#constitutional
13 entries with this tag
Trump's Own Justice Department Issued a Memo Declaring He Can Hide His Conversations With Private, Outside Advisers — Billionaires, Fixers, Private Lawyers, Even State Officials — Under "Executive Privilege," Stretching a Doctrine the Supreme Court Already Ruled Isn't Absolute, to Wall Off His Shadow Advisers From Congress Right Before the Midterms
On August 11, 2026, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel published a 21-page opinion, signed by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, declaring that executive privilege can shield the president's communications with "private advisers" — a category the memo defines to include essentially anyone Trump consults outside the executive branch, "whether they be members of the public, state officials, or employees of other branches of the federal government." It is the first time the Justice Department has explicitly extended executive privilege beyond the president and his immediate White House staff to private citizens. Historically the privilege reached only official advisers, and the Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon (1974) that it is not absolute and yields in criminal cases. The immediate beneficiary is Boris Epshteyn — the outside Trump adviser and "fixer" whom the American Bar Association subpoenaed, and who coordinated the campaign of pressure that produced nearly $1 billion in pledged free legal work from law firms, and who helped steer the lawyers in Trump's sham IRS-immunity litigation. The memo would let all of that stay hidden. OLC opinions are not binding on courts, but they govern how the executive branch behaves, and this one is transparently timed: issued months before the midterms, it is pre-emptive armor to defeat the wave of congressional investigations the White House expects if Democrats retake the House. It converts a narrow, court-limited doctrine into a blanket secrecy cloak for government-by-crony — a way to keep the public from ever learning which unelected billionaires and operatives are shaping official decisions, and what they said.
The Check Broke: Todd Blanche — Trump's Personal Criminal-Defense Lawyer, Referred for Bar Discipline Over a Sham IRS Deal, Who Defied a Court Order to Bury the Epstein Files and Says Trump Has a "Right" to Order Prosecutions of His Enemies — Was Confirmed as Attorney General 50-49, With Bill Cassidy Casting the Decisive Vote
In the early hours of Saturday, August 8, 2026, the Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general of the United States by a vote of 50-49 — the narrowest possible margin. Blanche is Trump's former personal criminal-defense lawyer. He was referred by a federal judge for bar discipline over the collusive IRS "settlement" that laundered Trump tax immunity and tried to create a $1.8 billion fund for the January 6 rioters. His Justice Department defied a court order and the transparency law Trump signed to keep the Epstein files sealed. And in his first press conference as acting AG he asserted that the president has a "right" and "duty" to order the department to investigate his enemies — a doctrine the DOJ is now executing against Comey, Letitia James, and others. Two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted no, joining every Democrat; Murkowski said the country needs an attorney general "who will check the worst impulses of this administration." It was not enough. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana — who voted to convict Trump in the 2021 impeachment and had been the last uncertain Republican — announced Friday he would back Blanche, becoming the decisive vote. With Sen. Mitch McConnell absent (recovering after a June fall), Cassidy's support made it 50-49, sparing even a Vance tiebreak. The nomination was in genuine peril for weeks; in the end it held by one vote. The man most of the corruption catalogued in this archive runs through is now, with the full permanent authority of the office and no "acting" qualifier, the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States.
Todd Blanche Killed His $1.8 Billion Rioter Fund to Buy Off Two Republican Holdouts and Squeaked Out of Committee 12-10 — Then a Second Republican, Lisa Murkowski, Came Out Against Him Anyway, Saying "The Country Needs an Attorney General Who Will Check the Worst Impulses of This Administration," Leaving Trump's Personal Lawyer's Path to Run the DOJ Hanging by a Single Vote
On August 7, 2026, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced she will vote against Todd Blanche — Trump's former personal criminal-defense lawyer and acting attorney general — for the permanent job. She becomes the second Republican "no," joining Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and her reasons cut to the heart of it: "The country needs an Attorney General who will check the worst impulses of this administration." Murkowski cited the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, the sweeping tax-audit immunity deal engineered for Trump, and the proposed $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund to compensate the president's allies. What makes the defection sting is that Blanche had already paid the ransom to survive: to win over earlier holdouts John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, he formally rescinded the $1.8 billion fund and clarified the scope of Trump's IRS immunity deal, then scraped out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line 12-10 vote. Killing the fund got him out of committee; it did not make him confirmable. With Republicans holding a 53-47 majority and Mitch McConnell absent for medical reasons, Blanche can afford to lose only two GOP votes — and Collins and Murkowski are those two. His confirmation now rests entirely on Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), an outgoing senator who has bucked Trump before. Trump's hand-picked loyalist to run the Justice Department is one Republican vote from failing.
