#joyce-vance — Public Fediverse posts

#joycevance When Alabama elected Doug Jones to the Senate, it was a marker for who the state thought it could be. It was Jones who brought the men responsible for killing four girls preparing for worship services at the 16th Street Church to justice as a prosecutor. It meant something for the state to elect him. It also means something when Alabama’s House Speaker stands for using racially discriminatory maps to intentionally do away with Black electoral representation.

#joycevance There is an enormous amount of misinformation circulating about former Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. election and the effort to obstruct that investigation following his death. Tweets honoring Mueller’s life of service to his country are now knee-deep in trolls and MAGA comments that have no relationship to the well-documented facts.

So, let’s go back to contemporary sources and make sure we have a clear picture of what investigators found and what the Report said about Donald Trump. We’ll also look at why Mueller, nonetheless, didn’t indict Trump or even weigh in on whether he should be indicted. That decision drew a lot of criticism.🧵

From #joycevance #fultoncounty #votingisaright Fulton County did not mince words in its amended response to the government’s motion to quash.

A motion to quash is an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying. Here, the federal government wants to keep the FBI agent who signed the affidavit that persuaded a federal magistrate judge that the government had probable cause to seize Fulton County’s ballots and other election records off the witness stand. Fulton County has requested the agent’s testimony at the hearing on its motion to return those records, a motion we discussed most recently earlier this week.🧵

From the invaluable #joycevance For example, the complaint against Bank of America alleges: “Rather than merely providing routine banking services to Epstein, Bank of America went far beyond what a non-complicit bank would have done and instead assisted Epstein in setting up the necessary financial structure to operate his sex-trafficking venture.”

Civil Discourse – Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi

By Joyce Vance, Feb 11, 2026

Writing this newsletter isn’t always easy. But it feels important to me, every day. If my work resonates with you and you want to support it, subscribing to Civil Discourse makes it possible for me to devote the time and resources it takes. Either way, I’m grateful that you’re here. Democracy is a participatory sport, and none of us can sit on the sidelines right now. Being well educated about what’s transpiring and sharing that knowledge with others is one of the most important things we can do.

Democrats in Congress are trying to get their branch of government to do its constitutional duty. As Congress continues to try and lumber to its feet, with just a few Republicans crossing over to work with Democrats on key issues—that’s how we got the Epstein Files Transparency Act in the first place—there is some good news to report.

Tuesday:

Asked if his agency had hired any pardoned January 6 defendants, ICE’s acting Director Todd Lyons was shockingly unprepared. He said he didn’t have “that information” in front of him but would get it.

Given how obvious it was that the question was coming, the lack of preparation seems deliberate. But Lyons’ follow-on comment was intriguing: He said that ICE takes assaults on law enforcement seriously, and he doubted anyone who did that on Jan 6 could pass a background check. Apparently, ICE takes assaults on law enforcement more seriously than the President, who pardoned the January 6 defendants.

New York Congressman Dan Goldman, a former federal prosecutor and good friend, wasn’t having any of the justifications and efforts to ignore, or at least walk past, what’s been happening on the ground in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

“If you don’t want to be called a fascist regime or secret police, then stop acting like one.”

“It’s long past time that you rein in your out-of-control agency and start following the law and the Constitution.”

Goldman asked Lyons about the guidance agents are given about asking people walking on American streets to show proof of citizenship. Lyons claimed that his agents conduct “targeted intelligence driven operations,” and that they “don’t walk around in the streets asking people about their American citizenship.”

Goldman was skeptical. “Really?” he responded. “So all of those individual American citizens who have been randomly asked are lying? Is that what you’re saying?”

That exchange prompted the Congressman to ask Lyons if he knew what other 20th Century regimes required people to show proof of citizenship in similar circumstances. Lyons responded that he did. “Sir, there has been various nefarious regimes that did that,” He told Goldman.

Goldman: Is Nazi Germany one?

Lyons: Yes. But I—

Goldman: Is the Soviet Union one?

Lyons: I-

Goldman: I’m asking the questions. Is the Soviet Union one?

Lyons: Yes sir, but I’m, I’m totally…this is the wrong type of questioning.

Goldman: I’ll tell you what the wrong type of questioning. Reclaiming my time.

Lyons: It’s not the men and women of ICE that are out there doing it every day. So to say that the men and women of ICE are Gestapos. Wrong.

After more back and forth, Goldman schooled the acting Director of ICE:

“The problem is, you have it backwards sir. People are simply making valid observations about your tactics, which are un-American and outright fascist. So I have a simple suggestion. If you don’t want to be called a fascist regime or secret police, then stop acting like one. People are simply just observing what they are seeing. And that’s why people are making those comments.

…I was a prosecutor for ten years, prosecuted mob bosses, organized crime, violent criminals, the actual “worst of the worst.” Not a single criminal law enforcement agent that I worked with wore a mask to conceal their identity. But your department, which is a civil law enforcement agency, is defending the use of masks by your agents because of a so-called rise in threats and assaults against your officers.”

…Now, why is that a problem Mr. Lyons? It’s a problem because the explanation that your agents are wearing masks because of fear of assaults or doxxing is outright bogus. You and your untrained, unqualified, unvetted, unidentified agents are intentionally terrorizing our cities and communities all over this country to avoid accountability for their excessive force and their lawless actions. That is why you’re wearing masks, so no one can hold you accountable and you know that the FBI is not going to because notwithstanding all the investigations all of you say are going on, the Department of Justice and the FBI has stated they are not investigating those two murders.

This is not the America I know and love. This is not the America my immigrant [family] came to and it’s long past time that you rein in your out-of-control agency and start following the law and the Constitution.”

There are some members of Congress who seem to have the knack for representing all of us, regardless of where we live. Dan Goldman is one of them.

Wednesday:

Today it was Pam Bondi’s turn. This was her first appearance before the House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing, which in and of itself tells you a lot about her respect for the Article I branch of government, 13 months into this administration. Bondi adopted a Trumpian persona, polite, sometimes veering into smarmy with Republicans; dismissive, rude, and downright insulting with Democrats.

But politicians signed up for this. Victims and survivors of horrific crimes didn’t. Washington state Representative Pramila Jayapal was first up for Democrats, and she brought the Epstein survivors with her. She joined me for a Substack Live earlier this evening—I’ll post our full conversation where she explains what she did and how she views Bondi’s approach to the hearing later tonight when the video is ready.

One of Bondi’s lowest moments, besides her use of a “burn book” of insults that she hurled at Democratic members of Congress, was the response to questions about why she hasn’t indicted anyone else who was involved in sex trafficking with Jeffrey Epstein. Her response? “The Dow is over 50,000 dollars.”

A judge would strike a response like that during witness testimony in court as non-responsive. And certainly the AG isn’t taking responsibility for the economy? It’s just so classically Trumpian that it would be laughable except that, because of the context, it isn’t. If you listen to her this bit, there’s a moment where she takes a swipe at Maryland’s Jamie Raskin, saying, “I don’t know why you’re laughing, I hear you’re a great stock trader, Raskin,” and then half swallowing a little chortle at her own cleverness, which came off to the room as intentional disrespect.

Early on, Bondi referred to herself as a career prosecutor. She said that she cares about victims and called Epstein “that monster.” Then she urged victims to come forward. But the irony, and as a prosecutor who handled these kinds of cases, she has to know it, is that victims won’t come forward to talk with the FBI, having seen how Epstein victims are being treated. Asked to acknowledge them repeatedly in today’s hearing, Bondi refused to apologize and arrange interviews with DOJ, something the survivors all signaled they’ve requested but have never been granted. She wouldn’t even turn around to look them in the eyes, to acknowledge and respect their presence.

Bondi compounded it by saying, later, that victims whose names weren’t redacted should contact DOJ to fix it. But their names & information shouldn’t have been exposed in the first place. It’s outrageous that Bondi thinks the burden should be on the survivors to let DOJ know it made a mistake and to get it fixed. DOJ is a massive, well-resourced law firm and it had a legal obligation to protect the victims. It was even provided with a list of names that needed to be redacted, and in some cases, they redacted one or a few, but not all of the victims’ names. It’s so careless that it’s hard to attribute it to mere negligence. Repeated errors of this magnitude, over time, take on the appearance of intentionality. And these are the kind of errors that make it clear to victims that if they come forward with information about the wrong people, their personal safety could be compromised.

