Trump's cabinet hits the campaign trial violating the law at every stop

This summer, Attorney General Todd Blanche boasted about the drop in federal crime while stumping for the Republican candidate for New York governor at a rally headlined by President Trump.

In Michigan, Sean Duffy, the transportation secretary, personally endorsed Mike Rogers, the Republican Senate candidate, arguing that Mr. Rogers would help advance his department’s work.

And in Alaska this month, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stood with the president at a rally in which he noted the role of Senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican, in securing a natural gas pipeline.

Such appearances have become commonplace as nearly all of Mr. Trump’s top deputies fanned out to promote Republican candidates facing difficult election odds. But they have alarmed government ethics experts who say administration officials are running afoul of the Hatch Act, an 87-year-old law that limits how executive branch employees can participate in political activity, reported The New York Times.

In the past few months, at least nine of 15 cabinet secretaries and several other senior Trump deputies have been formally accused of Hatch Act violations, such as using official government titles while engaging in campaign activities and using taxpayer funds to pay for political advertisements.

“We have not seen this level of violations in recent times,” said Kedric Payne, the head of ethics for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group that recently filed a Hatch Act complaint against several White House and homeland security officials over three taxpayer-funded commercials promoting Mr. Trump. Its affiliated litigation arm, Campaign Legal Center Action, is one of the groups that is also suing the Trump administration over the ad campaign.

“Officials should not be using their titles or taxpayer resources to be involved in political campaigns, yet the Trump administration continues to increase activity that goes against the letter and the spirit of this principle,” Mr. Payne said. “Now it seems as though the administration can flood the zone with potential Hatch Act violations and not suffer any consequences until after the election.” 

Representatives for the White House and government agencies contend that the complaints are politically motivated to hurt Republicans and that officials’ activities comply with the law.

The Hatch Act was intended to be a buffer against partisan politics influencing government operations. While the president and the vice president are exempt, all other civil employees of the executive branch are subject to its restrictions. Over the years, both Republicans and Democrats have been accused and found guilty of breaching the Hatch Act.

But government watchdogs contend Trump officials have been lax about observing that firewall during the 2026 midterm elections.

At the Alaska rally, Mr. Trump introduced Mr. Lutnick and Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, by their official titles. Using those titles violates the Hatch Act, two nonprofit advocacy groups charged in a recent complaint. One of them, the Democracy Defenders Fund, was founded by a former Obama administration ethics official and Trump impeachment lawyer. The other is Reporters Without Borders, a press advocacy group. They stressed that the law forbids campaigning in an official capacity.

They also accused Brendan Carr, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, of violating the law by telling the same rally crowd how Mr. Sullivan would continue to advance the agency’s work, even though he began his remarks by saying he was speaking in a personal capacity.

To read more CLICK HERE

University punishment meted out to the Cornell 7

The lightest punishment called for writing a paper and completing training. The most severe was expulsion from the school for the Cornell 7, reported The New York Times.

After a woman attending Cornell University accused seven fraternity members of sexually assaulting her in 2024, the university convened a closed proceeding to determine what had occurred and whether those men should face discipline.

Since then, the sanctions imposed on each of the men, and the reasoning behind those decisions, have remained secret. The school has said little.

But detailed summaries of the punishments obtained by The New York Times provide the first look at how Cornell administrators apportioned blame for the alcohol and drug-fueled gathering that the woman has said left her shattered and degraded.

Two of the fraternity members were expelled. Another, who had already graduated, was barred from campus. Two more were suspended. The remaining men were handed lighter punishments, the summaries show.

All of them have denied any wrongdoing, and the Tompkins County district attorney declined to prosecute in 2024. None of the men have been charged with a crime. Their fraternity, Chi Phi, has been banned from campus.

Still, since allegations from the woman who has become known as Jane Doe surfaced in a lawsuit on Sept. 16, they have touched off intense anger over sexual abuse on campus and why more is not done to punish those responsible. Others have criticized what they see as a rush to judge the seven men involved.

In her lawsuit, Jane Doe claimed that, from the start of her encounter involving the seven fraternity members, she was incapable of consent because she was severely intoxicated. The lawsuit inflamed particular ire by stating that the defendants were all “afforded the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to Cornell,” an assertion Cornell has said did not accurately reflect what occurred.

Combined with more than 1,000 pages of interview transcripts, police reports and other records gathered by Cornell investigators and previously obtained by The Times, the discipline summaries show that the university based its decisions on a broad and complicated body of evidence.

In the end, the punishments handed out by the three-member panel, which met on Zoom over 12 days in May 2025, varied widely. The panel, which enforces federal civil rights at the university under Title IX provisions, did not conclude that Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by all the men she had accused, according to the discipline summaries.

The university investigative files outline in excruciating detail what the fraternity members were accused of doing on the night of Oct. 19, 2024.

It was Matthew Ingalls whom Jane Doe originally went to visit at the Chi Phi fraternity house at about 11 p.m. She walked there alone from a bar to see him, with her intoxication level from drinking through the evening at about a 5 out of 10, she told investigators.

After she arrived, Mr. Ingalls asked her if she wanted to have a threesome with Jonathan Newell, Jane Doe said. During that encounter, she said, the men gave her ketamine and alcohol. Eventually, other men engaged in sex acts with her without her consent and while she was incapacitated, she said.

To read more CLICK HERE

The target at Penn State was cocaine kingpin Agostino S. Abbatiello

September 2. 2026 marked the first court hearing for those who were allegedly part of a cocaine trafficking ring involving two Penn State fraternities, reported WHP-21.

