You know why he's doing this? Because today is the deadline for a war to be conducted without Congressional approval. 60 days.
UPDATE 05/03/2026:
You know why he's doing this? Because today is the deadline for a war to be conducted without Congressional approval. 60 days.
This position used to belong to people who were considered lawyers for the country. Now they're lawyers for Trump.
There was a lot of bellyaching about Trump not going to Congress to seek authorization to attack Iran. But they would have given it to him. He knows they're no obstacle. He'll do whatever he wants. They'll bellyache, and that's music to his ears. They won't rein him in.
They don't listen to Nancy any more.
Primary challenges better be coming.
And Paul has been complaining about ICE tactics publicly. What was his problem?
The day after a federal agent shot Minneapolis mother-of-three Renee Nicole Good to death, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem quietly reinstated a policy that a federal judge blocked last month.
Congress members vowed to fight back.
On Dec. 17, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb found in favor of a dozen House Democrats who sued Noem and the agency she leads over a policy requiring seven days of advanced notice before visiting any immigration detention facility.
Noem signed a memo reinstating a virtually identical policy on Thursday, claiming to assert a different legal rationale.
[...]
Last month, Judge Cobb found that Noem’s advance notice requirement violated the explicit terms of an appropriations bill, Section 527, forbidding the agency from doing anything “to prevent” a “Member of Congress” or that Member’s designated staff “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”
Noem planned to end-run that ruling by claiming that she would use only the funds allocated from Donald Trump’s mammoth spending bill, taunting lawmakers who visited ICE facilities in the wake of Good’s death.
All Rise News
Remember: the Epstein Files Transparency Act called for the release of all of the Department of Justice documents on Epstein by Dec. 19 and also ordered the Trump DOJ to explain which documents had been redacted or withheld within 15 days, which was of course… Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026.
The very day Trump attacked Venezuela.
Remember also: the law says that the DOJ’s Epstein files cannot be withheld, delayed, or redacted “on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”
Over to you, Pam Bondi.
Zeteo
Interesting choice of words.A total of 16 photos were taken down at some point on Saturday from the website that the department created to house files — among them, one of the few that contained Mr. Trump’s image. It was a photo of a credenza in Mr. Epstein’s Manhattan home, with an open drawer containing other photos, including at least one of Mr. Trump.
The Justice Department did not explain on the site why the images had been removed, and a department spokesman did not respond to a message seeking comment.
[...]
Despite mounting expectations, the released files, which included thousands of photographs and investigative documents, were something of an anticlimax.
NYT
They added little to the public’s understanding of Mr. Epstein’s conduct, and also did not provide much additional insight into his connections to wealthy and powerful businessmen and politicians who associated with him.
As it become progressively clear that the majority don't want Trump's insane policies and programs, Trump and Republicans will aim for more and worse obstacles to voting.
It worked in New Jersey. The law now is simply whatever MAGA and their goons declare it to be.
UPDATE 01:41 pm:
The letters, which became public on Thursday via Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, portrayed Mr. Trump as having nullified the legal effects of a statute that Congress passed by large bipartisan majorities in 2024 and that the Supreme Court unanimously upheld.
[...]
“There are other things that are more important than TikTok in today’s world, but for pure refusal to enforce the law as Article II requires, it’s just breathtaking,” said Alan Z. Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor who has written about the nonenforcement of the TikTok ban, referring to the part of the Constitution that says presidents must take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
The executive branch has the power, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, to choose not to enforce laws in particular instances or to set priorities about what categories of lawbreaking they will prioritize when resources are limited.
[...]
In her letters, Ms. Bondi went far beyond that. Because of Mr. Trump’s order, she said, tech firms that acted contrary to the statute were breaking no law, even in theory, and the department was “irrevocably relinquishing” any legal claims against them — including under future administrations.
[...]
“Recent past presidents have been aggressive in exercising law enforcement discretion, but they haven’t suspended the operation of a law entirely or immunized its violation prospectively.”
[...]
Last year, Congress enacted a law that banned the app in the United States unless its Chinese-owned parent company, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese firm. Supporters of the law cited concerns that the Chinese government could amass sensitive user data about Americans or use the TikTok algorithm to manipulate public opinion.
The law says that companies that violate it can face civil fines up to $5,000 per user. A third of Americans say they have used TikTok, according to the Pew Research Center.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law in January, and TikTok briefly disappeared from app stores for American users of Apple iPhones or smartphones using the Android operating system, which is run by Google.
[...]
Shortly after being sworn in, Mr. Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to suspend enforcement of the TikTok ban and has since repeatedly extended it.
NYT
UPDATE 07/05/2025: