DOJ Claim That Trump Could ‘Bulldoze’ Statue of Liberty Fits a Pattern


President Donald Trump drives an earth mover with the Statue of Liberty in its claw. | Illustration: Adani Samat/Midjourney

One shouldn’t get into the habit of feeling sorry for high-ranking federal employees, who wield power over our lives and get a salary of our tax money for their trouble. Still, serving as a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer arguing on behalf of the government seems like an unenviable gig, as accomplished attorneys are reduced to backfilling legal defenses of their bosses’ harebrained schemes.

When President Joe Biden decided to wipe out broad swathes of student loan debt, the DOJ argued that he could do so without Congress’ approval using a law explicitly tailored to soldiers in active duty. The HEROES Act allowed the government to waive student loan repayment during “a war or other military operation or national emergency”; Biden’s DOJ argued that the then-ongoing COVID-19 national emergency qualified to forgive billions of dollars in student loans for millions of borrowers. (By a 6–3 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court was unconvinced.)

But nowadays that example seems almost quaint. President Donald Trump’s administration now rather routinely subjects its DOJ attorneys to the indignity of making facially indefensible claims about the president’s power, simply because the executive demands it.

Last year, Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House with plans to build a gigantic ballroom in its place. His cited legal authority was a decades-old statute pertaining to general facility upkeep and maintenance.

In March, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon granted a motion enjoining construction on the ballroom. Congress did not authorize the project, Leon wrote, and “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

Last week, DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn Leon’s order and allow construction to continue.

Not only did Leon err in his decision, Roth argued, but courts have no authority to stop the project once it’s begun—after all, the East Wing is already demolished, and construction on the ballroom is “well on its way.” (On the other hand, when asked at what point the courts lost the ability to intervene, Roth said it would have been improper “even on day one.”)

But when questioned, Roth went even further. “If the government decides, very quickly, to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty,” asked Judge Patricia Millett, “[if] the government moved too fast…nothing can be done?”

“I think that’s right, yes,” Roth replied, which, according to ABC News, “sparked audible gasps in the courtroom.”

Roth’s position is not just laughable; it’s offensive to the constitutional vestment of powers within three coequal branches of government.

But then again, what choice does he have? Trump claims he can demolish federal property and rebuild new ones in their place to his specifications, with no oversight or authorization. At that point, why would any federal structure be off-limits?

In fact, Roth’s admission fits a pattern in which Trump’s DOJ attorneys make increasingly maximalist arguments about presidential power in order to match their boss’s policy goals.

Early in his second term, Trump imposed double-digit tariffs on nearly every nation on the planet. Like all taxes, the power to enact tariffs lies with Congress, not the president, but Trump argued that persistent trade deficits constituted an “emergency” that allowed him to act unilaterally.

As with Biden’s student loan gambit, the Supreme Court was unimpressed with this line of logic. But during oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch posed a hypothetical to Solicitor General D. John Sauer: If the president can impose any tariffs he deems fit to address an emergency of his own designation, could a future president then impose tariffs on gasoline-powered cars “to deal with the ‘unusual and extraordinary’ threat…of climate change?”

“It’s very likely that could be done,” Sauer replied.

Sauer was also on hand when Trump deployed National Guard troops to Chicago. A federal judge enjoined Trump’s order, and the administration appealed.

“The President’s determination to call up the National Guard,” Sauer wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court, “is not judicially reviewable at all; at minimum, it is entitled to extremely deferential review, under which it should be upheld.”

The government made a similar argument after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to bypass immigration procedures and deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a prison in El Salvador. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit pressed the administration to explain how the deportees met the statutory definition of alien enemies.

“The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the [Alien Enemies Act] have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign replied. Instead, “it’s subject to extremely deferential review.”

Just last month, DOJ attorney Abhishek Kambli appeared before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms that represented or employed Democrats, which included revoking their attorneys’ security clearances. In response to the judges’ questions, Kambli argued that a future Democratic president could punish Republican firms in exactly the same way.

Would it be legal, asked Judge Cornelia Pillard, “if an incoming president—let’s say, a Democrat—says, ‘I think that any lawyer who represents a Republican, by virtue of that representation…is a threat to national security?'”

Yes, Kambli responded, that would be allowed, and the courts would have no recourse. Kambli even concurred with Pillard’s hypothetical that the president could deny security clearances to “law firms that represent Catholics,” “African-Americans,” or “Asian-Americans.”

It’s no surprise Trump believes his authority is unchecked—”I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,” he told The New York Times in 2017. But in court, DOJ attorneys are echoing his position, arguing that presidents enjoy unlimited, unreviewable power.