Six of 14 defendants had hearings scheduled. Agostino S. Abbatiello was the only defendant in court wearing Department of Corrections-issued clothing the defendants in the Penn State Drug Ring preliminary hearings.  He was escorted by police into the courthouse. He was wearing a red jumpsuit and had handcuffs on. 

The reason: Abbatiello is the Penn State cocaine kingpin. All the others have cooperated with investigators, waived their preliminary hearing and three codefendant's testified against Abbatiello. 

At Abbatiello's preliminary hearing, Thomas Robinson was the first person called to the stand.

Robinson said he initially sold small amounts of cocaine, splitting profits with Huraibi. He said he stored cocaine in his room in the fraternity house.

Robinson said he later was in a Snapchat group chat with Abbatiello and Huraibi. He said they used Snapchat because messages are deleted after 24 hours.

Robinson described one time where he met with Abbatiello to purchase 250 grams of cocaine in February 2024. Robinson said Abbatiello came out and sat in Robinson's car to exchange cash for a shoebox of cocaine.

Robinson said later purchases were in larger amounts, including 500 grams and 1 kilogram.

Robinson said he sold mostly to members of his own fraternity, Delta Upsilon.

Mohammed Huraibi is second to the stand

Huraibi said he was introduced to Abbatiello via Snapchat.

Huraibi said he and Robinson purchased cocaine from Abbatiello. He said their first purchase together was in August 2023.

Huraibi said he later "decided I wanted to walk away from everything going on."

Huraibi said Abbatiello didn't sell to just anyone; they'd have to be "introduced" to him.

Huraibi said he used cocaine and other drugs after he started selling it. He said the drug use affected his ability to recall what occurred.

Lars Zeepvat is third to the stand

Zeepvat said he, Abbatiello and another friend "pooled" their money together to purchase cocaine from a distributor in Philadelphia.

Zeepvat said Abbatiello later found a cocaine plug from Long Island, which is when he "shifted."

"I saw a difference in Augie," Zeepvat said. "He started selling for money and popularity."

Zeepvat said he would later sell bags of cocaine. He was told, "You can keep a bag for yourself if you sell 4-5."

Zeepvat said "things really started picking up" during senior year. He believed Abbatiello was making more money because he was gambling, buying more clothes and selling larger quantities of cocaine.

Zeepvat said 3-12 people would go to after-parties at Abbatiello's apartment, where cocaine was out on the table.

When Abbatiello learned about the investigation into the ring on July 4, 2026, he allegedly told Zeepvat, "don't cooperate" with the grand jury investigation.

When Zeepvat did receive a letter to testify in front of the grand jury, he said he called Abbatiello. He said Abbatiello told him, "please don't say anything."

"There are lots of cocaine sources at Penn State," Zeepvat said. "When I was pledging (Sigma Chi), it was the seniors."

Bail

Abbatiello was initially denied bail, but his attorney argued that he should have the opportunity to get out on bail. His attorney argued that he's not a flight risk or a danger to the community. He said Abbatiello would live at his parents' home without any drugs or weapons.

The prosecution said hat he was trafficking drugs and "poison" into the community. The prosecutor said the judge was right to deny bail, but if it is granted, it should be set at $5 million.

The judge ultimately granted bail as $250,000 secured. Abbatiello is not allowed contact with any witnesses or any alcohol.

To read more CLICK HERE

Former U.S. Attorney sue DOJ and AG Blanche over his firing

Less than three hours after a right-wing influencer revealed a blog post critical of Donald Trump, the DOJ fired U.S. Attorney Will Rosenzweig. He received an emailed letter signed by Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, dismissing him from his position as the U.S. attorney for Miami, effective immediately. No reason was provided, reported The New York Times.

Mr. Rosenzweig has now sued the Justice Department along with Todd Blanche, who now runs the department, and Jason A. Reding Quiñones, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, asking for financial damages and his job back. In doing so, he joined a growing list of former prosecutors and federal agents who have gone to court in an effort to fight back against the widespread purge of law enforcement officials deemed to be disloyal to the president.

During Mr. Trump’s second term, agents and prosecutors have been fired for any number of reasons. Some were seasoned veterans who lost their jobs while trying to protect subordinates from being dismissed. Others were accused, sometimes incorrectly, of having worked on criminal cases involving the president. Many worked on cases stemming from the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Mr. Rosenzweig’s firing was one of several that shared a different twist: right-wing commentators claimed to be behind them. On the morning after he was terminated, Ms. Winters reposted a message from another far-right influencer, Laura Loomer, announcing the news. Ms. Winters’s message, punctuated by a smiley-face emoji, declared: “Got this guy fired.”

Many of Ms. Winters’s posts have since been deleted, but lawyers for Mr. Rosenzweig included screenshots of them in their lawsuit. In the posts, she said that Mr. Rosenzweig had “smeared” Mr. Trump in his writings by calling him “mentally unfit” and a “white supremacist.”

To read more CLICK HERE

'Slush Fund' or not, Jan. 6 insurrectionists seeking payouts from the federal government

 The Treasury Department is illegally withholding information about who is receiving settlement money from its Judgment Fund, obscuring whether January 6th insurrectionists and Trump political allies are receiving massive payouts from the federal government, according to a lawsuit filed today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The suit seeks to require the government to promptly post required information about Judgment Fund payments, including all payments going back to the start of the current Trump administration, as well as correcting inaccurate descriptions of previous payments. 

