Even though it may have looked peaceful, it was not.” 

Ted Price's sister, Karen Price, told the media after watching the execution of her brother's killer: “The pain of losing Ted remains profound and cannot be conveyed in mere words."

She fondly remembered him as an avid fan of the Suns and Diamondbacks, and a compassionate man who loved cats. He'd be 63 years old if he'd lived, she said, recalling an idyllic childhood in Utah. She is 15 months younger than her brother, with whom she was very close.

The last time Karen Price saw her brother alive was when she dropped him off at the Salt Lake City airport in February 2002, when she snapped a photo of him. His body was found in the desert 23 days after he went to Arizona, she said.

She struggled for words to convey what the execution of Aaron Gunches means to her and said that she was relieved the process was finally over.

To read more CLICK HERE

Louisiana carries out first execution in 15 years using nitrogen gas

 The 7th Execution of 2025

Jessie Hoffman was put to death on March 19, 2025 at Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, becoming the first person in the state executed using nitrogen gas, reported the Louisiana Illuminator.

It also marked the first time Louisiana has carried out the death penalty in 15 years, citing its inability to obtain the drugs necessary for lethal injection. With no foreseeable sources to resuming using that method, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and the GOP-dominated state legislature approved nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative. 

Alabama is the only other state to have used the technique, having put four condemned men to death since adopting the method in February 2024.

“It went flawless. There was nothing that happened incorrectly,” Gary Westcott, secretary of Louisiana’s Department of Public Safety and Corrections, told reporters after Hoffman’s execution, according to WAFB-TV.

Hoffman, 46, was executed for the 1996 kidnapping, rape and murder of 28-year-old Mary “Molly” Elliot.

Investigators said Hoffman abducted Elliot at a downtown New Orleans parking lot where he was a valet and where she parked daily for her job at an advertising agency. She was taken to rural St. Tammany Parish, where she was assaulted and fatally shot the day before Thanksgiving. A hunter found her nude body the next day at a remote boat launch near the Pearl River.

Landry’s office issued a statement from him after Hoffman’s execution. It stressed how Elliot’s “family and friends have been forced to relive the tragedy through countless legal proceedings.”

“In Louisiana, we will always prioritize victims over criminals, law and order over lawlessness, and justice over the status quo,” Landry said. ”If you commit heinous acts of violence in this State, it will cost you your life. Plain and simple.” 

Read the governor’s full statement below.

Lawyers for Hoffman, seeking a last-minute reprieve from his death sentence being carried out, argued nitrogen hypoxia amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited under the 8th Amendment. Hoffman instead sought death by firing squad or lethal injection, acknowledging his responsibility for Elliot’s violent death.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick of Louisiana’s Middle District Court, temporarily blocked Hoffman’s execution date to allow that argument to proceed. Attorney General Liz Murrill challenged that order. Last week, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals removed the injunction from Dick, a federal court appointee of former President Barack Obama. In a 5-4 decision late Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court refused to stop Hoffman’s execution.

Cecelia Koppel, one of Hoffman’s attorneys and director of the Center for Social Justice at Loyola University College of Law, issued a statement shortly after Hoffman’s death. 

“Tonight, the State of Louisiana carried out the senseless execution of Jessie Hoffman,” Koppell said. “He was a father, a husband, and a man who showed extraordinary capacity for redemption. Jessie no longer bore any resemblance to the 18-year old who killed Molly Elliot.”

Koppel had unsuccessfully challenged Louisiana’s move to nitrogen hypoxia, arguing the method was an illegal affront to Hoffman’s Buddhist faith. Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald Trump, joined the court’s three liberal jurists and wrote the dissenting opinion, calling out the 5th Circuit’s failure to address Hoffman’s religious concerns. 

The expedited nature of Louisiana’s nitrogen hypoxia protocols was also a point of contention for Koppel. Although Landry and lawmakers approved the method last year, the governor didn’t provide the legally required execution protocol until Feb. 10. Those details remained under seal until March 5, giving Hoffman’s team less than two weeks to challenge the pending execution.   

“The State was able to execute him by pushing out a new protocol and setting execution dates to prevent careful judicial review and shrouding the process in secrecy,” Koppel said. 

State corrections officials allowed only two journalists to witness the execution. According to The Advocate, Hoffman was fastened to a gurney and inhaled nitrogen gas for 19 minutes. State officials said he displayed “convulsive activity” as he died, and he was pronounced dead at 6:50 p.m.