Trump Campaigned on Ending the "Weaponization" of the Justice Department — Then Turned It Into an Instrument for Prosecuting His Enemies: His Acting AG Says Trump Has a "Right" and "Duty" to Order Investigations, a Trump-Loyalist "Grand Conspiracy" Grand Jury in Florida Is Hunting His Foes, and 100+ Career Prosecutors Have Quit
A Democratic member of Congress, appearing on NBC's "Hallie Jackson NOW" on July 31, 2026, said Trump is "hellbent" on controlling the Justice Department and is "personally directing" the cases the department is bringing against his political opponents. The charge is not speculation; it is the documented operating principle of the DOJ under acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. In his first press conference as acting AG, Blanche said Trump has both a "right" and a "duty" to order the department to investigate his enemies — and when asked how he would square that with Trump's own executive order claiming to end the "weaponization" of government, he said he would not. Under Blanche, the DOJ has: re-indicted former FBI Director James Comey (after Trump publicly forced out the prosecutor who found insufficient evidence, installed his own former personal lawyer, and got an indictment within days — later dismissed, then refiled over a social-media post of seashells spelling "86 47"); pursued New York Attorney General Letitia James, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, former CIA Director John Brennan, members of Congress, and a probe into California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife; and stood up a "grand conspiracy" grand jury in the Trump-friendly Southern District of Florida — led by 2020-election-denier Joe diGenova — to hunt Obama- and Biden-era officials as an anti-Trump cabal. More than 100 career prosecutors have resigned, many citing political interference. A Marquette poll found 55% of Americans believe the DOJ has filed unjustified cases against Trump's opponents. The thing Trump said he would stop, he built.
After 23 States and Two Federal Courts Blocked It as Unconstitutional, Trump Asked the Supreme Court to Let His Mail-Voting Order Take Effect Before the Midterms — an Order That Would Bar the Postal Service From Mailing Ballots to Anyone Not on State-Submitted Lists, Put DHS in Charge of Screening Voter Rolls, and Prioritize Prosecuting Election Officials
On July 27, 2026, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court — via an emergency "shadow docket" application filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer — to lift lower-court blocks and let a sweeping executive order restricting mail voting take effect in time for the November midterms. The March executive order would: require states to submit lists of eligible mail voters to the U.S. Postal Service, which would be barred from sending a ballot to anyone not on those lists; give the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security new roles screening state voter rolls for supposed noncitizens; mandate individualized barcodes on ballot envelopes; and "prioritize" federal prosecution of state election officials who send ballots to ineligible voters. Twenty-three Democratic-led states sued, noting the Constitution leaves the running of elections to the states, not the White House. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked it as a separation-of-powers violation, and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that block over the weekend, finding the order would "sow confusion" and "threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters." Sauer argued the injunction was "extraordinary" and that the order "merely sets forth general policy guidance." Voting-rights groups called it "plainly unconstitutional... yet another attempt by the president to unlawfully take control of elections from the states, deter eligible voters from casting ballots, and sow chaos as the November midterms approach." It is the same campaign documented here through the FEMA counterterrorism-funding blackmail, the purge of the Election Assistance Commission, and the primetime "China stole 220 million voter files" speech — now escalated to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to green-light federal control over an election the president has spent months insisting will be stolen.
For the Second Time, the House Formally Voted to Order Trump to End His War in Iran — 214-208, With Four Republicans Crossing the Aisle — Because Congress Never Authorized the War, Troops Are Dying in It, and He Ignored the Last Resolution Telling Him to Stop
On July 23, 2026, the House of Representatives passed a war powers resolution, 214-208, directing President Trump to "remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran." It was sponsored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and four Republicans — Thomas Massie (KY), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Warren Davidson (OH), and Tom Barrett (MI) — crossed the aisle to support it. It was the House's fifth vote on a measure to rein in Trump's Iran military actions, and only the second time it has successfully adopted one. The vote came days after four U.S. service members were killed in the Middle East and weeks after the ceasefire and memorandum of understanding Trump paraded as a triumph collapsed — he declared the MOU "over" and, on July 10, formally notified Congress that fighting had resumed. Congress never authorized this war; there is no AUMF for Iran, and under the Constitution the power to take the country to war belongs to the legislature. Jayapal called it "a big victory for the vast majority of the American people who want President Trump to end this illegal war," saying the House was "reasserting our authority over war." The Senate was set to vote the same day on a companion resolution from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). But the resolution is a concurrent measure that does not go to the president for signature and cannot, by itself, force him to withdraw — the same kind Congress passed in June, which Trump simply ignored as he restarted the war. The vote is a genuine bipartisan rebuke and a real constitutional assertion. It is also a portrait of a broken check: the branch the Constitution entrusts with the power of war telling the president to stop, twice, while he wages on.