In May 2026, President Trump entered into an unprecedented “settlement” with his own Justice Department, which established a $1.776 billion slush fund intended to pay out victims of “weaponization,” including January 6th defendants. The slush fund garnered significant backlash, and the Trump administration declared the fund dead, before formally rescinding the order establishing the fund this weekend under duress from Congress. It remains unclear whether the DOJ can unilaterally rescind the order without agreement from the other litigants involved in the underlying suit, including litigant Trump. With the slush fund in limbo, Trump’s allies, including January 6th defendants, have apparently turned to pursuing payouts through the Federal Tort Claims Act settlement process, seeking millions of dollars in “restitution” for alleged wrongdoings related to their prosecution. 

When the government settles with an individual under the FTCA, the Treasury Department pays that individual from its Judgment Fund. The Treasury Department is legally required to publicly disclose important settlement payment details, such as the names of claimants and their counsel, and a brief statement of facts giving rise to the claims being settled. Treasury, however, has for years adopted an across-the-board policy of noncompliance—omitting names and facts in every case and instead publishing opaque descriptors that are often inaccurate or misleading. The law requiring the disclosure of settlement payments was passed on a bipartisan basis, and was primarily sponsored by Republican Rep. Doug Collins. 

“Taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going and why, especially if it’s going to the president’s cronies,” said CREW President and CEO Donald K. Sherman. “The Trump administration seems hellbent on secretly paying out Trump’s allies, including the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th. There is a law in place to prevent this secrecy, and the Treasury Department needs to follow it.”

The Trump administration’s misuse of the FTCA claims settlement process is not mere conjecture. For months, the Justice Department has been led by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who approved and defended Trump’s initial collusive settlement. Under Blanche’s leadership as Deputy Attorney General and later Acting Attorney General, the DOJ has awarded generous settlements to January 6th participants and other political allies despite obvious defenses the government could have used to challenge the claims they asserted. In one especially egregious example, the Justice Department agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle an FTCA case brought by Trump’s former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, for wrongful prosecution, despite the fact that Flynn had pleaded guilty to his crimes and a district court had already dismissed Flynn’s FTCA case. The Treasury Department has withheld payment information related to these suspect settlements.

“Even if President Trump’s slush fund is nominally dead—something that still remains in doubt despite Acting Attorney General Blanche’s rescission of the DOJ’s order—his administration is apparently ok with using the Judgment Fund in its place,” said Sherman. “The law does not allow the government to spend taxpayer dollars in secret. If the president is paying his cronies, the public is entitled to know.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Blanche grovels for votes from GOP Senate Judiciary Committee holdouts

After a weekslong standoff between senators and the Trump administration, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the parties had reached a deal and that he had issued an order “officially” rescinding a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, reported NBC News.

“My team and I have met with committee members and Senators over the past several weeks and addressed any concerns or outstanding questions,” Blanche wrote on X. “We have enjoyed good faith discussions, and as a result issue the following order and update with regard to the May IRS settlement. The Department always welcomes and appreciates productive engagement with all members of Congress.”

Attached to his post was a signed order that said, “The Attorney General’s May 18, 2026 Order establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund (‘Fund’) is rescinded and shall have nor force or effect.”

“This order establishes, beyond any doubt, that there is no fund,” the order read.

Blanche’s announcement comes two days before the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on his nomination to be attorney general in a permanent capacity.

The fund was part of a settlement that stemmed from a lawsuit President Donald Trump filed against the IRS, a deal which also shielded the Trump family from tax audits. The fund has been criticized in part because the payouts could extend to participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Blanche faced pushback from key GOP Sens. John Cornyn, of Texas, and Thom Tillis, of North Carolina, who said their support for him hinged on the administration rescinding its plans for the fund.

Cornyn spokesperson Natalie Yezbick confirmed in a statement that the senator “has reached an agreement with the Department of Justice.”

The department “will be issuing a formal order permanently terminating the anti-weaponization fund and making clear in a binding written document that the scope of the audit settlement is limited to only the plaintiffs, including the President, and the IRS,” Yezbick said.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Trump threatens Congress: "Todd Blanche was a voice of reason!'

Here is a great idea. President Trump said that he would revive a proposal for a $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would compensate his supporters if the Senate does not confirm Todd Blanche his nominee for attorney general, reported The New York Times. 

Someone should tell the President that the reason Blanche doesn't have support among GOP senators is because of his willingness to scratch all facets of the so-called "anti-weaponization" proposal. 

The administration had backed off plans to establish such a fund in June as it was criticized as a scheme to reward political allies with taxpayers’ dollars.

But in a social media post, Mr. Trump reacted to skepticism about his nomination of Todd Blanche, his former defense lawyer, to be attorney general, saying that he would keep Mr. Blanche as the acting attorney general if the Senate failed to confirm him, and added that he would “push hard” to pass legislation creating the fund.

“Todd Blanche was a voice of reason! It will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media.

To read more CLICK HERE

Former special counsel Jack Smith is not a criminal

Whatever one might think of Jack Smith’s performance as a prosecutor — I’ve got criticisms, and reasonable minds can differ — the guy is no criminal, wrote Elie Honig in New York Magazine.

Sure, congressional Republicans have worked themselves into a retributive frenzy — We’ve got him now! — while Donald Trump shakes pom-poms behind them. “Justice at last???” the president mused on Truth Social, expectantly. But last week’s criminal referral of Smith to the Justice Department by House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan is pure sleight of hand. On close inspection, even Jordan doesn’t quite buy into his own carnival barkery on this one.

Jordan alleges that Smith lied when he testified behind closed doors to the Judiciary Committee in December 2025. Smith was asked whether, during his investigation of Trump for 2020 election subversion, he reviewed documents containing the content of text messages sent or received by members of Congress. The key to understanding Jordan’s gambit is that there are two separate batches of documents at issue. We’re going to get a bit technical here, but we need to be precise to see through the bullshit.