We should all hope that argument never wins out—no matter what president is in office at the time.

The post DOJ Claim That Trump Could 'Bulldoze' Statue of Liberty Fits a Pattern appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/9Fs7Vm8
via IFTTT

Voter Fraud: Los Angeles County Woman Pleads Guilty To Paying People In Skid Row To Vote

Voter Fraud: Los Angeles County Woman Pleads Guilty To Paying People In Skid Row To Vote

via The Epoch Times,

LOS ANGELES – A woman who worked as a longtime signature collector for ballot initiatives pleaded guilty on June 8 to paying homeless people in Los Angeles’ Skid Row and elsewhere $2 or $3 to register to vote.

An “I Voted” sign points to a Vote Center in Los Angeles on June 1, 2026. Mario Tama/Getty Images

Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, of Marina del Rey, also known as “Anika,” entered a plea to one count of paying another person to register to vote, a federal charge that carries a penalty of up to five years behind bars.

Sentencing was scheduled for Aug. 31.

According to her plea agreement, for nearly 20 years, Armstrong periodically worked as a “petition circulator.” In that role, she was paid by coordinators to collect voter signatures on official petitions that qualify initiatives, referendums and recalls for California state ballots. Prosecutors said Armstrong drove around the Los Angeles area to find registered voters to sign the petitions.

After gathering enough signatures, Armstrong returned the petitions to her coordinators, who then paid her a set amount for each registered voter’s signature. The amount she was paid varied depending on the specific ballot initiative. Because her coordinators only paid for signatures attributable to registered voters, Armstrong endeavored to ensure the people who signed her petitions were registered voters, court papers show.

Armstrong admitted soliciting signatures in Skid Row, a convenient place for the defendant to collect signatures because of its high concentration of people in a relatively small area who were willing to sign petitions in exchange for cash.

Armstrong regularly paid amounts between $2 and $3 to induce people to sign her petitions, officials said.

Prosecutors said some homeless people did not have an address to put on the forms, so on occasion, Armstrong provided her own former address in Los Angeles to write on the registration form. Such registration forms simultaneously registered an individual to vote in California elections and in federal elections.

This is not an allegation, this is not a theory, this is an example of admitted voter fraud,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said when Armstrong was charged. “We’re going to aggressively prosecute voter fraud.”

A video shot by conservative media figure James O’Keefe and reposted by an account called “Real America’s Voice” showed a woman handing cash to a homeless person. In a post on social media, O’Keefe said his video led to Armstrong being charged.

Essayli said on June 5 that his office has “multiple” probes underway into alleged voting fraud. While declining to provide any specifics, he pointed to the Armstrong case as an example of the sort of thing he is investigating.

“Yes, there is evidence of election fraud in California,” he said.

The comments came one day after President Donald Trump publicly accused Democrats of engaging in election fraud in California, pointing to the legally established mail-in voting process.

Essayli also said his office is working with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon in an effort to audit the state’s voter rolls.

Essayli said previously that Armstrong’s arrest coincided with arguments in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal of the dismissal of a lawsuit over voter registration records.

The DOJ sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber last year, demanding the state hand over the unredacted voter file, which includes registered voters’ full names, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

The DOJ claimed it had the right to access the data under powers granted by the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act.

In January, a Santa Ana federal judge dismissed the case after finding that the DOJ’s request for the information violates federal privacy laws. The defense also argued that the Trump administration wants to use the data to help enforce its immigration policy.

Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/09/2026 – 11:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/437Mn2c Tyler Durden

Gold & Silver: From Pullback To Perfect Setup

Gold & Silver: From Pullback To Perfect Setup

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via VonGreyerz.gold,

With gold and silver having fallen by greater than 20% from their January highs of 2026, some have argued the gold trade is over. In fact, and as explained below, it is only just beginning.

Trading vs. Investing

Such misunderstandings are nothing new, as the difference between precious metal trading and precious metal investing is nothing new.

Nor is there anything new about top-down misinformation and misdirection given to Main Street when it comes to understanding gold and silver.

Traders, both skilled and unskilled, tend to track near-term signals for immediate rates of return (long or short) while longer-term investors typically watch history, debt cycles and currency debasement with patient detachment and a steady eye toward wealth preservation.

Such patience has served the longer-term, wealth-preservation-focused investors with greater returns (and calm) through periods of headline flux and geopolitical gyrations.

Since 2000, gold has outperformed the S&P, and when compared against the major global paper currencies (down 94% since 2000), gold (up 1580% since 2000) has demonstrably outperformed fiat “money.”

Longer-term investors see this larger picture and trend.