Hoffman declined to make a final statement before his death and refused a last meal, according to the report.

Ilona Hoffman, the executed man’s wife, issued a statement that said he “was not defined by his worst moment” and that the “system” had failed him as a child.

“This execution was not justice. It was revenge,” Ilona Hoffman said. “True justice recognizes growth, humanity, and redemption. Louisiana chose to ignore that.”

The Promise of Justice Initiative, which opposes the death penalty, was among the groups in Hoffman’s corner. Its senior staff attorney, Samantha Pourciau, took critical aim at the Landry administration in a statement after his death.

“Governor Landry’s yearslong pursuit of this execution concluded with more pain and more trauma. Tonight, while many in our state cannot afford groceries, the state used countless resources to kill one man,” Pourciau said in part. “The governor cannot cloak this in fighting for victims, because today we learned that this is not, in fact, what this family wants. This is what the governor wants. This has been in service of no one, but the bloodlust of our state government.”

There are 55 more people on death row in Louisiana, and Murrill has said the state intends to execute four people this year.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: A New Twist on the "Reviled" Advocate

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
March 18, 2025

American criminal jurisprudence has been turned on its head. For centuries lawyers have been attacked for advocacy on behalf of despicable criminals. Last week, the tables turned. President Donald Trump attacked prosecutors and government lawyers for advocacy on behalf of the people.

The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients was established more than 250 years ago with John Adams' representation of the British soldiers charged with murder during the Boston Massacre. Adams' trial summation set the standard for law and order.

Adams, who would later serve two terms as president of the United States, said of justice, "On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace."

Today, more than ever, the clamor of the populace — through news media and social media — can almost instantly accuse, try and convict a person in the court of public opinion. Lawyers are often intentionally, or unintentionally, drug into the glare of the media and no longer perceived as only representing the accused, but of siding with the reprehensible conduct. A lawyer faced with the decision to take on a controversial client must legitimately ask herself, "Will I ever get any more law business in my community if I take this case?"

Attorneys are advocates for others. Many understand that representing the person or issue does not equate to accepting or endorsing what a particular client does. In practice, however, many people have difficulty accepting that a pedophile, terrorist, mass killer or racist hate group is entitled to legal representation.

At times, attorneys are demonized for representing defendants charged with heinous crimes — as if there was something immoral about providing a defense to someone charged with a crime. Such conduct undermines the fundamental protections of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "to have the assistance of counsel."

There have also been times when lawyers have failed to meet the lofty standards of protecting the United States Constitution. Denise Lieberman, writing for "Liberties," the newsletter of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, pointed out that during the McCarthy era the American Bar Association "declared that any attorney representing a person associated with the Communist Party was unworthy of membership in the bar, and even demanded that lawyers take loyalty oaths."

However, few were prepared for what we saw last week. President Trump focused his wrath, not on defense attorneys who represent unpopular clients, or legal organizations that capitulate to the rhetoric of demagogues — no, Trump vilified prosecutors.

President Trump made a speech at the Great Hall of the Department of Justice, where, according to The New York Times, he lashed out at lawyers and former prosecutors by name. He also accused the department's previous leadership of trying to destroy him. He labeled those who opposed him as "scum," "corrupt" and "deranged."

"Unfortunately, in recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and good will built up over generations," Trump said, in speaking — of the Justice Department — to an audience at the Justice Department. "They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people."

Trump called himself the chief law enforcement officer in the country — of course, he is not. However, it was less than reassuring when the country's actual chief law enforcement officer — Attorney General Pam Bondi, said, according to Politico, "We will never stop fighting for (Trump) and for our country."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Judges not in line with Administration subjected to threats and intimidation

Federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration this year are confronting a wave of threats, potentially compromising their personal safety and the independence of the judiciary.

The sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett received a bomb threat earlier this month, and lower court judges who hit pause on some of President Trump's efforts to dismantle federal agencies and programs have been singled out on social media, reported NPR.

Republican lawmakers close to the president even have proposed impeachment proceedings against a few of those judges, who serve for life.

Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency making cuts to federal agencies, himself has repeatedly posted on social media about impeaching judges who delay or block parts of Trump's agenda.