It almost goes without saying at this point because it’s become so common, but this is yet another act in Trump’s political payback tour. The list of names is now familiar and seemingly endless: Letitia James, James Comey, Jerome Powell, Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, E. Jean Carroll, and pretty much anyone else who has ever glanced sideways at the president. Unsurprisingly, all of these efforts at prosecution have failed thus far.

If the Justice Department does somehow ram a charge against Smith through a grand jury, that case will fail too. Before a trial jury can even consider the fact that Smith did not actually commit perjury, he will have a powerful motion to dismiss based on vindictive prosecution. It’s plain that Trump and his DoJ targeted Smith because of lingering political animus over his prior investigations of Trump. In October 2025, Trump claimed that Smith and others “should be prosecuted for their illegal and highly unethical behavior!” He reiterated his request in January 2026, citing Smith’s “large-scale perjury.” And Trump openly celebrated just moments after news broke of Jordan’s referral of Smith to the DoJ.

Trump’s Justice Department has made commonplace the (previously) rarely invoked doctrine of vindictive prosecution. One federal judge already dismissed the indictment of Kilmar Ábrego García on that basis. And the cases against James and Comey likely would have gone down the same way, had they not been thrown out first because of other constitutional infirmities.

But it seems neither Trump nor the leaders of his Justice Department care much about their string of losses. As long as they get the sugar high of the investigation and (sometimes) the indictment, they don’t seem at all bothered when these cases inevitably crash and burn.

To read more CLICK HERE

Acting AG Blanche meets with Epstein victims, they were not impressed

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche met  accusers of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein following a request to do so by Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, whose support is crucial to advancing his nomination to lead the Justice Department, reported CBS News.

Epstein accuser Annie Farmer said in a statement following her meeting with Blanche that she feels "even more confident in urging senators to vote against his confirmation as the United States' Attorney General."

Farmer alleged that Blanche was "abrasive, condescending, and intentionally noncommittal to survivors," which she described as "a marked contrast" from his testimony at Wednesday's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Dani Bensky, whose name and personal information were mistakenly made public in documents related to the federal investigation into Epstein that were released by the Justice Department last year, testified before the committee earlier Thursday before taking part in the meeting with Blanche. 

Bensky said in a statement that Blanche treated the meeting "as a mere 'check-the-box' exercise intended to secure votes for his confirmation."

Bensky said that Blanche "danced around his wording, repeatedly interrupted us and could not commit to anything that would demonstrate good faith or begin to restore trust." She said she believes Blanche "is not qualified to serve as attorney general."

"He did not adequately account for the release of materials that exposed survivors' identifying information and images, and he offered no credible plan to investigate and pursue accountability beyond" Epstein and longtime Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, she said.

The political firestorm over Epstein has been a persistent headache for the Trump administration, which released millions of investigative documents over the last year about the disgraced financier's crimes and connections to high-profile people. 

To read more CLICK HERE

New Mexico AG accuses DOJ of withholding Epstein documents

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez publicly released a letter to Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche accusing the US Department of Justice (DOJ) of withholding unredacted copies of documents that are pertinent to New Mexico’s investigation of Zorro Ranch, which was owned by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, reported JURISTnews.

New Mexico reopened its investigation into possible sex trafficking at the ranch in February, but Torrez has not yet announced any findings. In the letter, he summarized a series of unmet document requests, made under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, some dating back to February. Torrez wrote:

The USDOJ’s continued withholding of unredacted records is causing real and escalating harm to the NMDOJ’s criminal investigation. Every day that the USDOJ withholds these records, the foundation upon which a New Mexico prosecution could be built erodes. Witnesses relocate and become unreachable. Memories, already strained by years of trauma, fade further. Physical and documentary evidence degrades, is lost, or is rendered more difficult to authenticate with the passage of time … more than 130 days have now elapsed since the NMDOJ’s initial request. The NMDOJ views this length of time as an unreasonable delay under any rule of reason.

A DOJ spokesperson replied, “DOJ reiterates that it welcomes New Mexico(‘s) … investigation of the Zorro Ranch and stands ready to provide … assistance with New Mexico’s investigation. Should that investigation uncover potential federal crimes, the DOJ will work closely with our law enforcement partners to investigate and, as appropriate, prosecute.”

According to one of the Epstein files that has been released, conservative talk show host Edward Aragon brought a tip to the Albuquerque office of the FBI in 2019. The tipster offered Aragon “7 videos of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and the location of two foreign girls buried on Zorro Ranch for sale for one bitcoin.” In the same year, The New York Times published an article alleging that Epstein planned to impregnate multiple women at his Zorro Ranch.

To read more CLICK HERE

Bucknell University football coach charged with manslaughter in death of football player

A Bucknell University football strength and conditioning coach is charged in the 2024 death of a freshman recruit who died of stress-induced sickle cell disease after being ordered to do exercises as punishment, reported the Pennsylvania Capital-Star..

The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office announced  that Mark Kulbis is charged with felony aggravated hazing and misdemeanor counts of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and hazing.

Calvin “C.J.” Dickey Jr., 18, died July 12, 2024, two days after he collapsed during a workout on the first day of practice in which Kulbis ordered the freshman players to do dozens of “up-downs” because they “came up short,” according to court documents.

The attorney general’s office said an investigation showed Bucknell had provided training for its coaches on working with student-athletes with sickle cell trait, advising them to gradually work such students up to intense exercise rather than forcing them, which can result in death.

To read more CLICK HERE

AG Blanche faces complaint with New York State Bar

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s principal focus in recent weeks has been lining up support on Capitol Hill ahead of his upcoming Senate confirmation hearings, with a specific focus on winning over GOP skeptics. But Donald Trump’s controversial former defense attorney has more troubles than lining up 51 votes, reported MS Now.