They don’t book losses in pullbacks because they understand the greater direction of the precious metal ball in a debt-saturated and hence currency-debasement playing field.

Comfort in Historical Fundamentals

In short, the fundamentals of history, economics and hence currency debasement confirm a clear pattern by desperately broke(n) nations to inflate their way out of debt at the expense of their currencies.

This makes the longer, anti-fiat direction for gold and silver almost too obvious, even in times of inevitable price retracements in the metals.

Historical cycles and longer-term calm, however, are easily forgotten or ignored in times of crisis. Investors somehow think “this time is different,” or, even worse, they don’t think about history at all.

Patterns: From Crisis to Gold Highs

But for those looking for signals, as well as sanity confirmation, it’s worth remembering that in every prior geopolitical and/or oil crisis (the OPEC embargo of 73, the Iranian Revolution of 79, the Gulf War of 91, the 9-11 disaster of 2001 or, more recently, the Ukraine/Russia crisis of 2022) there are clear patterns eerily similar to the current crisis surrounding the Iranian “conflict.”

Specifically, we are living within a template by which a geopolitical crisis sends the oil price up, which is followed by a rise in “inflation expectations,” which in turn means central banks like the Fed can’t cut rates, and soon thereafter the market, rather than central bankers, sets the rates.

This explains why yields on the US 10Y Treasury Bond (the true cost of Uncle Sam’s hideous bar tab) have risen by 75 basis points despite no active rate hikes by a Fed which couldn’t afford rate hikes even if they wanted them.

In this same template, as yields rise, investors typically follow the street’s traditional (yet now grossly mistaken) view that a yielding bond (from a broke issuer) is still better than a yield-less bar of gold.

What typically follows is a herd-like move to bonds whose “positive” nominal yields are measured in increasingly debased currencies and negative real returns when measured against actual rather than mis-reported inflation.

The ironies do abound…

But what fifty years of crisis patterns have also told us—at least for those paying attention—is that gold tends to drop early in every crisis only to then recover at newer all-time-highs as the crisis plays out.

During the 1973 OPEC embargo, for example, gold would dip and then participate in an historical, 4-digit upside in the seven years that followed.

After a temporary retracement during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, gold rose by 90% in one year, and saw double-digit upside within weeks of the 1991 Gulf War.

We saw similar dip-to-high surges in gold following the 9-11 tragedy. And as for the 2022 fiasco in Ukraine, gold broke 2000 not long after the crisis grew from threat to now ongoing reality.

Patterns in Moving Averages

But for those who still feel that history is no guide to future rhyming patterns, let us give equal respect to some of the key technical signals for the metals.

In fact, these signals—most notably from the 200-day moving averages in gold and silver—are themselves just historical signals of a different flavor.

More importantly, they are indicators which signal a rare opportunity in a time of crisis.

Looking at both gold and silver, for example, each metal has fallen below its 200-day moving average.

This is a powerfully bullish rather than bearish signpost.

Silver Signals

The last time silver fell below this average was in April of 2025, just before the metal, then trading at $27, ripped north at historical multiples and new highs.

Prior to 2025, we saw similar bullish signals beneath silver’s 200-day line in 2020 (when silver was at $11) and in 2022 (when silver was at $17).

Gold Signals

Equally bullish technical signals are ringing from gold’s recent dip beneath its 200-day moving average.

The last times we saw gold below this line it was trading in the $1500-$1600 range (2022) or the $1800 range (autumn of 2023). Thereafter, gold went 100% north 12 months out.

From Pullback to Historical Set-Up

Taken together, these fundamental as well as technical signals combine within a current as well as historical context which makes the current pullback in the metals a near perfect set-up rather than break-up for gold and silver.

In fact, current conditions for the precious metals in 2026 are even more favorable than the prior patterns of the 1970’s discussed above.

In 1973, for example, U.S. public debt was in the $500B, not $39T, range. Today, interest expense alone on American IOUs is twice the size of total US public debt in 1973.

Think about that for a second. At debt this high and unsustainable, the debasement trade is no longer a meme; it’s a fat pitch.

The Structural Bid Few Understand

In the 1970’s, moreover, central banks around the world were selling gold. As of this writing, and despite recent forced gold sales out of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, central banks (from Poland to Asia) are net-buyers of gold.

In fact, since the USA weaponized the world reserve currency in 2022, central bank gold purchasing has increased by 5X.

These signals from the world’s central banks are screaming signposts of a structural bid in the metals which most retail investors (who were spooked out of the trade at lows after buying at tops) are tragically missing.

Even the commercial banks have understood the patterns for gold after an oil crisis, and their price targets for the metal remain nearly twice current price levels.

Thus, whether drawing from historical patterns or from moving-day-average signals, the question going forward is simple: Do you trust King Dollar or a “pet rock”? Crowns of gold or crowns of paper?

Time will tell, and time is clearly on the side of precious metals.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/09/2026 – 10:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/anCS6Km Tyler Durden

Trump’s Economic Shield Cracks As Gas Prices And Iran Standoff Threaten Midterm Fortunes

Trump’s Economic Shield Cracks As Gas Prices And Iran Standoff Threaten Midterm Fortunes

As we continue to ‘enjoy’ expensive gas across the country thanks to a broken campaign promise not to start new wars, President Donald Trump enters the 2026 midterm campaign with an unfamiliar vulnerability: voters are feeling the pain.

High gasoline prices, fueled by the prolonged U.S. military confrontation with Iran and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, have turned inflation into a daily political problem for the White House. Trump’s approval ratings have fallen near the lowest point of either of his presidential terms, with especially sharp declines in approval over the economy – long one of his strongest political defensesPublic frustration over affordability, a concern that helped return him to the White House, has not eased.

Trump Gets Lowest Approval on Economy. RealClearPolitics average on Trump approval, by issue.

Source: RealClearPolitics

The White House, meanwhile, is touting tax refunds delivered under last year’s legislation, and the administration’s promise of abundant domestic energy. But those messages have been overshadowed by the reality on Main St. 

I think the president was being truthful when he said he really didn’t care about the midterms,” said Mick Mulvaney, former acting White House chief of staff. “But House and Senate Republicans do care. And if gas is still north of $4 by Labor Day, everybody in town knows that means trouble for the incumbent party. Big trouble.

Even if the Iran war ended tomorrow, some economists think that the damage already done to oil infrastructure – and the risks of renewed fighting, will keep upward pressure on prices. 

“We think that the drag on the economy due to the war will weigh heavily on household consumption among middle-class, working-class and the working poor ahead of the November congressional election,” said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM US.

Iran War to Hit US Prices, Jobs Seen Holding Steady. Economists trim growth outlook, see higher inflation.

Source: Bloomberg economist surveys. Note: Inflation = PCE price index.

Consumer sentiment has weakened across party lines, including among Republicans and independents. Inflation reached 3.8% in April, while grocery prices posted their largest increase in nearly four years. Inflation-adjusted hourly earnings declined for the first time in three years, and the personal savings rate fell to a multi-year low.

As we noted on Monday, Median inflation uncertainty, or the uncertainty expressed regarding future inflation outcomes, increased at the one-year and three-year-ahead horizons and decreased at the five-year-ahead horizon. 

What’s Going Well

Unemployment is still low by historical standards, with employers adding 172,000 jobs in May, capping the strongest three-month hiring stretch in more than two years. Separately, the household survey showed native-born employment rising by 294,000 in May, while foreign-born employment fell by 176,000. (compare April to May, table A-7). Consumer spending has also held up, helped in part by larger tax refunds for many households.

Artificial intelligence investment – albeit a massive circle-jerk, continues to drive manufacturing expansion, producing the longest stretch of factory growth since 2022 and helping push stock markets to record highs. Trump frequently points to those gains as evidence that his economic program is working.

But the benefits have been uneven. The share of national income going to workers through wages and salaries sits at an all-time low, reinforcing concerns about a K-shaped recovery. Corporate profits and asset values have surged for higher-income Americans, while many families continue to feel squeezed by everyday costs.

“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can’t, one of the things they’re most worried about is the cost of living,” Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy told Bloomberg. “I think we have a good story to tell on what we’ve done… but I wish the president would talk more about it.”

And here come Midterms…

Republicans hold a narrow House majority and face the historical headwind that typically confronts a president’s party in midterm elections. Trump has warned that a Democratic House could pursue impeachment, as it did during his first term. The Senate majority appears more secure, but it could still be tested if economic frustration deepens in key states.

That said, Trump is hardly limping into the midterms. Recent Republican primaries have shown his grip on the GOP remains intact, from Trump-backed Ed Gallrein’s ouster of Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky, to Andy Barr’s win in the Kentucky Senate primary after Trump’s late endorsement, to Tommy Tuberville’s landslide in the Alabama governor primary. But primary dominance may not translate to general-election resilience, especially if independents and working-class swing voters are voting on gas prices, grocery bills, mortgage rates and war fatigue.