Bondi’s Justice Department works for one client above all others, Donald Trump.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Two Days On The Hill: ICE & Pam Bondi

We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis.

Also: No Kings, No Dictators.

By Joyce Vance, Feb 05, 2026

I wrote this piece, titled “Are We The Nazis Now?” back in October last year. There were so many awful things happening, mostly to immigrants, but by then, some Americans had started to protest their treatment. I was reminded of Anne Frank’s words:

“Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They’re allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then, they’re robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart; men, women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone.”

–Anne Frank

For anyone who had ever wondered how the Germans turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, we are living through the answer. We watched it start in real time. “Trump promised he’d deport violent criminals,” I wrote last October. “Instead, ICE is going after legal residents and terrorizing children. The message: if you’re an American citizen, don’t exercise your First Amendment rights unless you want to become a target too.” Unfortunately, those words proved correct.

I hope you’ll go back and reread the entire piece from October, because it traces what the administration and ICE were doing back then, and although it seems impossible we could ever forget any of it, so much has happened that some of the details get lost. That recent history is essential, because it gives us such a clear picture of the trajectory that has brought us to this moment. In October, ICE had just raided a Chicago apartment building, taking people including kids, outside, some zip tied, in the middle of the night. Immigrants were treated in dehumanizing ways. The administration’s gamble was that not enough Americans would care. It was just “illegals.”

But Americans were already under fire too. There was the ambulance driver who ICE agents threatened to arrest and to kill, claiming he tried to weaponize his vehicle against them, when he was just there to do his job. The administration was already warming up the engines. There was a long runway before ICE shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

In my piece, I asked, “We aren’t even better off in the ways Trump promised. Deporting school kids doesn’t make us safer. Americans don’t want the jobs that aren’t being done in immigrants’ absence. The Labor Department warned in ‘an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’

But beyond the absence of benefits from this administration’s mass deportations, it’s the absence of humanity we see around us that threatens us the most. People who aren’t criminals are thrown to the ground. People are treated with a lack of respect for their basic human dignity. Many of them are hard-working folks who want to be able to love this country and give back because of the opportunity it gives them and their families. Instead, a president who is the son of immigrants and has been married twice to immigrants has become the face of nationalism, using hate and horror to expand his control over people, both American citizens and immigrants, on American soil. Are we the Nazis now?”

There’s an answer to that question. We are not the Nazis. Definitely not. We’re proud of that. We want people to know.

From the massive rallies in freezing temperatures in Minneapolis to smaller ones across the country, like the below one in Maine, Americans are giving their answer to that question. We will not turn a blind eye, we will not acquiesce. We will not be Nazis.

Last Saturday, ABC reported, “Intensive care nurses immediately doubted the word of federal immigration officers when they arrived at a Minneapolis hospital with a Mexican immigrant who had broken bones in his face and skull.” Agents told hospital personnel the man, Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, had tried to flee and had run into a brick wall on purpose. But hospital personnel said his injuries were inconsistent with what ICE claimed.

Prior to his arrest, the man was fine. Four hours later, he was taken to a hospital emergency room. He had “swelling and bruising around his right eye and bleeding. A CT scan revealed at least eight skull fractures and life-threatening hemorrhages in at least five areas of his brain.” The reporter asked a board-certified forensic pathologist who worked as a medical examiner in Minnesota for more than 30 years whether she agreed with hospital employees’ conclusions the injuries weren’t the result of an intentional run at a wall. She responded, “one doesn’t have to be a physician to conclude that a person can’t get skull fractures on both the right and left sides of their head and from front to back by running themselves into a wall.”

One agent subsequently admitted to hospital employees that Castañeda Mondragón, who was arrested the day after Renee Good was killed, “got his (expletive) rocked” after they arrested him.

When he was first admitted to the hospital, Castañeda Mondragón was reportedly “alert and speaking, telling staff he was ‘dragged and mistreated by federal agents.’” But his condition deteriorated rapidly. By the following week, his condition was described as “minimally responsive and communicative, disoriented and heavily sedated.” Nonetheless, ICE agents insisted on shackling Castañeda Mondragón’s ankles to his bed with handcuffs to keep him from escaping. That despite the fact that he “was so disoriented he did not know what year it was and could not recall how he was injured.”

Castañeda Mondragón entered the country legally in 2022. He has no criminal history and started a company in Minnesota. Agents only became aware after they arrested him that he had overstayed his visa. A judge ordered his release and he is no longer in ICE custody, but his friends told the reporter he could no longer work and was at, perhaps, 20% of what he had been before. Hospital employees were surprised he was no longer receiving care.

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on his injuries.

That’s one more human being, damaged by this administration’s insistence of pursuing quotas and treating people like cattle. What started as a slow trickle is now a gusher, too many people impacted to tell all of their stories. But we should still share the ones we know and counter what the administration is trying to do: Normalize treating people as less than human just because they don’t have legal immigration status in the U.S.

We are not the Nazis. That means we have an obligation to say watchful and keep protesting. We have to loudly reject the people who are trying to take us there.

In October I wrote, “What’s certain is this: No matter where Donald Trump wants to take this country, you and I are not going along for the ride. On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that the No Kings rally on Saturday was a “hate-America” rally. He said the people attending would be “the pro-Hamas wing” and “the antifa people.” He’s wrong. We are, in the best tradition of America’s Greatest Generation, truly anti-fascist. And in 2025, anti-fascism begins at home, because we love this country and we believe in democracy. We’re ready.”

On March 28, the third No Kings rally will happen. You can sign up for updates here. Until then, we will continue to let Donald Trump know that we have no intention of letting him turn us into Nazis, that we will block his efforts to take the country there. That’s our job.

Editor’s Note: Here’s Joyce Vance’s October column, embedded below. –DrWeb

Are We the Nazis Now? by Joyce Vance

How do we meet this moment?

Continue/Read Original Article Here: We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

We are not Nazis.

Also: No Kings, No Dictators.

By Joyce Vance, Feb 05, 2026

I wrote this piece, titled “Are We The Nazis Now?” back in October last year. There were so many awful things happening, mostly to immigrants, but by then, some Americans had started to protest their treatment. I was reminded of Anne Frank’s words:

“Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They’re allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then, they’re robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart; men, women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone.”

–Anne Frank

For anyone who had ever wondered how the Germans turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, we are living through the answer. We watched it start in real time. “Trump promised he’d deport violent criminals,” I wrote last October. “Instead, ICE is going after legal residents and terrorizing children. The message: if you’re an American citizen, don’t exercise your First Amendment rights unless you want to become a target too.” Unfortunately, those words proved correct.

I hope you’ll go back and reread the entire piece from October, because it traces what the administration and ICE were doing back then, and although it seems impossible we could ever forget any of it, so much has happened that some of the details get lost. That recent history is essential, because it gives us such a clear picture of the trajectory that has brought us to this moment. In October, ICE had just raided a Chicago apartment building, taking people including kids, outside, some zip tied, in the middle of the night. Immigrants were treated in dehumanizing ways. The administration’s gamble was that not enough Americans would care. It was just “illegals.”

But Americans were already under fire too. There was the ambulance driver who ICE agents threatened to arrest and to kill, claiming he tried to weaponize his vehicle against them, when he was just there to do his job. The administration was already warming up the engines. There was a long runway before ICE shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

In my piece, I asked, “We aren’t even better off in the ways Trump promised. Deporting school kids doesn’t make us safer. Americans don’t want the jobs that aren’t being done in immigrants’ absence. The Labor Department warned in ‘an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’

But beyond the absence of benefits from this administration’s mass deportations, it’s the absence of humanity we see around us that threatens us the most. People who aren’t criminals are thrown to the ground. People are treated with a lack of respect for their basic human dignity. Many of them are hard-working folks who want to be able to love this country and give back because of the opportunity it gives them and their families. Instead, a president who is the son of immigrants and has been married twice to immigrants has become the face of nationalism, using hate and horror to expand his control over people, both American citizens and immigrants, on American soil. Are we the Nazis now?”

There’s an answer to that question. We are not the Nazis. Definitely not. We’re proud of that. We want people to know.

From the massive rallies in freezing temperatures in Minneapolis to smaller ones across the country, like the below one in Maine, Americans are giving their answer to that question. We will not turn a blind eye, we will not acquiesce. We will not be Nazis.

Last Saturday, ABC reported, “Intensive care nurses immediately doubted the word of federal immigration officers when they arrived at a Minneapolis hospital with a Mexican immigrant who had broken bones in his face and skull.” Agents told hospital personnel the man, Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, had tried to flee and had run into a brick wall on purpose. But hospital personnel said his injuries were inconsistent with what ICE claimed.

Prior to his arrest, the man was fine. Four hours later, he was taken to a hospital emergency room. He had “swelling and bruising around his right eye and bleeding. A CT scan revealed at least eight skull fractures and life-threatening hemorrhages in at least five areas of his brain.” The reporter asked a board-certified forensic pathologist who worked as a medical examiner in Minnesota for more than 30 years whether she agreed with hospital employees’ conclusions the injuries weren’t the result of an intentional run at a wall. She responded, “one doesn’t have to be a physician to conclude that a person can’t get skull fractures on both the right and left sides of their head and from front to back by running themselves into a wall.”

One agent subsequently admitted to hospital employees that Castañeda Mondragón, who was arrested the day after Renee Good was killed, “got his (expletive) rocked” after they arrested him.

When he was first admitted to the hospital, Castañeda Mondragón was reportedly “alert and speaking, telling staff he was ‘dragged and mistreated by federal agents.’” But his condition deteriorated rapidly. By the following week, his condition was described as “minimally responsive and communicative, disoriented and heavily sedated.” Nonetheless, ICE agents insisted on shackling Castañeda Mondragón’s ankles to his bed with handcuffs to keep him from escaping. That despite the fact that he “was so disoriented he did not know what year it was and could not recall how he was injured.”

Castañeda Mondragón entered the country legally in 2022. He has no criminal history and started a company in Minnesota. Agents only became aware after they arrested him that he had overstayed his visa. A judge ordered his release and he is no longer in ICE custody, but his friends told the reporter he could no longer work and was at, perhaps, 20% of what he had been before. Hospital employees were surprised he was no longer receiving care.

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on his injuries.

That’s one more human being, damaged by this administration’s insistence of pursuing quotas and treating people like cattle. What started as a slow trickle is now a gusher, too many people impacted to tell all of their stories. But we should still share the ones we know and counter what the administration is trying to do: Normalize treating people as less than human just because they don’t have legal immigration status in the U.S.

We are not the Nazis. That means we have an obligation to say watchful and keep protesting. We have to loudly reject the people who are trying to take us there.

In October I wrote, “What’s certain is this: No matter where Donald Trump wants to take this country, you and I are not going along for the ride. On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that the No Kings rally on Saturday was a “hate-America” rally. He said the people attending would be “the pro-Hamas wing” and “the antifa people.” He’s wrong. We are, in the best tradition of America’s Greatest Generation, truly anti-fascist. And in 2025, anti-fascism begins at home, because we love this country and we believe in democracy. We’re ready.”

On March 28, the third No Kings rally will happen. You can sign up for updates here. Until then, we will continue to let Donald Trump know that we have no intention of letting him turn us into Nazis, that we will block his efforts to take the country there. That’s our job.

Editor’s Note: Here’s Joyce Vance’s October column, embedded below. –DrWeb

Are We the Nazis Now? by Joyce Vance

How do we meet this moment?

Continue/Read Original Article Here: We are not Nazis. – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#joycevance This morning, Judge Schiltz … savaged ICE, justifiably, for how the agency has conducted itself, just in the last month and just in his court….:

“Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted. This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence…ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.”

Civil Discoure – ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant

By Joyce Vance, Jan 21, 2026

It’s been a long time since we took a night off. I honestly can’t remember the last time. But tonight I’m going to turn in early, after a long day. Before I do that, I wanted to flag one development with ICE for you.

I also want to leave you with some reason for optimism. You may have seen the news that ICE has now surged agents to Maine, predominantly to the cities of Portland and Lewiston, where there are large Somali immigrant communities. This is an echo of the focus on the Somali community in Minnesota.

Tonight, close to 1,000 people joined the mighty Maine ACLU for training on their legal rights and non-violent protest. It was an honor to get to participate in it. When we talk about community building and supporting democracy, this is what it’s all about: people committed to standing up for their rights and for their neighbors’ rights. There is training across the country that you can participate in to better educate yourself about your right to protest peacefully.

Now, the development: The Associated Press is reporting that it has seen a memo ICE is using for internal agent training that asserts “sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant.” The Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable search and seizure, has always been understood to require a warrant signed by a judge, not an administrative warrant signed by a DHS employee to enter a private residence or private areas of a business.

This new policy stance might explain some of the incidents that have been reported in Minnesota, where agents have made forcible entry into homes to remove people and put them into deportation proceedings without a judicial warrant. This sounds like what might have been at work when agents forcibly entered the home of a Hmong man in Minnesota who has been an American citizen for decades, and according to his statement, declined to produce a warrant and claimed he was subject to removal before forcing him out into the freezing cold in his underwear. It turned out that they got it wrong and were forced to release him a few hours later.

The AP reported that they witnessed ICE officers ramming through the front door of the home of a Liberian man in Minneapolis on Jan. 11 with only an administrative warrant, wearing heavy tactical gear and with their rifles drawn, which could also be a result of the new policy.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: ICE Says It Doesn’t Need A Judicial Warrant

"Instead of succumbing to cynicism, let’s stay focused on what we can do, even the small things."
-- Joyce Vance

https://open.substack.com/pub/joycevance/p/its-the-cynicism

#FuckTrump #Resist #JoyceVance

Civil Discourse – Don’t Take the Bait – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Don’t Take the Bait

By Joyce Vance, Jan 15, 2026

In the time of Trump, “Don’t take the bait” is a rule that’s almost as important as “Do not obey in advance.”

Following the shooting death of Renee Good and other incidents where agents played fast and loose with the rights of both American citizens and immigrants, ICE seems to be doing everything it can to be an accelerant to the tensions. Wednesday evening, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that federal agents were trying to arrest a man from Venezuela who was in the country illegally, when he fled from agents. She said he “began to resist and violently assault the officer,” and was joined by two other men who attacked the agent with a snow shovel and broom handle. McLaughlin said the agent feared for his life and shot the man they’d been trying to arrest in the leg.

There are obviously questions about this scenario, including how an agent ended up alone and whether a reasonable agent would have thought his life was at risk. As The New York Times put it, “The federal government’s narrative could not immediately be verified.” A crowd of about 200 people gathered after the shooting, and according to the police chief, engaged in illegal acts, including throwing fireworks at police. After agents from ICE’s sister agency, CBP, showed up in what the Times called a large, military-style vehicle, protesters “swarmed the vehicle and yelled and threw snowballs at agents.” Retreating agents fired tear gas-type canisters, and agents who arrived subsequently sprayed chemical agents against the protestors who moved toward them. A protester lobbed fireworks toward the agents as they left.

Agents could have de-escalated the tension at any point in these developments, but did not. That forces us to ask why—is there a deliberate effort to provoke protestors into acts of violence? We don’t know the answer to that question for certain, but a social media post by the president this morning gave some hint.

Trump threatened to use the “INSURRECTION ACT” due to attacks on “the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job.”

No surprise. We’ve always known he was looking for an excuse to do this. We’ve discussed insurrection act here before. I wrote to you about it back in April, in a piece that also discusses the importance and effectiveness of peaceful protest. “Trump might try to take advantage of minor incidents, or even plants who engage in violence, to impose the Insurrection Act and use the military to put a halt to Americans who are out on the streets exercising their First Amendment rights.”

So as difficult as it may become to show restraint, it’s essential that we don’t take Trump’s bait as we protest. If he’s going to impose the Insurrection Act, as he likely will at some point, we don’t want to give him any cover for it. Each of us can help by sharing this message with those around us and making sure they share it forward.