As this week got underway, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy and a group of 101 former federal and state judges filed a complaint against Blanche with the New York State Bar, which included a formal request for an ethics investigation.

The 73-page complaint specifically focused on three areas of alleged misconduct:

Blanche’s role in orchestrating the creation of a $1.776 billion compensation fund, widely panned as a “slush fund,” and an IRS audit shield for the president and his family.

Blanche’s role in “abusing the investigative and prosecutorial powers” of the Justice Department to target the president’s perceived political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey.

Blanche supervising the DOJ’s “flawed response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including the disclosure of thousands of records containing sensitive victim information.”

Time will tell what, if anything, comes of the complaint, but as the process moves forward, it’s worth pausing to note just how frequently former judges have become prominent and influential critics of the president and his team.

In early November, for example, Judge Mark L. Wolf, a Reagan-appointed jurist, resigned from the federal bench in order to give himself the freedom to warn the public about the threats posed by Trump.

To read more CLICK HERE

PA Supreme Court finds skill games are illegal gambling

State Attorney General Dave Sunday issued a statement calling the decision a “significant victory for consumers, taxpayers and the rule of law in Pennsylvania.”

Skill games are unlawful under Pennsylvania’s Gaming Act and Crimes Code, the state Supreme Court ruled, according to The Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

The decision strikes down what the commonwealth’s highest court called a pair of “deeply flawed” lower court rulings that allowed the slot-machine-like gambling devices to spread across Pennsylvania in a legal gray area beyond the reach of gaming authorities and law enforcement.

“Thriving therein, the devices now may be found not only in taverns, restaurants, and social clubs, but also in mini-marts, gas stations, grocery stores, laundromats, pizza parlors, and various other establishments throughout Pennsylvania — even some dedicated solely to the purpose,” Justice David Wecht wrote in the 66-page decision for the 4-2 majority. 

Since the intermediate Commonwealth Court ruled in 2023 that skill games are not slot machines as defined by state law, the devices have been the subject of legislation seeking to outlaw them altogether, with lawmakers noting detrimental effects including increased crime and the exposure of children to gambling.

Pace-O-Matic, the Georgia-based company that produces the software in Pennsylvania Skill games, said it is disappointed in the decision and “strongly believes” the decision doesn’t reflect the facts that led to a string of favorable decisions for the company. 

“Sadly, this opinion will have far-reaching consequences, with more than 10,000 Pennsylvania small businesses and fraternal clubs becoming the real victims,” the company said in a statement. 

They face the prospect of giving up the games and losing an important source of revenue or enduring excessive regulation and “crippling taxation,” which would have the same result.

State Attorney General Dave Sunday issued a statement calling the decision a “significant victory for consumers, taxpayers and the rule of law in Pennsylvania.”

“The Supreme Court recognized what our office has argued from the beginning – these machines operate as gambling devices and cannot legally exist without the same oversight, regulation and accountability as other forms of legalized gaming in the Commonwealth. Pennsylvanians deserve protections that ensure games are fair, transparent and operated within the bounds of the law,” Sunday said.

The attorney general’s office, which estimates there are 70,000 skill machines in operation in the commonwealth, argued that embedding an element of so-called skill into the games does not exempt the devices from Pennsylvania gambling laws.

The decision handed down late Monday actually resolves two cases: One in which the Gaming Act’s definition of slot machine was at issue; and the second in which the seizure of three skill game machines, cash and receipts from a Harrisburg area business was overturned. 

State policymakers, including Gov. Josh Shapiro, have looked to the skill game industry as a potential source of tax revenue, proposing to legitimize and tax the proceeds of the machines at rates similar to those imposed on casinos. Details of those proposals proved a sticking point in recent budget negotiations.

Wecht noted that many placed “reasonable reliance” on the Commonwealth Court’s decisions. 

“We are further mindful of the potential disturbance that our correction of the prevailing case law may cause to business owners and other good-faith participants in the industry,” the lead opinion says.

For that reason, the court stayed the decision for four months, during which no law enforcement agency is to take action against owners and operators of the machines.

He also wrote that the court reached its decision as a result of interpreting existing statutes and that the General Assembly could take whatever action it deems appropriate.

Wecht took the unusual step of stating the court’s decision is not an endorsement or based on any policy position regarding the machines, adding that manifesting the public policy of the commonwealth is the legislature’s purview, not the judiciary’s.

“To put it more plainly, how one feels about access to ‘skill games’ or other types of slot machine — or about the broader legalization and normalization of gambling in our society, for that matter — is irrelevant. This is, rather, a matter of straightforward application of existing statutory law,” Wecht said.

He noted the General Assembly amended the Gaming Act’s definition of “slot machine” to include “skill slot machine” as a device in which the skill of the player rather than the element of chance is the main factor in the outcome. It also defined a hybrid in which the combination of skill and chance determine the outcome. 

Lawyers for Pace-O-Matic, the predominant distributor of skill game software, argued that the company’s games could be won every time by a skillful player. 

Wecht said the definition of skill slot machines makes “abundantly clear” the skill element of the machines is not legally sufficient. 

“That is to say, as it concerns their unregulated operation in unlicensed facilities throughout Pennsylvania, it is not this Court that declares “skill games” to be unlawful. Rather, it is the General Assembly that did so nearly a decade ago,” he said.

Justice Christine Donohue issued a separate opinion concurring in the result of the majority decision. Justice Kevin Brobson wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sallie Mundy, in which he agreed that the machines are covered by the Crimes Code but not the Gaming Act. 