Trump Fired Every Remaining Member of the Bipartisan Election Assistance Commission — Gutting the Agency That Certifies Voting Machines Four Months Before the Midterms — Then Gave a Primetime Address Claiming China Stole "220 Million Voter Files," a Claim His Own Government's Intelligence Flatly Contradicts
On July 16, 2026, Trump delivered a 25-minute primetime address from the White House East Room claiming he was "declassifying intelligence" that revealed "shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure" — including the assertion that "The People's Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China's illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files." His own government's intelligence contradicts him: a federal report from March 2021 concluded "We have no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections." FactCheck.org and others found the documents the White House posted did not support the sweeping claims. The speech came exactly one week after Trump fired the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission — Democrats Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland (dismissed by email) and Republican Christy McCormick (asked to resign by phone) — leaving the bipartisan federal agency that certifies voting-machine standards and helps states run elections without a quorum, unable to act, and unlikely to regain one before the November midterms. The White House cited a recent 6-3 Supreme Court decision on the president's power to fire independent-agency members as its justification. Trump also repeated debunked 2020 conspiracy theories and baselessly claimed fraud cost a Republican the Los Angeles mayoral primary. A Reuters analysis found his noncitizen-voting claims unsupported — just 129 prosecutions under the relevant law since 1996, most involving confusion or paperwork errors, not organized fraud. It all lands atop the administration's broader campaign to seize control of election administration: the FEMA counterterrorism-funding blackmail, the SAVE voter-roll purges, and DOJ criminal threats to state officials.
The DOJ Sent Federal Agents to the Homes of Four New York Times Reporters With Grand-Jury Subpoenas — for Reporting That Trump's Qatari Air Force One Lacks Missile Defenses and That the Secret Service Told Him Not to Fly It — and the Prosecutor Who Issued Them Is Trump's Nominee to Run National Intelligence
The Justice Department subpoenaed four New York Times journalists — Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager, and Eric Schmitt — ordering them before a Manhattan federal grand jury "in regard to an alleged violation of criminal law." Federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters' homes. Their offense: reporting that the Secret Service urged Trump to leave the NATO summit in Turkey aboard the old Air Force One rather than the Qatari-gifted Boeing 747, and that the gifted jet lacks "defensive countermeasures that were security features of the old model, including its advanced antimissile capabilities." The subpoenas were issued by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan — who is himself Trump's nominee to become Director of National Intelligence, with a confirmation hearing days away — and followed a White House meeting involving FBI Director Kash Patel. The Times said it will fight the order. Its newsroom lawyer David McCraw said federal agents on reporters' doorsteps "should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects." The National Press Club called it "an extraordinary assault on the freedom of the press that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment." The DOJ claimed "reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are." The move fits a pattern: the department earlier issued then withdrew similar subpoenas against Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters, the FBI searched a Post reporter's home in January, and in April 2025 AG Pam Bondi rescinded the Biden-era policy that shielded journalists' records in leak investigations. The reporting being criminalized is the same reporting documented here days ago — that the $400M+ rushed retrofit produced a plane one analyst said was suited to "domestic hops rather than hostile skies."
FEMA Will Withhold 20% of a $1 Billion Anti-Terrorism Grant Program — Money for Cybersecurity and Protecting Crowded Public Spaces — Unless States Rewrite Their Elections to Trump's Demands Before the Midterms, a Power the Constitution Gives Him Zero Authority Over
The Trump administration is holding counterterrorism money hostage to force states to change how they run elections before the November 2026 midterms. FEMA's fiscal-year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program notice says the agency will withhold 20% of each state's total award — from a $1.064 billion program that funds cybersecurity, emergency planning, training, equipment, and protection of crowded public spaces — until the state proves it has complied with new "Election Security" requirements. Those requirements: submit a plan to abandon electronic voting systems that use bar codes/QR codes and move to hand-marked paper ballots (eliminating ballot-marking devices); conduct 5% manual post-election audits; reconcile voters against ballots cast; run the entire voter roll through the DHS "SAVE" citizenship database within 120 days; and verify the citizenship of every poll worker and vendor. In FY2025 the election-related hold was just 3% for three modest actions; FY2026 escalates it to 20% and a far larger list. The 3% election-security set-aside and the 20% holdback are explicitly separate — meeting one does not release the other. The grants flow largely to populous urban states: New York alone expects about $204 million in FY2026. Switching to hand-marked paper ballots would cost states hundreds of millions — Georgia's Republican secretary of state estimated $66 million for his state alone. The Constitution gives the president no authority over election administration; a federal judge recently wrote exactly that while blocking parts of Trump's anti-voting executive order, and another judge blocked DHS from using SAVE to purge voters, finding the administration "knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens." The DOJ has separately sued 30 states for refusing to hand over voter lists and warned election officials in all 50 states they could face criminal charges. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul: the administration is "once again putting New Yorkers' lives at risk to forward their political agenda." Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows: "Trump is trying to meddle in how states run American elections because he's terrified of losing power after the 2026 midterms."