Here’s what you need to know about the Insurrection Act:

• Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. It explicitly outlaws using the armed forces to enforce the law within our borders, unless that action is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.
• Enter the Insurrection Act, which permits a president to deploy the military in American cities and on our streets in very narrow circumstances involving insurrection, rebellion, or extreme civil unrest.
• Even in those circumstances, the military can only be used for “emergency needs” towards the goal of reestablishing civilian control as quickly as possible. This is where lawsuits may come in, especially since governors and local leaders are not only not asking for federal intervention, but in the case of Minnesota, explicitly asking the feds to leave.
• Typically, the Act is only used at a Governor and/or local officials’ request. The exceptions to that are 60 years ago and come from the heart of the civil rights era, when presidents sent troops to states like Mississippi and Alabama to protect people’s lives and liberty, like college students integrating state universities, not sending troops in to traumatize a civilian population trying to peacefully exercise its First Amendment rights.
• But the Act’s language is broad and gives presidents plenty of discretion to, for instance, use the military to arrest American citizens engaged in protest, if a president calls what’s going on an insurrection, rebellion, or civil unrest. And in an 1827 case, Martin v. Mott, the Supreme Court ruled that it is up to the president to decide whether the Insurrection Act should be invoked and that the courts may not review his decision. Although more recently, courts have intimated that a president’s assessment needs to pass the smell test, we should still expect to see them give broad deference to his decisions.

There are reports that federal agents are unrepentant following Good’s death at the hands of one of their number. Minnesotan Patty O’Keefe, an American citizen, was arrested and detained by ICE. While they were transporting her, she says one of the agents said to her, “You’ve gotta stop obstructing us. That’s why that lesbian bitch is dead.”

NBC is reporting that in its rush to hire, ICE is deploying new agents to the field without adequate training. An AI program they were using flagged new hires with no law enforcement experience as trained agents and surged them out to offices. The article says this was the case with “many” of them. The president directed ICE to hire 10,000 new officers by the end of 2025 and offered new recruits $50,000 signing bonuses using money allocated to the agency by Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” DHS says those agents have been identified and are receiving training in the field.

It’s not just Minnesota. Geraldo Lunas Campos died at an ICE detention center in El Paso, Texas, on January 3. The Washington Post reports it has listened to a recording of a call between a staffer in the coroner’s office and Mr. Campos’ daughter, where she is told that pending the results of a toxicology report, “our doctor is believing that we’re going to be listing the manner of death as homicide.” At the time of his death, the agency said “staff observed him in distress,” but did not offer a cause of death. The Post reports that “a fellow detainee says he witnessed … Campos being choked to death by guards.” The El Paso facility is described as “a colossal makeshift tent encampment on the Mexican border.” Not only have the people being housed there reported “substandard conditions and physical abuse,” ICE inspectors found over 60 violations of federal standards for detaining migrants in just 50 days dating back to last September.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Don’t Take the Bait – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

By Joyce Vance, Jan 13, 2026

Protect and serve. That’s supposed to be the job.

What could be further from that than masked agents roaming American streets in packs, refusing to identify themselves, and terrorizing—there is no other word for it at this point—American citizens?

Early on, the excuse for wearing masks was that it was necessary to protect the agents. From what? There were reports that they were being doxxed, which no one in law enforcement likes to deal with. But they’re the ones assaulting and killing people, which is far more problematic. Back in July, the Acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, said that he did not encourage agents to use masks but would continue to let them wear them in the field “if that’s a tool they need to keep them and their families safe.” Now masks and gaiters are emblematic of ICE agents and their colleagues from CBP (Customs and Border Protection) doing immigration work in places like Minneapolis.

You don’t routinely see the FBI or U.S. Marshals out doing their jobs with masks on. There is literally no legitimate reason for ICE and Customs Border Patrol (CBP) to continue to operate this way during immigration “enforcement actions,” especially in light of the recent history of documented abuses. Anonymity accelerates that kind of behavior. It tells the agents they aren’t accountable for violating people’s civil rights.

There has been concern about the kind of people the administration is rushing into service in ICE and as deportation officers. Congressional Democrats are asking for information on whether hiring includes now-pardoned Jan. 6 defendants.

The overwhelming majority of federal law enforcement agents I worked with during my 25-year career at DOJ were men and women who were committed to following the law themselves while protecting their communities and prosecuting crimes. They believed citizens had constitutional rights. There’s no reason for the sudden change, a world where an agent shoots and kills a woman for no good reason, except that the current leadership in the White House and at DHS is willing to tolerate, if not encourage, what we’re now seeing. There are people ripped out of their cars, homes entered without a judicial warrant, agents who treat American citizens like they have no rights. This administration dishonors the service of the federal agents who spent their careers committed to constitutional policing.

Law enforcement officers are trained to de-escalate tense situations. Instead, we’re watching ICE agents act like the accelerant to a smoldering fire. The administration’s take on the failure of agents to behave like the good guys they’re supposed to be isn’t to put a stop to it. Instead, they revel in the Gestapo-like images of doors being busted down, school kids being knocked to the ground, and peaceful protesters being hit with pepper spray. So, it’s up to someone else to stop it.

The state of training at ICE is unclear, as new agents are rapidly hired and deployed. But what we’re seeing is troubling.

Some states have tried passing laws to prohibit masking.

California passed SB 627 (the “No Secret Police Act”) in late 2025, restricting law enforcement, including federal agents, from using extreme face coverings like ski masks during operations, effective Jan 1, 2026. There are logical exemptions to protect officer safety and the identity of undercover operatives. California Governor Gavin Newsom said at the time, “This is about the secret police. We’re not North Korea, Mr. President. We’re not the Soviet Union. This is the United States of America.”

The language of the bill explains that “facial coverings limit the visibility of facial expressions, which are essential components of nonverbal communication. In high-stress or emotionally charged interactions, the inability to read an officer’s expression may lead to misinterpretation of tone or intent, increasing the risk of conflict escalation” and that “the visibility of an officer’s face is vital for promoting transparency, facilitating communication, and building trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.” It also points out that “when officers are not readily identifiable, it increases the risk of impersonation by unauthorized individuals, which further undermines public trust, endangers public safety, and hinders legitimate law enforcement operations.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

Civil Discourse – Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning

By Joyce Vance, Jan 03, 2026

This morning, Donald Trump explained, in a rambling press conference along with others in his administration, that the overnight strike in Venezuela was executed to arrest President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. In other words, it’s not the kind of new hostilities, if you buy the administration’s line, that would require notice to or a declaration from Congress.

This approach, although it’s what I suggested in this morning’s post we should expect, leaves me with a major question: if the U.S. was just going in to Venezuela to arrest a defendant in a criminal case, which has now been done, why is it necessary to stick around to run the country? That is exactly what Trump said this morning that we’d be doing. “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition,” the President said.

Senator Chuck Schumer tweeted: “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans. The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

Tomorrow morning at 11:30 a.m. ET, I’ll host a Substack Live with Jake Sullivan, who served as Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor from 2021 to 2025, and Jon Finer, Biden’s Deputy National Security Advisor. We’ll answer your questions about what comes next. Make sure you’re subscribed to Civil Discourse to get a notice when we go live—a free subscription will work for that. And leave any questions you have for us in the comments. Jake and Jon have a fantastic new podcast, The Long Game, that drops every Friday.

Leave a comment

The new indictment:

The superseding indictment against Maduro, Flores, and four others was unsealed this morning. It contains three counts and a hefty amount of narrative. It is, as prosecutors say, a speaking indictment:

• Count One: Narcoterrorism Conspiracy; Title 21, United States Code, Section 960a; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3238
• Count Two: Cocaine Importation Conspiracy; Title 21, United States Code, Section 963; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3238
• Count Three: Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(c)(l)(A), 924(c)(l)(B)(ii), 3238, and 2
• Count Four: Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(0) and 3238

You can read the superseding indictment here. It’s signed by Trump’s new U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, which means it was obtained no earlier than August of this year. It involves fewer defendants than the original 2020 indictment, which named 15 defendants, including Maduro. That could mean that some of the original defendants have become cooperators. We don’t know the details yet, but we will likely learn more in the course of detention hearings, which should follow shortly on the heels of the arraignment.