An idea: quickly end the war?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/09/2026 – 10:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/dYuci7Z Tyler Durden

US Existing Home Sales Unexpectedly Jumped In May, Inventories Surge

US Existing Home Sales Unexpectedly Jumped In May, Inventories Surge

With the Spring selling season in tatters, existing home sales were expected to rebound in May very modestly (+1.1% MoM) off recent record lows, but instead they outperformed, rising at 3.2% MoM (and April’s 0.2% MoM rise was revised higher to a +0.7% MoM rise). That lifted existing home sales up 3.22% YoY – the strongest since September 2025

Source: Bloomberg

That beat lifted existing home sales SAAR to its highest level of the year (but not exactly signaling a trend)…

Source: Bloomberg

“More Americans are on the move, with home sales rising to the highest level since December,” Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, said in a statement.

“This is great news for the housing market and the economy.”

Sellers are giving up some ground on price and “meeting buyers where they are,” Realtor.com said.

In May, the median sales price of an existing home climbed 1.3% from a year ago to $429,300, NAR data show.

Meantime, inventory rose slightly from a year ago to 1.55 million, the highest since July and representing 4.5 months of supply at the current sales pace.

Sales rose in the South, Northeast and Midwest from a month earlier, while they were unchanged in the West. In the Midwest, transactions reached 1 million, the highest pace since April 2023.

First-time buyers accounted for 35% of sales, compared with 33% a month earlier and 30% a year ago.

Finally, it appears home sales are catching up to the prior decline in mortgage rates (but we note that rates have been rising since)…

Source: Bloomberg

“Improving affordability is helping drive this momentum,” Yun said.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/09/2026 – 10:11

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/W1vi5u6 Tyler Durden

Trump-Netanyahu “Differences”: A Good Cop-Bad Cop Routine

Trump-Netanyahu “Differences”: A Good Cop-Bad Cop Routine

By Michael Every of Rabobank

As You Were… But As Who Was? 

Yesterday nearly saw a full restart of the Israel-Iran war, apparently pulled back from the brink by intervention from President Trump. After yet another Middle East rollercoaster for markets it’s now ‘as you were’, with oil –so everything else– little changed. The larger issue behind that pricing, however, is the key question – ‘As who was?’

Iran set up its proxy network, centered on terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon, to protect itself: if Israel attacked it, Hezbollah would attack Israel. However, Tehran now has to attack Israel, with counterattacks on it in response, to defend its ‘shield’. That’s a huge Iranian strategic setback. As such, Tehran is trying to tie Israel vs. Hezbollah to itself vs. the US to divide the US from Israel, which now have different needs: a deal vs. finishing the job militarily or via regime change. That dynamic has huge implications for when and how this war ends, so for energy, so for markets.

While Israel and Iran say they will stop their attacks, Israeli PM Netanyahu last night gave a public address where he stated: “Iran and Hezbollah are weaker than ever, and we are stronger than ever – but our battle against them is still not finished. In the last 24 hours, Iran and Hezbollah tried to impose a new equation upon us… an equation I find intolerable and unacceptable. They thought they would fire at Israel from Lebanese territory and from Iran – and we would not act. That did not happen, and it will not happen. Not on my watch!… At the moment, we are holding our fire, because after we struck the terror regime in Tehran, it ceased attacking us. In the event that Iran makes the mistake of resuming attacks on us – we will respond with overwhelming force.”

Moreover, Israel will hit Hezbollah in Beirut if it fires at Israel from south Lebanon, which Iran says is a red line that will trigger more attacks on the Jewish state, restarting this war.

If Iran tells Hezbollah to ceasefire, markets can relax;

If not, and Israel hits Hezbollah, Iran has to decide if it wants to fire at Israel – and restart the war;

If Trump forces Israel to hold back vs. Hezbollah, Iran will have linked the two fronts and divided the US and Israel – which likely sees more war.

After all, Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, its 1967 Six-Day War, its 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear programme, and its 2007 strike against Syria’s nuclear programme all took place against US wishes. To expect otherwise this time is unwise. Indeed, Trump-Netanyahu differences could be a good cop-bad cop routine to allow the US to push for a deal while Israel does the fighting.

In the background, Yemen’s Houthis claim they will restart a maritime blockade of Israel in the Red Sea, which was applied far more broadly the last time they put it in place. Obviously, that can threaten cargo and energy flows at this juncture, as a US Navy F-18 struck and disabled an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman and the EU hit Iran’s Navy… with sanctions.

In short, this crisis is far from over, even as Trump says “total victory” will be declared in the next two weeks as Iranian negotiators are “willing to give us everything,” and VP Vance added that the deal being discussed was “a home run” for the US. Yet the inside baseball question remains which negotiators the US is talking to given local reports that contact has been lost with Supreme Leader Khamenei Jr. and another that IRGV leader Vahidi was killed in a recent Israeli strike.