On the Same Day Trump Held a Housing Bill Hostage for a Voter-ID Law, a Judge Permanently Struck Down His Voter-ID Executive Order — Ruling He Has No Power Over Elections At All
On June 24, 2026 — the same day Trump canceled the signing of a bipartisan housing bill to pressure Congress into passing his SAVE America Act voter-ID law — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently struck down most of his elections executive order, including its requirement that Americans show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. In a 59-page ruling converting her year-old preliminary injunction into a permanent one, Casper held that the Constitution "does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," that authority belongs to the states and Congress, and that the order violated separation of powers. She also found the Justice Department "failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud" used to justify the order, and that the policy "would have disenfranchised thousands." The case was brought by 19 states. It is the latest in a string of defeats: three separate federal judges have now blocked the 2025 order. The ruling lays bare the futility loop Trump is in — courts say he can't do it by executive order, so he's trying to do it by legislation (the SAVE Act), which can't get 60 votes in the Senate, which is why he's now holding popular bills hostage to force it through. Noncitizen voting is already a felony and is vanishingly rare; the federal registration form already requires attesting to citizenship under penalty of prison or deportation.
For the First Time in History, Both Chambers of Congress Passed a War Powers Resolution to Stop a President's War — Trump's Own Party Helped Do It
On June 23, 2026, the Senate voted 50-48 to direct President Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran — the first time in the 53-year history of the War Powers Act that a resolution to halt a president's war has passed both chambers of Congress. The House had passed the same concurrent resolution on June 3 by 215-208. Because it is a concurrent resolution, it does not require Trump's signature. Four Republican senators — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Bill Cassidy, and Rand Paul — broke ranks to join the Democrats; the measure cleared the chamber partly because Mitch McConnell and Dave McCormick, who had blocked earlier attempts, did not vote. It was the tenth time the Senate had tried to stop the war. Sen. Tim Kaine, who led the effort, said: "The most solemn power for Congress is Congress has the power to declare war, not the president." Kaine pressed the vote even with talks underway in Switzerland and pointed to the administration's request for $80 billion in emergency spending to rebuild munitions depleted since the war began on Feb. 28. Trump called the House version "a meaningless vote" and branded the Republicans who crossed him "GRANDSTANDERS." The rebuke is historic precisely because it required Congress to formally tell a president to stop a war that his own intelligence community said was never necessary.
Trump Plots to "Expunge" Both Impeachments from the Record — Constitutional Scholars: "You Cannot Un-Ring a Bell"
The Wall Street Journal reports Trump and allies are pushing a House resolution to expunge both impeachments — for abusing power to pressure Ukraine and for inciting the January 6 insurrection. Trump: "It should be done because I did nothing wrong. It was a rigged deal." Speaker Johnson: "I think it makes a lot of sense." Constitutional scholars say the Constitution contains no mechanism to undo an impeachment. Georgetown's Jonathan Turley: "It is not like a constitutional DUI. Once you are impeached, you are impeached." Hofstra's James Sample: "You cannot un-ring a bell." Rep. Darrell Issa introduced a resolution in April; Rep. Anna Paulina Luna announced another. GOP lawmakers privately say it won't be considered until after the midterms — because rehashing Trump's conduct would hurt them. Schiff: "There is no expunging the stain." Raskin: "There is a very easy way to not get impeached: stop committing impeachable offenses."
House GOP Cancels Iran War Vote Because They Were Going to Lose It — Then Sends Congress Home for Memorial Day
House Republicans pulled the Iran war powers vote after it became clear they didn't have the votes to defeat it — Democrats had unified with enough GOP defectors to pass it. Instead of allowing a vote on a three-month-old undeclared war, Speaker Johnson sent Congress home for Memorial Day. Combat veteran Rep. Pat Ryan erupted on the Capitol steps: "These chicken hawk motherfuckers" won't give "an up or down vote on continuing this war while Americans are paying $5 a gallon."