The superseding indictment adds additional allegations against Maduro and names his wife as a defendant for the first time. The basis for the indictment remains the same: Maduro and his co-defendants used government power to protect and promote drug trafficking crimes. The government alleges that “This cycle of narcotics-based corruption lines the pockets of Venezuelan officials and their families while also benefiting violent narco-terrorists who operate with impunity on Venezuelan soil and who help produce, protect, and transport tons of cocaine to the United States.”

To prevail on the “narcoterrorism” count (that label doesn’t appear in the statute), the government will have to prove that the defendants trafficked in illegal drugs, “knowing or intending to provide, directly or indirectly, anything of pecuniary value to any person or organization that has engaged or engages in terrorist activity.” This begs the same question raised by Trump’s earlier efforts to deport Venezuelans, who he claimed were part of the Tren de Aragua gang (it turned out many of them weren’t), and the justification for so-called kinetic strikes that have killed more than 100 people to date. The administration’s justification is that drug cartels are terrorist forces attacking the United States. Now we’ll see how that holds up in court.

Even if the government prevails on the legal argument, the indictment doesn’t offer much insight into how the government intends to tie Maduro to Tren de Aragua and other cartels and gangs. It offers more detail about FARC activity from 2018 and 2019. But prosecutors aren’t required to reveal all of their evidence in an indictment, simply enough to put a defendant on notice of the charges they have to defend against. Assessment of the strength of the government’s case will have to wait until defense lawyers file preliminary motions.

Maduro could be facing life in prison if he is convicted. The two drug counts carry a maximum sentence of life in prison, and mandatory minimum sentences of 20 years on Count One and 10 years on Count 2. The firearm charges carry a 30-year minimum prison term.

Will Congress do anything?

A Senatevotewill take place next week on a bipartisan war powers resolution to block Trump from engaging in further hostilities against Venezuela. It was already in the works, but there will be an increased sense of urgency around it now. Along with Schumer, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, and California Senator Adam Schiff, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul has signed on as a co-sponsor. The resolution is privileged, which means Senate Majority Leader John Thune will not be able to prevent it from coming to the floor. The resolution only needs a simple majority to pass the Senate.

Delaware Democrat Chris Coons, the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Defense Appropriations, issued a statement that read, “This military action is the next stage in President Trump’s incoherent and arguably illegal Venezuela operation. In recent briefings to Congress, senior administration officials said they were focused on combatting (sic) drug trafficking, not regime change, and made clear they had no plan for what would happen if Maduro was removed or overthrown. This was clearly false, and furthermore, a military operation to capture and overthrow a president – even an illegitimate one – is an act of war that must be authorized by Congress. Not only has the Trump administration not sought congressional approval, they did not even notify members of either party in Congress until after the strike had concluded. Protecting democracy should not be done through illegal means.”

Editor’s Note: The featured image at top was generated by WP AI. Below is also the embedded column/article for easy access. –DrWeb

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next by Joyce Vance

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning Read on Substack

Maduro & Venezuela: What Happens Next by Joyce Vance

And, a very special Substack Live Sunday morning

From #joycevance The government represented to the court that the decision to prosecute Abrego Garcia was made locally, disconnected from his effort to enforce his constitutional rights and challenge his deportation. Their own emails appear to contradict that assertion. The government will still have the opportunity to come forward and explain away the presumption of vindictiveness. I’ve seen a number of cases during my 25 years at DOJ where a defendant argued vindictiveness. In every case, the government explained why the prosecution was legitimate, and in every case, it prevailed. I’ve never seen a case where the government made representations to a judge that were refuted by its own internal communications. It’s exceptionally unusual for prosecutors to have to take the witness stand to defend their own conduct. But Abrego Garcia’s case, which has been highly irregular from the start, may well be the one where that happens. 🧵

Civil Discourse – Five Questions: Live with The Librarians – Joyce Vance

If you missed us live this afternoon, here’s the recording of tonight’s edition of “Five Questions With”—a special live interview with the producer and director of the movie The Librarians, in place of our usual written interview.

You can tell it’s a special film about a special kind of hero from the way Kim lovingly discusses how she came to make the film and the Librarians whose stories are woven throughout. I won’t spoil our conversation, just watch it! And Kim provides information about how you can watch it at the end.

Have a wonderful last weekend of Hanukkah/weekend before Christmas and anything else you may celebrate. I hope you find a little magic this weekend.

We’re in this together, Joyce

Five Questions: Live with The Librarians by Joyce Vance

A recording of my conversation with director & producer Kim Snyder

Continue/Read View Original: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/five-questions-live-with-the-librarians

Civil Discourse – Monday in Court and Beyond – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Monday in Court and Beyond

By Joyce Vance, Dec 08, 2025

Your paid subscription makes Civil Discourse possible—independent, informed analysis in a moment when noise can drown out reason. Join a community that refuses to give up on democracy—or on understanding it. –Joyce Vance

Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter earlier this year. She sued.

In a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that Congress could put limits on the president’s authority to remove certain executive branch officials. That longstanding precedent has been on a collision course with Donald Trump’s quest for maximal power for as long as he’s been in office. Today, a Court that has been very sympathetic to Trump heard argument in Slaughter’s case.

The type of executive branch positions at stake are appointments to high-ranking positions in quasi-independent federal agencies like the FTC and others, including the Federal Reserve. The top line question is whether presidents can fire them in the absence of misconduct. We discussed the backstory to Humphrey’s Executor here, back in March. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired an FTC Commissioner, writing to him that “your mind and my mind [don’t] go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.” The Court held that Congress intended to restrict a president’s power of removal to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and that Roosevelt couldn’t dismiss Humphrey simply because they were of different minds on policy.

That precedent is about as on-point as they come. It suggests that Slaughter, who had done nothing wrong, should win her case. She was advised of her termination in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

But our tea leaf reading at the start of the term, which concluded that the Court would weigh in for Trump, appears to have been on target. We based that analysis on the fact that the Court declined to stay Slaughter’s dismissal from the FTC until it could hear the case. If there had been a majority, or something close to it, inclined to follow Humphrey’s Executor and rein Trump in, the Court would have prevented the firing from taking effect until it could hear the case. The fact that they allowed her dismissal to take effect implied the Court was prepared to undo the precedent that would have prohibited it. Oral argument bore out that conclusion.

Justice Kagan went straight to the heart of the matter when Solicitor General John Sauer argued the government’s case. She pointed out that “the central proposition of your brief” was that the Vesting Clause of the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little difficult to see how you stop,” Justice Kagan said. Sauer talked over her and around her, but never disagreed. The government’s position, even though it didn’t go this far today, is that everything that happens in the executive branch is at the president’s pleasure. Everything. That could include matters like who DOJ indicts, what businesses the EPA regulates, and all sorts of individualized decisions that are currently made by people with expertise, guided by long-standing practices and ethical constraints.

“To that point, when Justice Kagan asked whether a decision against Slaughter would apply to other similarly situated agencies, Sauer ducked. He told her the Court could just “reserve” making a decision on other agencies because those cases were not in front of the Court today. Justice Kagan responded that “logic has consequences,” and that even if the Court dropped a footnote saying it wasn’t deciding other cases as Sauer suggested, it would just be a dodge; it wouldn’t mean anything for future cases, where the government would be free to argue for an unprecedented level of control in the hands of the president, using Slaughter as support, if the Court decides it in the manner the government requested.” Joyce Vance’s Quote…

Justice Sotomayor said to Sauer, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Justice Alito invited Sauer to respond. “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.” Justice Sotomayor ultimately responded, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” There was silence for a moment. Then Sauer hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

We don’t know precisely how the Court will rule, but the Chief Justice tipped his hand a bit, saying “the precedent” had “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today,” and claiming that the FTC back then was different, and “had very little, if any executive power,” suggesting different rules might apply today for an agency that had become more powerful. It’s the sophistic kind of reasoning we have seen before when the Roberts Court twists itself into pretzel logic so that it can reverse longstanding precedent—while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort.

A decision in this case is likely to come at the end of the term, late next June or the first week in July, although it could come at any time. It is likely to be one of the most consequential of this term.

A lot more happened today that is worthy of our attention. But because there is so much of it, instead of trying to cover it all, I’ll flag some of the most important developments here, and you can read further on any of them that interest you. We will take them up in more detail as they develop.

• ProPublica, widely regarded as a highly credible source of independent investigative journalism (they broke the story on Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting vacation travels and other favors from conservative power players) reported today that some of Trump’s mortgages match his description of mortgage fraud, according to records they reviewed. While living in New York, he claimed two 1993 real estate purchases made within two months of each other in Florida would both become his principal residence. The report says: “The Trump administration has argued that Fed board member Lisa Cook may have committed mortgage fraud by declaring more than one primary residence on her loans. We found Trump once did the very thing he called ‘deceitful and potentially criminal.’” Trump has accused multiple political adversaries of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence, and that appears to be the rationale behind federal criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and California Representative Eric Swalwell, and others, although there are at best flimsy facts to support the allegations.
• Twelve former FBI agents sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, along with others, alleging “unlawful retaliation” because they were fired for kneeling in response to protests in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd’s murder. The lawsuit is based on First Amendment violations and also points out the wisdom of the plaintiffs’ decision to kneel with the crowd: “As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Monday in Court and Beyond

#1935 #ChiefJusticeRoberts #CivilDiscourse #December82025 #DOJ #FBIAgents #FederalTradeCommission #FiredForKneeling #FTCCommissioner #HumphreySExecutor #JohnSauer #JoyceVance #JusticeAlito #JusticeKagan #JusticeSotomayor #MortgageFraudByTrump #ProPublica #RebeccaSlaughter #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

5 Startling Truths Behind the U.S. Showdown with Venezuela – A DWD Special Report

5 Startling Truths Behind the U.S. Showdown with Venezuela

Introduction: Beyond the Headlines

The news cycle is saturated with reports of escalating tensions between the United States and Venezuela. A significant U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean, officially dubbed “Operation Southern Spear,” is underway, featuring warships, advanced aircraft, and thousands of troops. President Trump has hinted that the days of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime are numbered, while Caracas has denounced the American presence as a prelude to an illegal intervention.

Behind the headlines of tough talk and naval movements, however, a far more complex and consequential story is unfolding. This is not just another geopolitical standoff. It is a flashpoint testing the very boundaries of international law, redefining the nature of modern conflict, and signaling what may be a dramatic and assertive shift in American foreign policy for years to come.

This confrontation is therefore a crucible for the future of warfare, one where legal definitions are being rewritten on the fly to justify lethal force, where sovereign airspace is treated as a bargaining chip, and where a massive military deployment becomes a high-stakes test of geopolitical will. To understand what is truly at stake, one must look beyond the immediate conflict and examine the startling truths that define this high-stakes confrontation.

Special Editor’s Note: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/bf1cb435-c733-4fd9-8c75-e30386b55563 takes you to my shared NotebookLLM on this matter and post. There you will find audio and video overviews; notebook notes; a mindmap; reports; flashcards; and, a quiz. I hope that helps you dig deeper into this major issue for America and Americans. –DrWeb

——————————————————————————–

1. An Alleged “Kill Them All” Order Pushes Legal and Moral Boundaries

At the heart of the escalating military action is a deeply disturbing allegation. Reporting from Joyce Vance’s Civil Discourse details a verbal directive allegedly given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a September strike on a suspected drug boat. According to two individuals with direct knowledge of the operation, the order was stark: “kill everybody.”

This directive reportedly led to a second strike after the initial attack. A live drone feed showed two survivors clinging to wreckage in the water; the special operations commander, to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, is said to have ordered a follow-on strike that “blew apart” the two men.

The legal and moral gravity of such an order is immense, a point articulated with startling clarity in an impassioned op-ed on the social platform Reddit by a respected, retired senior naval officer known as ‘SWO6’. Under the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Armed Conflict, attacking defenseless survivors is explicitly forbidden. Shipwrecked individuals are considered hors de combat—literally “out of the fight”—and must be treated as noncombatants. An order to show “no quarter,” or take no prisoners, has been prohibited for over a century. A former military lawyer, Todd Huntley, underscored this point:

“Even if the U.S. were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat’s occupants if they were no longer able to fight ‘would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime.’”

This principle is not an abstract concept. A key historical precedent is the Peleus trial of 1944, where the captain of a German U-boat was convicted of war crimes for ordering his crew to fire on the survivors of a sunken Greek merchant ship. The charges were specifically for attacking the survivors, not for sinking the ship itself, establishing a clear red line that has been upheld in international tribunals ever since.

The seriousness of the current allegations is not lost on Washington. The report has prompted bipartisan calls for “vigorous oversight” from the Senate Armed Services Committee, signaling that a full accounting of the September strike and the orders behind it will be sought at the highest levels.

2. It’s Not a “War on Drugs”—It’s a War on “Narco-Terrorists,” and the Distinction Matters

A critical element of the Trump administration’s strategy has been to officially reframe the conflict. The Maduro-tied Cartel de los Soles has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), a move that fundamentally changes the legal and operational landscape.

Traditionally, international law views maritime drug interdiction not as combat, but as a law enforcement activity regulated by international human rights law. According to legal analysis on maritime security, this framework dictates that the use of deadly force is an absolute last resort, permissible only in cases of armed resistance or an imminent threat to life.

By relabeling the target from “criminal” to “terrorist,” the administration is shifting the legal paradigm from law enforcement to armed conflict. The FTO designation is not merely semantic; the Wikipedia entry on the administration’s foreign policy notes the designation is intended as a way to unlock additional powers to combat them, including military force. This move provides a legal justification for kinetic military strikes that would otherwise be considered illegal under the framework of maritime law enforcement. However, this FTO designation is disputed by experts who argue the gangs are motivated by money, not political ideology.

3. The Standoff is a “Giant Game of Chicken” with 15% of the Navy’s Deployed Fleet

Jeremy McDermott, co-director of the organized crime analysis group Insight Crime, has captured the core dynamic of the U.S.-Venezuela standoff with a simple but powerful metaphor:

“a giant game of chicken”

The scale of the U.S. commitment gives this metaphor its weight. As part of “Operation Southern Spear,” President Trump has dispatched the largest U.S. naval flotilla to the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis. According to reporting from The War Zone, the assets involved are staggering:

• Approximately 15% of the entire U.S. Navy’s deployed surface fleet.
• The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group.
• A formidable array of aerial assets, including F-35B stealth fighters, MQ-9 Reaper drones, P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, AC-130 Ghostrider gunships, and B-52 bombers.
• Roughly 15,000 U.S. personnel deployed to the region.

The “chicken” dynamic is a test of wills and resources. The U.S. is betting that this overwhelming pressure will either provoke a coup from within Maduro’s regime or force him to capitulate to U.S. demands. Maduro, on the other hand, is betting that he can simply “hang on.” He knows the U.S. cannot sustain such a massive and costly deployment indefinitely. So long as Maduro doesn’t blink, time is on his side.

4. Airspace is Being Weaponized, Turning the Sky into a Political Battlefield

The confrontation is not limited to the seas; it has extended into the sky above. President Trump declared on social media that “THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.” The Venezuelan government immediately denounced this as an “illegal and unjustified aggression” that violates the UN Charter and amounts to an explicit threat of force.

This political declaration is backed by real-world actions. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) warning civilian pilots to exercise caution in the region. The notice cites heightened military activity and interference with Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) that could impact critical aircraft systems.

As an academic study on the Russia-Ukraine conflict published in PubMed Central illustrates, airspace bans are a potent tool of “aero-political conflict.” They are non-kinetic weapons that have severe effects, forcing commercial flights to undertake costly and time-consuming rerouting. One example from the study showed a flight from Frankfurt to Tokyo having its flight time extended by nearly two hours to avoid Russian airspace. This tactic shows that the sky itself has become a domain for exerting political pressure and a key battlefield in this modern, multi-domain standoff.

5. This Isn’t Just About Venezuela; It’s About a New “Monroe Doctrine”

The pressure campaign against Venezuela is not an isolated incident but rather the opening move in a muscular reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century. According to analysis of the second Trump administration’s foreign policy, these actions are part of a dramatic pivot to prioritize the Western Hemisphere.

Administration officials have explicitly stated their overarching goal is to “reassert American dominance over the Americas.” This ambition has led some foreign policy experts to believe the moves express a desire to divide the world into distinct “spheres of influence” between America, Russia, and China.