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal judge bars $1.8 billion Trump administration slush fund

A federal judge on Friday barred the Trump administration until further notice from setting up a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people claiming to have been unfairly prosecuted by the government, saying that her order was needed because of mixed messages about the scheme from President Trump, reported The New York Times.

The ruling by the judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, was the strongest effort to date by anyone in government to hold the administration to its word that the proposal to create the fund had actually been set aside. While Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, told Congress last week that the fund would not move forward, Mr. Trump has been much more circumspect, insisting that he still loves the idea and believes that people who suffered in court at the hands of the government should get financial compensation.

Judge Brinkema seized on the president’s statements during a hearing in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., suggesting they left open the possibility that the fund could be brought back to life despite Mr. Blanche’s promises and assertions made in court papers that the fund was no longer moving forward.

“We just don’t have the absolute certainty that this fund won’t rear its head in another form,” she said.

Judge Brinkema did, however, give the administration a way out. She said she would consider rescinding her order if, within a week, the Justice Department sent her a declaration, filed under penalty of perjury, that the fund was dead once and for all. She told Andrew Block, a department lawyer who appeared in court for the government, that the declaration needed to be signed by Mr. Blanche and Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary.

Judge Brinkema’s ruling extended a temporary pause on the fund that she had put in place at the end of May. And it came two days after a federal judge in Washington, Richard J. Leon, refused to issue his own order putting the fund on hold.

Judge Leon took the Justice Department at its word that the plan had been shelved, but still warned the administration not to play games with him by pretending it was dead, if it was not.

“Don’t play possum with this court,” he said.

The fund has created a political headache for the White House almost from the moment it was first announced on May 18 — in no small measure because of concerns that it could be used to funnel taxpayer money to hundreds of rioters prosecuted for storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Judge Brinkema underscored those concerns by reading aloud a passage about payments being made to the rioters that appeared in a brief criticizing the fund that was submitted to her last week by two senators, Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, and Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana.

To read more CLICK HERE

Will Blanche ever be more than the 'acting' attorney general?

Senators voted to confirm Todd Blanche for deputy attorney general in early 2025, but there’s no guarantee they will now vote to install him as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, reported Politico.

Blanche, now serving as acting attorney general, faces a potentially rocky path through the Senate, with multiple key Republicans not immediately committing to supporting President Donald Trump’s expected nominee to run the Department of Justice.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Thursday it was “hard to say” if Blanche would have a difficult time getting confirmed to succeed Pam Bondi, who was ousted from the position back in April.

“Most of our members are pretty deferential to who the president wants in some of these key positions,” Thune said, but added, “This is an environment where nothing’s a safe or sure bet these days.”

Trump’s nominees can lose three Republican votes and still be confirmed by calling in Vice President JD Vance to break a tie.

But the bigger hurdle could be getting Blanche through the Senate Judiciary Committee, where opposition from one Republican is enough to bottle up a nomination unless the nominee can also get help from Democrats on the panel. It’s not likely Blanche would get that bipartisan support.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is viewed as the critical vote for Blanche to win over on the Judiciary Committee. Tillis has vowed he won’t support Justice Department nominees who he views as sympathetic those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and previously told POLITICO that the Justice Department’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” would be a factor in whether or not an attorney general nominee is able to be confirmed.

Blanche told House appropriators Tuesday that the Trump administration would not go forward with administering payouts to individuals deemed victims of “lawfare” by the federal government. But the attempt to establish such an account has continued to present a political problem for Republicans, with many seeing Blanche as the face of the effort.

“What we need to do right now is focus on the [Anti-Weaponization] Fund, or he’s not going to have a very good time in Judiciary Committee,” Tillis, who will retire after the end of this year, told reporters when asked about Blanche’s forthcoming nomination. “Just think about what the Democrats would do to him.”

To read more CLICK HERE

 

CREATORS: President Settles Extraordinary Lawsuit With Himself

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
May 26, 2026

Never has there been a more egregious abuse of power in American history than the settlement of President Donald Trump v. the Internal Revenue Service. The President sued the IRS — essentially suing himself — while the lawyers defending the government against the lawsuit also work for him. Trump was well aware of the incongruous nature of his lawsuit, telling reporters, "I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself."

Let's put that in perspective. The president oversees the Department of the Treasury. The IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury serves at the pleasure of the President. The Department of Justice is also an agency of the executive branch of government — headed by the president's former attorney — whose attorneys must adhere to the president's opinion on matters of law.

The Justice Department announced that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has established a $1.776 billion fund to settle Trump v. IRS. According to Lawfare, the name "Trump chose for this instrument of partisan self-dealing — conjured by a president suing his own government and settling with himself, a product of the politicized use of the legal system he claims to deplore — is 'The Anti-Weaponization Fund.'"

As the fund is currently configured, Trump will not be entitled to compensation directly from the fund. According to Lawfare, "the money will be doled out by a five-member board he effectively controls, operating under procedures that need not be disclosed, with the identities of recipients potentially kept secret."

Before you cheer for the president's magnanimous decision to not accept monies for himself, consider that the settlement directs that the government would be "forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing" pending tax claims against Trump, his family members and businesses.

According to The New York Times, the addendum to the settlement agreement was posted, without fanfare, on the department's website. According to The Times, the addendum "revealed the determination of Mr. Trump and his appointees to ram through maximalist measures with minimum outside scrutiny at a moment when they still have uncontested control of government."

The immunity from IRS auditing ignores that the IRS is required by regulation to audit the president's tax returns every year. It is also worth noting that The New York Times reported in 2024 that an audit of Trump by the IRS could cost the president more than $100 million.

His $10 billion lawsuit and the resulting $1.8 billion settlement do not pass constitutional muster. In 1937, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes reasoned that justiciable cases and controversies not only require that disputes be of the types specified in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, but the controversy must be definite and concrete, "touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests."