Elsewhere in geopolitics, Berlin says the Franco-German fighter jet project is dead, a major blow to future pan-European defence plans; Switzerland is weighing a Franco-Italian alternative to US air defences given a 5-year wait for the latter; and a French fighter jet shot down a suspected Russian drone in Latvian airspace.

That’s as Germany claimed it’s ready to take the reins from the US in talks with Putin despite Russia rejecting Ukrainian and European peace initiatives, saying instead that the battlefield will decide the war – but as Moscow pauses its CCTV systems after Israel hacked Iran’s to target its Supreme Leader. Back in the UK, a secret camera was found in the ceiling panel of the room in a sensitive government building where the decision was made to approve the new Chinese embassy.

Showing how lines on the map can move as the driver of lines on the screen, the US is considering buying the Chagos Islands to take control of the strategic UK airbase on Diego Garcia; Mauritius, whom the UK is controversially trying to hand the islands to, is today demanding they get them ASAP to avoid that outcome.

China’s Xi Jinping, on a state visit, pledged “unwavering” support for North Korea, making some things crystal clear, as Bloomberg publishes its estimates for the economic damage from a war over Taiwan: $10 trillion, apparently. Which justifies or incentivizes doing what as insurance?

In LatAm, Peru is set for lengthy vote count as its presidential race is still too close to call, and Colombia will see a presidential runoff ahead following the leftist Cepeda’s first round election loss.

In geoeconomics, the US added Alibaba, BYD and other Chinese tech champions to its military company blacklist. That’s as Anthropic’s Mythos can reportedly now exploit new software flaws in mere hours and OpenAI gets ready for its IPO, Trump is mirroring Bernie Sanders in arguing the state should get stakes in AI giants – and presumably not just in military and security areas but across the economic spectrum. To say we are moving the political-economy Overton Window is an understatement: at this stage are there any actual windows left? Indeed, could the walls and the roof fall in on conventional analysis using conventional wisdom?

The European press talks of how ‘China is killing Europe’s chemicals industry. Brussels wants to intervene’ and France’s Macron is reportedly to court China to get them to address trade imbalances – offering and threatening what exactly?

Indonesia is also weighing export rule exemptions for commodity traders to try to calm local markets after the recent de facto state control of that key area of the economy.

At the same time, Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee was declared an unlawful “tax” by a US judge, as were his tariffs of course, which will now be appealed (was the lower via fee also a tax? If not, why not?).

As you were then… but as who was? And what will we be soon – besides confused?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/09/2026 – 09:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/OAKGz6c Tyler Durden

DHS Says It Has ‘Zero Tolerance’ for Protesters’ ‘Verbal Assaults.’ Here’s What the Law Says.


ICE detention facility protestors | Homeland Security/X

Protests over poor living conditions for detainees at Delaney Hall immigration detention center erupted over the weekend, leading to the arrest of over 80 people, the Associated Press reported on Saturday. Some of the protesters arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are accused of assaulting law enforcement officers, obstruction, and threats. But questions remain about whether the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) enforcement policies violate the First Amendment and chill speech on the ongoing public debate over immigration policies.

The crackdown on protesters is not surprising given Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s statements during congressional hearings last week, in which he took a hard line against violent protesters. During a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on June 3, Mullin testified that he is “OK with protest,” so long as it is done “in a peaceful way, in a legal area.” However, Mullin asserted, he has “zero tolerance” for individuals who “verbally assault our officers,” “go after our vehicles,” or
“assault our property.” “You assault one of our officers, we will find you. We will arrest you,” he continued. 

While Mullin is right that the destruction of government property and assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers are both federal crimes, there is no such thing as “verbally assaulting” an officer under the law, Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), tells Reason.

Under the First Amendment, individuals are free “to criticize, mock, or disparage law enforcement officers” who “have no greater right than anyone else to be shielded from offense or criticism,” Terr explains. “In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized that properly trained officers are expected to show even more restraint than the average citizen when confronted with provocative or challenging speech.” 

“The First Amendment’s broad protections are essential to preserving the public’s ability to criticize and hold accountable those entrusted with enforcing the law,” Terr says, which is why speech is generally protected “unless the speech falls into one of the narrow categories of unprotected expression.” 

One such category includes true threats, defined by the Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black (2003) as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

When assessing whether speech constitutes a true threat, “context always matters,” says Terr. “Courts look at the surrounding circumstances to determine whether a reasonable person would understand the statement as a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence, as opposed to a joke, hyperbole, or venting,” all of which fall under protected speech. 