This broader strategic goal reframes the entire conflict. The military buildup is not just an isolated action against a single rogue regime. It is a potential opening move in a new, more assertive era of U.S. foreign policy—one in which the U.S. seeks to re-establish and enforce its primacy in its own hemisphere.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Who Blinks First?

The showdown with Venezuela is far more than a simple military standoff. It is a flashpoint where profound legal questions about the rules of engagement are being tested, new forms of political and economic warfare are being deployed, and a fundamental realignment of U.S. global strategy may be underway. The legal distinction between drug traffickers and terrorists, the use of airspace as a weapon, and an alleged order to kill defenseless survivors all point to a conflict that is pushing established norms to their breaking point.

This is not just about one country or one leader; it is about setting precedents for a new era of international relations. As this high-stakes game of chicken plays out off the coast of South America, the world watches to see who will blink first—and what the rules of this new era will be when they do.

Source: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/bf1cb435-c733-4fd9-8c75-e30386b55563

#2025 #america #cnn #departmentOfDefense #donaldTrump #establishedNorms #health #history #joyceVance #lettersFromAnAmerican #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #nationalPublicRadio #opinion #peteHegseth #politics #resistance #science #television #theNewYorkTimes #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates #venezuela #youtube

Civil Discourse – The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come

By Joyce Vance, Nov 29, 2025

“You must refuse illegal orders.” That’s what was said in the video made by six Democratic members of Congress. Trump accused them of seditious behavior. The FBI launched an investigation.

Then, on Black Friday, the Washington Post ran with an exclusive story about the September 2, 2025, attack on a boat allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean, the first of a series of attacks that have involved strikes on at least 23 boats to date. The Post reported that in advance of the strike, “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive,according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. ‘The order was to kill everybody.’”

That’s what the special operations commander overseeing the attack did. After the initial hit, live drone feed showed two survivors clinging to the wreckage. The commander “ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions … The two men were blown apart in the water.” The video Trump released later that day did not include the second strike.

The Post quoted Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who had advised special operations on the illegality of the order: “Even if the U.S. were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat’s occupants if they were no longer able to fight ‘would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime.’”

My colleague Ryan Goodman, Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the founding co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, an online forum focused on U.S. national security law and policy, will join us Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. EST for an in-depth Substack live discussion of the issues raised here. Mark your calendars now and make sure you have the Substack App downloaded so you can join us for cutting edge legal analysis on this most important of issues. Ryan has been tracking these strikes and their legal implications since they first began. After the story broke in the Washington Post, he tweeted, “Textbook war crime/extrajudicial killing.”

Earlier this month, The Guardian reported that Britain had stopped sharing intelligence on Caribbean drug running with the United States “amid concerns information supplied may be used to engage in lethal military strikes by American forces.” They specified that the cooperation was “paused shortly after the US began a campaign of lethal strikes in September,” but there was no explicit mention of the order Hegseth issued as the cause.

Friday evening at 5:42 p.m., Hegseth tweeted:

“As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.

As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’ The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.

The Biden administration preferred the kid gloves approach, allowing millions of people — including dangerous cartels and unvetted Afghans — to flood our communities with drugs and violence. The Trump administration has sealed the border and gone on offense against narco-terrorists. Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them.

Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.

Our warriors in SOUTHCOM put their lives on the line every day to protect the Homeland from narco-terrorists — and I will ALWAYS have their back.”

Hegseth did not deny that two defenseless people were killed. We still do not know what, if anything, they were guilty of. Certainly, as they clung to the wreckage of a boat in the ocean, they did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. The lawful thing to do would have been to rescue and prosecute the men. Instead, per Hegseth’s instruction, they were executed.

Hegseth doubled down a few moments later, tweeting, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.”

The Pentagon Spokesman, Seth Parnell, tweeted, “We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday. These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth. Fake News is the enemy of the people.”

But shortly after the story ran in The Post, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, issued a joint statement with the Committee’s top Democrat, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, vowing “vigorous oversight” of Hegseth’s “kill them all” order. They wrote, “The Committee has directed inquires to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to the circumstances.”

By Saturday night, there was a growing call for, if not accountability, investigation, including by both House and Senate Republicans. The Washington Post wrote, “In a rare split with the Trump administration, GOP-led panels in the House and Senate say they want a full accounting in the September military attack.” Saturday night, Democratic Senator Ed Markey tweeted, “Pete Hegseth is a war criminal and should be fired immediately.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Moment to Pick a Side Has Come

#killEverybody #caribbean #civilDiscourse #democraticCongressMembers #edMarkley #joyceVance #moment #narcoTerrorists #peteHegseth #pickASide #senateArmedServiceCommittee #senatorWicker #theWashingtonPost #unlawfulKilling

From #joycevance quoting the #comeyopinion The Supreme Court has recognized that a district court may use its supervisory power ‘to dismiss an indictment because of misconduct before the grand jury’ … The Supreme Court has also recognized that this supervisory power of federal district courts should be used ‘to implement a remedy for violation[s] of recognized rights, to preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before the jury, and finally, as a remedy designed to deter illegal conduct.’” He concluded, “Accordingly, when prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury prejudices a defendant and threatens the defendant’s right to fundamental fairness in the criminal process, a district court may exercise its supervisory authority to dismiss the indictment.

Civil Discourse – Prosecuting Comey – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, Prosecuting Comey

By Joyce Vance, Nov 13, 2025

Today, in Alexandria, Virginia, a senior federal judge from South Carolina, Cameron Currie, heard oral argument on consolidated motions filed by former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James in their separate criminal prosecutions. Both of them filed motions challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s insurance-lawyer-turned-U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s role in their prosecution. Here’s what you need to know ahead of what Judge Currie said would be a pre-Thanksgiving decision:

The motions are being heard by Judge Currie, who was appointed by the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit (where Virginia and South Carolina are both located), since it would be problematic to have a judge from the same district where a U.S. attorney has been putatively installed consider whether the appointment was proper.

It’s reassuring to know that some people still care about ethics and conflicts of interest.

Appearing for the Justice Department, attorney Henry Whitaker told the court that any questions about the appointment of Halligan involved, at worst, mere paperwork errors. Whitaker was the Florida Solicitor General until earlier this year. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas after law school and worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the first Trump administration.

Perhaps anticipating problems with the validity of Halligan’s appointment, Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to back-bless the indictments, filing that she had reviewed the grand jury proceedings. But the Judge pointed out this morning that wasn’t possible because they hadn’t been fully transcribed. And, while every attorney general would likely have loved to possess a magic wand that would permit them to fix errors after the fact, that’s not how any of this works. Prosecutors must follow the rules, which are in place to ensure that defendants’ rights are protected and justice is done. Cases are dismissed when they make procedural errors, in part to protect them and in part to deter prosecutors from making future errors. If ever an attorney general needed that sort of a reminder from the courts, it’s this one.

Politico characterized the hearing this way: “A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Thursday about whether a federal prosecutor handpicked by President Donald Trump to bring criminal cases against his political rivals was legally appointed to the role.”

We all know the history by now. Trump’s handpicked appointee to be U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, longtime, highly regarded prosecutor Erik Siebert, concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict either Comey or James. His removal and replacement with Halligan followed. Along the way, Trump stumbled, publicly posting what looked like a text message meant for Attorney General Pam Bondi:

“JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW”

Bondi, apparently persuaded, put Halligan in place, and Halligan promptly indicted Comey, just barely ahead of the expiration of the statute of limitations, following up with the indictment of James.

The allegations that her appointment is improper have to do with the technicalities of the Vacancies Reform Act, which allows a president to replace a vacant U.S. attorney with an appointee for 120 days, after which the district court appoints an acting U.S. attorney until a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed nominee is put in place. Halligan’s predecessor had already been in place for 120 days when he was removed to make way for Halligan. But the government seems to be suggesting that it can swap out different people for sequential 120-day terms under the law. The defendants’ lawyers argued that if the government can continue making these interim appointments, it could perpetually avoid the constitutional requirement that the Senate confirm U.S. attorney nominees. That would give a president an open invitation to install unqualified loyalists instead of professional prosecutors for these important positions. Under the extreme facts of this case, the defendants have asked the Judge to dismiss the prosecutions with prejudice to deter future maneuvering like this.