There are no adverse interests in this settlement. The president's IRS made a deal with the President's DOJ to use taxpayer money to compensate supporters of the president. This lawsuit and settlement should have been laughed out of court.

The judge overseeing Trump's suit, Kathleen Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, raised the case and controversy concern. To avoid briefing and arguing the matter, Trump withdrew the suit in exchange for the "slush fund" and IRS immunity.

If Congress does not act — both houses having been emasculated by the President's influence with the extreme wing of the GOP — the Courts will need to step into the void. The slush fund is being challenged by police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. This money grab must be thwarted.

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

DOJ sues DC Bar Association over ethics enforcement alleging 'blatantly partisan arm of leftist cause'

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia Bar over its efforts to discipline Trump administration lawyers, escalating the department’s feud with legal ethics authorities, reported The New York Times.

The lawsuit defends Jeffrey Clark, a government lawyer in the first Trump administration who sought to undo the results of the 2020 presidential race, and Ed Martin, a current senior Justice Department official. The suit was filed by Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and Stanley E. Woodward Jr., the No. 3 official at the Justice Department.

In accompanying statements, Mr. Blanche accused the D.C. Bar of acting as a “blatantly partisan arm of leftist causes.” Mr. Woodward said that the bar would “no longer be permitted to probe sensitive executive branch deliberations,” adding that lawyers in the federal government must “be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues.”

That position — that lawyers at the Justice Department or other federal agencies are above scrutiny by legal ethics officials — is likely to be challenged by a host of legal profession entities.

The lawsuit centers on the long-running battle over the D.C. Bar’s effort to disbar Mr. Clark, an environmental lawyer who had no formal role in investigating elections, over his push to promote Mr. Trump’s baseless assertions of fraud in Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s electoral victory in 2020.

While the lawsuit is focused on Mr. Clark, Justice Department leaders in the suit also argued in defense of Mr. Martin. Two months ago, the D.C. Bar filed disciplinary charges against Mr. Martin over what it cast as his misconduct in seeking to punish Georgetown University’s law school.

Mr. Martin has spearheaded efforts by President Trump to use the Justice Department to pursue the president’s perceived enemies — what the administration claims are corrective measures intended to end “weaponization” of law enforcement by Democrats.

Increasingly, the Trump administration has clashed with state and local bars, as interest groups and some lawyers argue that unethical conduct by government lawyers acting on behalf of the Trump administration should be investigated and potentially punished.

The Justice Department is pushing forward a proposal to try to stall or delay state and city bars from conducting ethics investigations of its lawyers, and the new lawsuit argues that the D.C. Bar is among the entities that has shown partisan bias.

To back up that claim, the lawsuit points to how the D.C. Bar handled the case of Kevin E. Clinesmith, a former F.B.I. lawyer who pleaded guilty to making a false statement when he altered an email to try to justify court-ordered surveillance of a former 2016 Trump campaign adviser. After his plea, Mr. Clinesmith had his bar license suspended for a year.

The suit called Mr. Clinesmith’s punishment a “slap on the wrist” for suborning unlawful surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and compared it to the effort to disbar Mr. Clark for “attempting to tell a lie” about the 2020 election.

The lawsuit also invokes the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision granting partial immunity to presidents, suggesting that if a president has immunity, lawyers working for him in the government are also protected from ethical discipline.

“The president’s constitutionally required immunity would provide little protection if executive branch attorneys could be targeted for internal executive branch deliberations,” the lawsuit argued.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: If at First You Don't Succeed, Indict Again

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
May 5, 2026

The acting Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche, has announced the indictment of former Director of the FBI, James Comey. In any other administration, this would be huge news.

America reacted to the indictment with a yawn. This is the second time, and the second attorney general to appear at a press conference and announce the indictment of Comey. The first indictment didn't go so well for the Trump administration.

Days before Comey's first indictment, he was singled out by name in a social media post wherein President Donald Trump appeared to appeal directly to the Department of Justice to bring charges against Comey and complained that investigations into his political enemies had not resulted in criminal charges.

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the first indictment based on allegations that Comey lied to Congress five years prior during remote testimony about Russian interference in the 2016 election. A federal judge dismissed the case, finding that the acting U.S. Attorney who sought the indictment was unlawfully holding her position and lacked authority to do so.

If possible, the second indictment is more suspect than the first. Comey was investigated last year over an Instagram post of a photograph of seashells in the sand on some sunny beach. The shells were aligned in the figures of "86 47." With the image, Comey wrote: "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."

According to NBC News, "the term '86' is used in the restaurant industry, and it can informally mean 'to get rid of.' The number '47' was thought to be related to Trump, the 47th president.

The indictment claims that a "reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances" would interpret the seashell image as "a serious expression of intent to do harm to the President of the United States."

This past Sunday, the acting Attorney General appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he gave "assurances" that not everyone who posts the "86 47" message will be charged with threatening the president.

"That phrase is used constantly," according to Blanche, " ... every one of those statements do not result in indictments." Apparently, only avowed enemies of President Trump will face indictment for posting "86 47" online.

Let's start our examination of this indictment with the Fox News comments of George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley. If you don't know Turley, let's just say you won't find his name on a Trump enemy list, making his comments all the more surprising.

Turley told Fox, "If Comey is charged for the shell picture, it would face a monumental challenge under the First Amendment," Turley said. "In my view, the image itself is clearly protected speech. Absent some other unknown facts or elements, it would be unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge."

This time, Comey is charged with making a threat against the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. Those charges require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the former FBI director "knowingly and willfully" issued a threat to "take the life of" the president.