The distinctions between true threats and other forms of protected speech can be rather nuanced. For example, in 1969 the Supreme Court in Watts v. United States reversed a jury’s decision to convict a young man, recently drafted into the Vietnam War, for saying at a public rally, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” The Court held that the statements were protected speech and amounted to crude political hyperbole rather than a true threat. “The language of the political arena,” the Court wrote, “is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact” but must be interpreted “against the background of a profound national commitment” to “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate on public issues. 

When asked by Reason how the DHS defined verbal assault and whether it aligned with First Amendment law, a spokesperson responded via email with the Justice Department’s statement regarding the arrest of a Delaney Hall protester, Nicholas Matthew Scelfo, who allegedly threatened to assault and murder an ICE officer and his family. Video posted by ICE on social media shows Scelfo pointing at agents during a May 27 protest, shouting, “I’ll kill your whole fucking family. Your whole fucking family is dead.” If convicted on the threat charge, he faces up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000, according to the Justice Department. 

Another Delaney Hall protester was detained and dragged away by ICE agents on June 5 for allegedly threatening an officer. Video of the incident shows an ICE agent yelling at a group of protesters to back up before singling out a protester off-camera, shouting, “What did you just say? You’re going to kill me? You’re going to kill me?” Agents surround the suspect and drag him away as he exclaims, “I ain’t say nothing! I ain’t say nothing!” 

As shocking as these statements may seem, “a statement like ‘I’ll kill you’ is not automatically a true threat simply because those words are used,” said Terr. Things like “the nature of the protest, the level of antagonism between the protester and the officer, the protester’s tone, and any accompanying conduct” are all relevant to a court’s analysis on whether statements rise to the level of a true threat, Terr says. 

But whether law enforcement officers with the power to make arrests abide by the courts’ distinctions between true threats and otherwise protected speech is another question entirely. “Unfortunately, administration officials and federal agents have repeatedly demonstrated either a misunderstanding of, or disregard for, the distinction between protected speech and illegal conduct,” says Terr. The DHS under President Donald Trump has put forth policies inconsistent with the First Amendment, Terr continued, from saying recording on-duty officers constitutes unlawful doxxing or obstruction, to attempting to unmask online anonymous critics. “These actions all seem designed to chill protected speech rather than enforce the law,” says Terr. 

The post DHS Says It Has 'Zero Tolerance' for Protesters' 'Verbal Assaults.' Here's What the Law Says. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/8QEbwGR
via IFTTT

DOJ Claim That Trump Could ‘Bulldoze’ Statue of Liberty Fits a Pattern


President Donald Trump drives an earth mover with the Statue of Liberty in its claw. | Illustration: Adani Samat/Midjourney

One shouldn’t get into the habit of feeling sorry for high-ranking federal employees, who wield power over our lives and get a salary of our tax money for their trouble. Still, serving as a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer arguing on behalf of the government seems like an unenviable gig, as accomplished attorneys are reduced to backfilling legal defenses of their bosses’ harebrained schemes.

When President Joe Biden decided to wipe out broad swathes of student loan debt, the DOJ argued that he could do so without Congress’ approval using a law explicitly tailored to soldiers in active duty. The HEROES Act allowed the government to waive student loan repayment during “a war or other military operation or national emergency”; Biden’s DOJ argued that the then-ongoing COVID-19 national emergency qualified to forgive billions of dollars in student loans for millions of borrowers. (By a 6–3 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court was unconvinced.)

But nowadays that example seems almost quaint. President Donald Trump’s administration now rather routinely subjects its DOJ attorneys to the indignity of making facially indefensible claims about the president’s power, simply because the executive demands it.

Last year, Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House with plans to build a gigantic ballroom in its place. His cited legal authority was a decades-old statute pertaining to general facility upkeep and maintenance.

In March, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon granted a motion enjoining construction on the ballroom. Congress did not authorize the project, Leon wrote, and “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

Last week, DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn Leon’s order and allow construction to continue.

Not only did Leon err in his decision, Roth argued, but courts have no authority to stop the project once it’s begun—after all, the East Wing is already demolished, and construction on the ballroom is “well on its way.” (On the other hand, when asked at what point the courts lost the ability to intervene, Roth said it would have been improper “even on day one.”)

But when questioned, Roth went even further. “If the government decides, very quickly, to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty,” asked Judge Patricia Millett, “[if] the government moved too fast…nothing can be done?”

“I think that’s right, yes,” Roth replied, which, according to ABC News, “sparked audible gasps in the courtroom.”

Roth’s position is not just laughable; it’s offensive to the constitutional vestment of powers within three coequal branches of government.