Efforts to undermine the judiciary come at the same time the Trump administration has moved to fire lawyers inside the Justice Department and the Pentagon, penalize private law firms who represented clients Trump does not like, and to back away from participation in the activities of the American Bar Association.

Judge Richard Sullivan, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said in his lifetime four federal judges have been killed in retaliation for their work on the bench.

"This is not hypothetical," Sullivan, who leads a Judicial Conference panel on security issues, told reporters in a news conference this week. The Judicial Conference is a representative body of federal judges that frames policies for courts. "It's real. It's happened before. We have to be certain that it doesn't happen again," he said.

The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary group of more than 1,000 judges across the nation, said the judiciary plays a "critical role in preserving democracy and a law-abiding society."

"Judges must be able to do their jobs without fear of violence or undue influence," the group said in a written statement to NPR.

Early threats

One thing stands out to legal experts: these attacks on judges are coming at a very early stage in the legal process — often, before the Supreme Court weighs in as the final decider.

"We have a system of justice that allows for appeals," Judge Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, told reporters this week. "That's typically the way it works. Impeachment is not and shouldn't be a short-circuiting of that process. And so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that."

Only 15 federal judges have faced impeachment, mostly for allegations of wrongdoing such as bribery, corruption or perjury, in the past couple of centuries.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the odds of a successful judicial impeachment are pretty low, and to remove a judge from the bench would require a two-thirds vote from the Senate.

"The more that people like Elon Musk are putting on the wall the idea that it's appropriate to attack these judges for nothing more than ruling against the federal government, the more that we're normalizing what really are in the main very serious threats to judicial independence," Vladeck said.

"Jeopardize the rule of law"

But Paul Grimm, who spent 26 years as a federal judge, said even the threat of impeachment can amount to intimidation.

"And if you try to intimidate judges, if that's your goal, so that they do not do their constitutional duty, then you jeopardize the rule of law," said Grimm, who leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. "And without the rule of law, every liberty and every right that we cherish as Americans is vulnerable."

Grimm said he worries a lot about online posts that display the home and work addresses of judges and their adult children, a step that he said "crosses the line."

Nearly five years ago, an angry litigant shot and killed the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey.

In 2022, a California man carrying a gun and zip ties traveled to the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He turned away after spotting a security detail there. The man has pleaded not guilty to a charge of attempted assassination of the justice, and awaits trial this year.

And in 2023, a state court judge in Maryland was gunned down in his driveway.

Attacks over rulings

The U.S. Marshals say threats against federal judges have doubled in recent years, according to the most recent data. And those threats have been directed at both Democratic and Republican judges.

Justice Barrett came under withering criticism this month from some right-wing political commentators, after she voted alongside Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberals on the high court against Trump's effort to freeze foreign aid.

Lower court judges have faced online attacks for their early rulings on Musk's DOGE team, efforts to restore government web pages and the freeze on foreign aid.

The Marshals protect judges, but they also report to the U.S. attorney general, not to the courts themselves. That's got some members of Congress on alert.

"A judge's security is dependent in many ways on the Marshals Service who the president appoints to protect the judges, and if a president doesn't like a decision that's coming from a judge, theoretically they could pull their security," Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, said at a congressional hearing this month.

The administration has already yanked protection this year from former military and national security officials who disagreed with Trump in his first term.

Swalwell said Congress should consider giving judges their own security force — one that's independent from the White House.

To read more CLICK HERE

Judge scolds government for 'lie' about firing employees en masse

U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco delivered one of the most far-reaching court defeats to the Trump administration's efforts to gut the federal bureaucracy, according to the USA TODAY.

Alsup, appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, ordered six federal agencies to reinstate tens of thousands of federal government probationary workers fired in recent weeks.

Alsup said the Justice Department tried to obfuscate that the White House had improperly ordered agencies to fire workers en masse.

“I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years and I know how we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get at the truth,” Alsup said. “You’re giving me press releases, sham documents.”

 Supporters of all sizes, attend a rally to support federal workers terminated recently on Friday, March 7, 2025 at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center at 5000 W. National Ave. in Milwaukee.

He also scolded the government for the bogus boilerplate reason employees were given for their termination.

“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said.

A federal judge in Maryland likewise said Thursday he didn't believe the government's claim that the fired employees had been individually reviewed.