Read more: Civil Discourse – Prosecuting Comey – Joyce Vance

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Prosecuting Comey – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #america #books #civilDiscourse #donaldTrump #education #health #history #jamesComey #joyceVance #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #prosecutingComey #resistance #science #substack #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Civil Discourse – But his emails… – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, But His Emails…

By Joyce Vance, Nov 12, 2025

Before he was elected in 2016, Donald Trump bragged about grabbing women by the pu**y and barging into rooms of partially dressed young pageant contestants. A jury concluded he assaulted E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room. So nothing that’s in the Epstein emails is a surprise. It’s confirmation.

The emails, documents obtained from Epstein’s estate, were released today by House Democrats. Meanwhile, the swearing in of Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva of Arizona, after a record-busting 50-day wait, means that there are enough signatures for the discharge petition the House will use to direct the Justice Department to turn over the Epstein case files to them.

Among the emails Epstein wrote, there is one from back in 2011, when there would have been little incentive to fabricate details about Trump, to his now-convicted coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, stating that Trump “spent hours at my house” with one of Epstein’s victims. Although the name is redacted in emails released by Democrats, House Republicans, apparently unconcerned with protecting confidential victim information, say it was Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who committed suicide earlier this year. Giuffre had said Trump never abused her. We may never learn the truth. It’s impossible to discredit an email between Epstein and Maxwell written all those years ago with no expectation it would ever come to light. More recent comments—those by victims who might fear retaliation and those by convicted felons seeking favorable treatment—could have been made in a situation where there was an interest in shading the truth, unlike this older email. “He has never once been mentioned,” Epstein said in 2011, referring to Trump.

Given everything we know about Donald Trump, everything he himself has said about girls and women, it’s hard to envision what innocent behavior he would have been engaged in for “hours” spent with a victim of abuse at the scene of the crime—Epstein’s home, where sexual abuse was rampant.

In a 2019 email with a journalist, Epstein claimed that Trump “knew about the girls” because he “asked [G]hislaine to stop.” That could be a reference to reports that Maxwell acquired girls who worked for Trump in locker rooms and elsewhere on the premises at Mar-a-Lago for Epstein and others.

The House obtained these emails and others that Republicans released later in the day from Epstein’s estate. They are not the full FBI file that Congressional Democrats are trying to secure, with assistance from some Republicans who remember the president’s campaign promise to release the files.

Trump himself seems to have forgotten those promises. “These stories are nothing more than bad-faith efforts to distract from President Trump’s historic accomplishments, and any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from the government opening back up again,” according to Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt. Note what this isn’t. It is not a denial.

In 2002, Trump told New York Magazine: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

After Representative Grijalva was sworn in at 4:00 p.m. today, she voted on the Epstein discharge petition almost immediately. Speaker Mike Johnson, having just called the House back into session following the end of the shutdown, told reporters he would bring a resolution to release the Epstein files to a vote on the House floor next week.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: But His Emails… – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #america #civilDiscourse #donaldTrump #education #epsteinFiles #health #hisEmails #history #jeffreyEpstein #joyceVance #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #reading #resistance #substack #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Good News – A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

By Joyce Vance, Nov 01, 2025

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Good News – A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

In March, Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS.” Predictably, it was designed to do anything but that. Its goal was to make it more difficult to register to vote.

In April, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a senior judge in the District of Columbia, issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily prevented key parts of the executive order from going into effect while the litigation moved forward. The key problem Judge Kollar-Kotelly observed was that Trump was trying to usurp the power the Constitution affords to the states and Congress to run elections.

Friday, the Judge granted summary judgment in parts of the case, entering a permanent injunction that prevents the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from implementing the worst provision of Trump’s executive order: one that purported to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The measure was designed to suppress voter participation in elections; a solution in search of a problem. It’s akin to the poll taxes used in the South before the Supreme Court put an end to them. Trump’s plan would require people to jump through expensive hoops to acquire proof of birth and costly forms of identification, like passports. At least 21 million Americans don’t have that kind of proof readily available. Only 51% of Americans have passports, which cost adults applying for the first time a $165.00 fee, not to mention assembling the documents you need, getting a photograph of yourself, and making it to an appointment. The problem is especially acute for young people and students who live away from home, and whose documents are with their parents, if they have them at all.

The Judge wrote, “The Constitution’s allocation of authority over federal elections between Congress and the States may not be intuitive. But it is no accident,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Instead, this design was the product of carefully considered compromises among our Constitution’s Framers.” Those compromisers were part of the attention to avoid rule by a king-a dictator.

Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to claim he has powers the Constitution does not give to the president. And this is especially dangerous when it comes to voting, given his track record. We the people must have the right to choose their leaders, not the other way around.

Tonight, another federal district judge stood up for the rule of law and for democracy, telling a power hungry president, “No.”

If you’re looking for something you can do to support the judiciary in this moment where district court judges are bravely standing for the rule of law even though they know that means the president could target them, let them know you support them. Send the Judge and others a postcard, like we do to encourage voters to participate in elections, and thank her for standing for the Constitution and the rule of law. It may seem like a small thing, but the judiciary deserves our support and our thanks for what they are doing. Let’s be visible and involved. Let’s make sure the courts know we are paying attention.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Good News: A Court Rejects Trump’s Effort To Suppress The Vote

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #JoyceVance #Judge #JudgeColleenKollarKotelly #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #ProofOfCitizenship #RegisterToVote #Resistance #Science #Substack #SuppressVoting #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpSAttempt #UnitedStates

Jack Smith Speaks – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Jack Smith Speaks

By Joyce Vance, Oct 14, 2025

You have choices about where you get your news and analysis. I’m grateful you’ve chosen to read Civil Discourse. If you value clear, independent insight into the law and our democracy, I hope you’ll consider a paid subscription. Your support makes the newsletter possible. Thank you for being here with me.

ABC reported today that the House Judiciary Committee wants to have former special counsel Jack Smith testify—behind closed doors—about investigating the Mar-a-Lago, January 6, and Donald Trump. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the Committee, wants an interview by October 28. He is calling for Smith to turn over documents and communications too.

Why now? Last week, there was reporting (very unsurprising to anyone who has ever investigated a federal case) that Smith’s probe obtained phone records regarding a number of Republican lawmakers as part of the January 6 case investigation. Jordan wrote to Smith, “As the Committee continues its oversight, your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri complained that “The F.B.I. tapped my phone.” He said he’d been wiretapped.

Not so fast, though. Obtaining phone records means getting call information—that can mean which phone number called which other phone number, when, and possibly, how long the call lasted. It’s easy to understand why prosecutors would want that information in virtually any case they’re investigating.

Here, given reports that Trump had numerous calls leading up to and on January 6 (for instance, one with brand new Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville), it would be surprising if they hadn’t done so. The New York Times reported that “The calls were scrutinized because at the time, prosecutors were trying to identify relevant communications between the president and his inner circle with members of Congress on the key days surrounding the violence.”

Call information, which frequently produces investigative leads, is acquired routinely by investigators. But it is not the same thing as a wiretap, which lets law enforcement listen in on a target’s phone calls. To get a wiretap, prosecutors and agents have to get an order from a federal judge in compliance with the strict requirements of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. They have to establish probable cause and show that less intrusive investigative methods were tried and failed. A wiretap only lasts for 30 days, and prosecutors must go back to the judge, with fresh proof, in order to reup the wiretap for an additional 30 days.

Jordan’s allegation that this is the weaponization of the DOJ should fall on deaf ears. Jack Smith was investigating one of the most serious situations our country has ever faced—an effort to interfere with the smooth transfer of power between two American administrations, with involvement by the outgoing president who had lost the election—using routine investigative techniques. Jordan and other Republicans should be able to differentiate between that and wiretaps, since these are statutory creatures and Congress sets the requirements for when they can be used.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Jack Smith Speaks – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

#2025 #America #CivilDiscourse #DonaldTrump #Education #GOP #Health #History #JackSmith #January6AttackOnUSCapitol #JoyceVance #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #RuleOfLaw #Science #Substack #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpPoliticalEnemy #UnitedStates