The Conservative podcaster Glenn Beck said recently, "If the seashell thing is the best the D.O.J. has on Comey, we're in trouble."

Alexis Loeb, a former DOJ deputy chief, told The Hill that the term "86" is open to different interpretations. "In the typical case — again, because the government's burden is to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt — you typically wouldn't see threats that are readily open to non-violent interpretations."

The pattern of multiple indictments against Comey is certainly an issue that Comey's defense team will raise. There is clearly an opportunity to argue vindictive prosecution or the weaponization of the Justice Department to settle a score with one of the president's enemies.

However, it may never get to that — Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who specializes in First Amendment law, told CNN, "This is not going anywhere. This is clearly not a punishable threat."

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

Comey indicted again, the clown show continues

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has become the second Justice Department leader in seven months to secure an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, a longtime target of President Donald Trump’s ire. And Trump is happy with Blanche's performance in the job, according to a person familiar with the discussions, reported NBC News.

Comey appeared briefly in court Wednesday on the latest charges. This time, the indictment accuses him of making a threat against the president when he posted a photo of seashells arranged to read “8647" on Instagram in May.

Comey's Instagram post. He later took it down.@comey via Instagram

The first indictment, under former Attorney General Pam Bondi, was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia over an allegation that Comey lied to Congress five years ago during remote testimony via Zoom. A judge dismissed that case, finding that the acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — a Florida insurance attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience — was unlawfully holding her position and had no authority to seek the indictment in the first place. Comey maintains his innocence in both cases.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Federal government brings back firing squad as method of execution

The Trump administration will allow firing squads and readopt lethal injection as part of a broader push to revive the death penalty, reported The New York Times.

In an accompanying report, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, said that decisions by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to pull back on capital punishment “inflicted untold damage on victims of crime, and, ultimately, to the rule of law itself.”

The Justice Department, he said, had reauthorized the use of pentobarbital to execute federal inmates and would also permit additional methods of execution, like the use of firing squads.

The 48-page report added that the Bureau of Prisons should follow the example of states that had expanded their execution protocols amid fights over the legality and availability of lethal injection drugs.

“The additional manners of execution that B.O.P. should consider adopting include the firing squad, electrocution and lethal gas — each of which the Supreme Court has found to be consistent with the Eighth Amendment,” the report said, referring to the part of the Bill of Rights that bars “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, called the moves “a stain on our nation’s history.”

Mr. Durbin accused the Justice Department of “turning back the clock by strengthening the barbaric practice of the federal death penalty — a cruel, immoral and often discriminatory form of punishment.”

President Trump had signaled the moves on his first day in office, signing an executive order to reinstitute capital punishment in the federal prison system. During the first Trump presidency, 13 people were executed on federal death row.

In 2021, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland issued a moratorium on executions of federal inmates and halted the use of a lethal drug protocol using pentobarbital. In his final days in office, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. commuted the death sentences of 37 of the 40 convicted killers on federal death row.

The Trump administration faces one significant hurdle. Under the law, the federal government may only conduct executions in states that allow capital punishment and carry them out according to state protocols.

For years, federal executions have taken place in Indiana, which only allows for capital punishment by lethal injection.

The Justice Department, acknowledging that limitation in its report, recommends the federal government find a new location to conduct executions, in a state that allows other methods. Mississippi, the report states, allows executions by electrocution, or firing squad if lethal injection or other methods are not available.

The report called for the Bureau of Prisons to submit a report “detailing the options to relocate or expand federal death row, or to construct a second federal execution facility in a state that permits additional manners of execution.”

The firing squad has rarely been used in the United States, but has recently been authorized by several states as an alternative method if the states cannot procure lethal injection drugs. Before last year, the only firing squad executions in the country in modern times had been carried out by Utah, in 1977, 1996 and 2010, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a research group.

But in 2025, South Carolina, which had authorized the firing squad in 2021, executed three prisoners using the method.

In its Friday announcement, the administration said it was working on a regulation intended to cut years off the federal appeals process for state death penalty cases, though ultimately the courts have final say.

The department also said it planned to issue a regulation that would impose new limits on the ability of inmates sentenced to death to seek clemency or pardons from the federal government.

The report also suggested expanding the types of crimes, and the types of criminals, eligible for the federal death penalty in order to “correct gaps and deficiencies” in the current law. Congress would have to pass any such change into law.

The administration should consider proposing legislation, the report said, that would make eligible for the death penalty “murders of law enforcement officers; murders by aliens illegally in the United States; and murders constituted or committed in the commission of hate crimes, stalking, material support, or domestic violence.”

Much of the report centered on creating a new legal and regulatory framework to preserve the availability of the drug most often used to conduct executions.

Robin M. Maher, the director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the report seemed more focused on grievances with the Biden administration than a straightforward analysis of lethal injection protocol.

“It struck me as rather disingenuous in terms of reflecting the reality of the problems” with the use of pentobarbital in executions, Ms. Maher said.

Pentobarbital was first used in an execution in 2010, in Oklahoma, and soon became a common method by which to execute prisoners.

As with other drugs used in lethal injections, it faced legal challenges from prisoners and their lawyers, who said that it caused prisoners to suffer, but courts have allowed its use, and several states use it as their primary method. Still, some states have had trouble obtaining the drug because of pressure from medical and advocacy groups on drugmakers.

In January 2025, the Justice Department under Mr. Garland issued a memo saying that “there remains significant uncertainty about whether the use of pentobarbital as a single-drug lethal injection causes unnecessary pain and suffering.” The department wrote that federal authorities should not use the drug for executions until its effect was more clear.

To read more CLICK HERE