"On the record before the Court, this isn't true," wrote U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama. "It is simply not conceivable that the Government could have conducted individualized assessments of the relevant employees in the relevant timeframe."

After Alsup's ruling, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the Bay Area judge of "attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the executive branch."

"If a federal district court judge would like executive powers, they can try and run for president themselves,” she said in a statement.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Trump visits Justice Department to gloat over return to power and demand for loyalty

President Trump’s triumphal entry into Justice Department headquarters darkened into an acid recitation of grievances against his enemies, as he demonstrated his power over a department that had tried and failed to hold him to account, reported The New York Times.

The event, held in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, was billed as a major policy address to reposition the department from the purported political “weaponization” of the Biden era to a renewed focus on crime, punishment and fighting drugs.

But in an hourlong speech, Mr. Trump veered from his prepared remarks to lash out at lawyers and former prosecutors by name in a venue dedicated to the impartial administration of justice. He also accused the department’s previous leadership of trying to destroy him and declared former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. the head of a “crime” family.

“Scum,” Mr. Trump called his adversaries, in the same room where Attorney General Robert Jackson delivered a tone-setting 1940 speech urging prosecutors be animated by “fair play” rather than a blind drive to win.

If Mr. Trump’s delivery verged on free association, his message was unmistakable: The president intends to bend the vast powers of federal law enforcement to his will — in the pursuit of an anti-crime agenda and, perhaps, vengeance.

“Unfortunately in recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and good will built up over generations,” Mr. Trump told an audience of supporters and law enforcement officials. “They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people.”

He implored his political appointees at the department not to “be deflected” by critics in enforcing his agenda. He also suggested he was preparing new executive actions to personally target the “violent vicious lawyers” who had prosecuted him or opposed his policies in court.

“We’re turning the page on four long years of corruption, weaponization and surrender to violent criminals, and we’re restoring fair, equal and impartial justice,” Mr. Trump said, standing at a lectern flanked by signs reading “fighting fentanyl.” Though he repeatedly railed against corruption, his Justice Department recently moved to dismiss a case against New York’s mayor and has drafted plans to shrink an anti-corruption unit.

As he assailed the investigations into him, Mr. Trump also heaped praise on Aileen M. Cannon, the federal judge in Florida who dismissed the criminal charges against him over the handling of classified documents, calling her “the absolute model of what a judge should be.”

“The case against me was bullshit,” Mr. Trump said, standing in the building where the charges were approved.

His appearance in the Justice Department headquarters, while not unheard of, was relatively rare for a president. Several of his recent predecessors have made the trip to deliver remarks or preside over ceremonial events, but none used the perch for aggressively partisan attacks as Mr. Trump did.

The speech served to punctuate the president’s return to power. Less than two years ago, in June 2023, his legal defense team trudged into the building to be briefed on the details of criminal charges he would face for hoarding classified materials at his house in Florida — the first of his two federal indictments that summer.

Mr. Trump reflected on those experiences several times and thanked his lawyers for their efforts in getting him off the hook. They had less success in his felony trial in New York, where he was convicted on 34 counts related to hush money paid to a porn actress.

Mr. Trump eventually returned to the text of his speech, and to the theme of crime-fighting, vowing to crack down on distributors of fentanyl and reduce the number of overdose deaths from the drug by 50 percent.

One of the keys to doing so, he said, was to appeal to the vanity of drug users. “You lose your look,” he said. “Everyone’s vain. They don’t want to lose their look.”

His digressive style gradually dampened the enthusiasm of many in the friendly crowd, who began scrolling their phones, particularly during his meandering description of the college basketball coach Bobby Knight. But they perked up when he reverted to bombast.

Mr. Trump accused judges who have ruled against him of being “corrupt,” even as he chastised critics of Ms. Cannon and her rulings in his favor, saying they sought undue influence. And he threatened to punish Biden administration officials who were responsible for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and those he falsely accused of rigging the 2020 election.

“These are people that are bad people, really bad people,” he said.

During his first several weeks in power, Mr. Trump and his appointees have torn down many of the barriers that have long existed between the White House and the Justice Department to prevent political interference in the application of justice — and forced out those standing in the way.

As a general rule, presidents are wary of injecting politics into the agency’s work. But Mr. Trump, who was twice indicted by the department, views it as the center of “deep state” resistance to him. For a man who long ago dispensed with the notion of an independent Justice Department, the visit was as much an expression of conquest and vindication as it was a venue for a policy-focused speech.

“Is it appropriate that I do it?” Mr. Trump mused, as he recounted his decision to deliver a speech inside the Justice Department.

“And then I realized, it’s not only appropriate, I think it’s really important,” he added.

The event had many trappings of a Trump campaign rally, including the music, even if set against the backdrop of the department’s marble-clad inner sanctum. The setting was part of an effort to emphasize the power of the institution Mr. Trump controls through loyal appointees.

Mr. Trump’s first two warm-up speakers, Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, offered a cheerful and cherry-picked recitation of the department’s accomplishments under Mr. Trump thus far — the acceleration of immigration enforcement, efforts to punish academic institutions that do not bow to the administration’s demand to purge diversity and inclusion programs, and intensifying efforts to fight fentanyl trafficking.

Mr. Blanche, a former federal prosecutor who served as the lead attorney in Mr. Trump’s two federal criminal cases, began by expressing his commitment to upholding the best traditions of the department. But he quickly shifted gears to profess personal loyalty to the president — something that none of his predecessors in the Biden administration ever did.

Mr. Trump, he said, “is a complete inspiration to me.”

Pam Bondi, the attorney general, echoed Mr. Blanche, calling Mr. Trump “the greatest president in the history of our country” and saying she works “at the directive of Donald Trump.”

Her words were another nod to the Trump administration’s aggressive effort to have a Justice Department that does not operate at arm’s length from the White House, but under its direct command.

To read more CLICK HERE

Bipartisan group of PA legislators seek to eliminate death penalty

A Lebanon County Republican State Rep. Russ Diamond has introduced legislation with bipartisan support to eliminate the death penalty in Pennsylvania, which he said aligns with "pro-life values," reported the Lebanon Daily News.

Rep. Diamond introduced HB 888, which would abolish the death penalty in the commonwealth if adopted. In a memo to the House, Diamond said that "the role of government should not be to decide who lives and who dies, but to protect and promote life wherever possible."

"As legislators, we must uphold the principle that all human life has inherent value and dignity, regardless of the circumstances," he said. "Abolishing the death penalty aligns with pro-life values by affirming that the state should not take life as punishment, even in response to the gravest of crimes."

According to the state Department of Corrections website, there are currently 94 individuals on death row in Pennsylvania. Since 1978, only three individuals have been executed in the commonwealth, all of whom waived their appeals and asked for the execution to be carried out.

Gov. Josh Shapiro has stated that he will not issue any execution warrants during his term in office, and has asked the General Assembly to abolish the death penalty. No executions in the commonwealth have been carried out since 1999.

Lebanon County District Attorney Pier Hess Graf has stated she will be seeking the death penalty for Alex Torres-Santos and Ivan Claudio-Rosero for homicide charges. Both men were allegedly involved in a triple homicide in the 400 block of N. 5th St. in 2023. The criminal trial is scheduled for later this year.

Speaking on his Substack account, Diamond said that as someone who considers himself 100% pro-life, he believes in "the sanctity of life from conception to natural death." Diamond added that being tough on crime and opposing the death penalty are not mutually exclusive.

"Since as an individual I cannot take another’s life except in the most extreme instance of self-defense, I cannot consent to grant a greater power to government and consider it just," he said. "There is no element of self-defense in executing someone already in captivity. Permanent incarceration satisfies our collective need for self-defense."

Citing the Death Penalty Information Center, Diamond said that 13 individuals who had been sentenced to death in Pennsylvania were later exonerated, including one in 2024. Diamond also pointed towards a recent survey in 2016, which said the death penalty cost taxpayers at least $816 million more than the cost of life without parole.

More than 23 states and Washington D.C. have already abolished the death penalty, with Diamond calling for Pennsylvania to follow suit "and should prioritize a consistent ethic of life in our justice system by joining them."

Diamond's bill has been co-sponsored Rep. Liz Hanbidge (D-Montgomery), Rep. Marla Brown (R-Lawrence), Rep. Ben Waxman (D-Philadelphia), Rep. Joseph D'Orsie (R-York) and Rep. Nathan Davidson (D-Cumberland and Dauphin). 

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Mangino joins Nancy Grace to discuss Danielle Lopez's disappearance in New Jersey

 To watch the interview CLICK HERE