But then again, what choice does he have? Trump claims he can demolish federal property and rebuild new ones in their place to his specifications, with no oversight or authorization. At that point, why would any federal structure be off-limits?

In fact, Roth’s admission fits a pattern in which Trump’s DOJ attorneys make increasingly maximalist arguments about presidential power in order to match their boss’s policy goals.

Early in his second term, Trump imposed double-digit tariffs on nearly every nation on the planet. Like all taxes, the power to enact tariffs lies with Congress, not the president, but Trump argued that persistent trade deficits constituted an “emergency” that allowed him to act unilaterally.

As with Biden’s student loan gambit, the Supreme Court was unimpressed with this line of logic. But during oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch posed a hypothetical to Solicitor General D. John Sauer: If the president can impose any tariffs he deems fit to address an emergency of his own designation, could a future president then impose tariffs on gasoline-powered cars “to deal with the ‘unusual and extraordinary’ threat…of climate change?”

“It’s very likely that could be done,” Sauer replied.

Sauer was also on hand when Trump deployed National Guard troops to Chicago. A federal judge enjoined Trump’s order, and the administration appealed.

“The President’s determination to call up the National Guard,” Sauer wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court, “is not judicially reviewable at all; at minimum, it is entitled to extremely deferential review, under which it should be upheld.”

The government made a similar argument after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to bypass immigration procedures and deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a prison in El Salvador. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit pressed the administration to explain how the deportees met the statutory definition of alien enemies.

“The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the [Alien Enemies Act] have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign replied. Instead, “it’s subject to extremely deferential review.”

Just last month, DOJ attorney Abhishek Kambli appeared before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms that represented or employed Democrats, which included revoking their attorneys’ security clearances. In response to the judges’ questions, Kambli argued that a future Democratic president could punish Republican firms in exactly the same way.

Would it be legal, asked Judge Cornelia Pillard, “if an incoming president—let’s say, a Democrat—says, ‘I think that any lawyer who represents a Republican, by virtue of that representation…is a threat to national security?'”

Yes, Kambli responded, that would be allowed, and the courts would have no recourse. Kambli even concurred with Pillard’s hypothetical that the president could deny security clearances to “law firms that represent Catholics,” “African-Americans,” or “Asian-Americans.”

It’s no surprise Trump believes his authority is unchecked—”I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,” he told The New York Times in 2017. But in court, DOJ attorneys are echoing his position, arguing that presidents enjoy unlimited, unreviewable power.

We should all hope that argument never wins out—no matter what president is in office at the time.

The post DOJ Claim That Trump Could 'Bulldoze' Statue of Liberty Fits a Pattern appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/9Fs7Vm8
via IFTTT

Belfast Horror: African Migrant Tries To Saw Off Victim’s Head In Street Attack

Belfast Horror: African Migrant Tries To Saw Off Victim’s Head In Street Attack

Authored by Steve Watson via modernity,

Authorities and the media have scrambled to soften language around a graphic knife assault last night by an apparant African migrant that has left a local Belfast man fighting for his life with devastating injuries.

Horrifcic footage shows the attacker straddling the victim and repeatedly stabbing his head before sawing at his neck in a clear attempt to behead him. Bystanders screamed in horror as the attack unfolded. However, police have described it as nothing more than a “stabbing incident” involving “a man.”

The assault happened shortly after 10:30pm on Monday on Kinnaird Avenue in north Belfast. the attacker hacked at his victim’s head and neck with a small box cutter style Stanley knife. Locals rushed in to drag the assailant off, batting him with blunt objects before police finally arrived.

Bystanders could be heard yelling: “He’s trying to cut his head off.”

The victim is understood to be alive in hospital at the time of writing but has sustained life-altering injuries. Speculation online points to the possibility he has lost both eyes after the frenzied assault.

WARNING – EXTREMELY GRAPHIC VIDEO:

Watch video

The Police Service of Northern Ireland issued a statement calling it merely a “stabbing incident.” They confirmed one man has been arrested and another taken to hospital with serious injuries. There was no mention of the attacker’s background, immigration status, or the obvious attempt to decapitate the victim.

The media is not focusing on the incident.

The BBC buried a report with the headline “Man taken to hospital with ‘serious injuries’ after stabbing.”

Irish state media did the same.

The gap between what the footage shows and what official channels reported sparked immediate fury online.

The post continues, “…Ordinary people saved that man’s life. And while that was happening Keir Starmer was in Westminster figuring out how to arrest you for posting about it. Open borders. Two tier policing. Unarmed citizens fighting off attackers alone. This is the Britain Labour built.”

Others stated they wouldn’t have been surprised to see the locals who tried to subdue the attacker being arrested, a reference to revelations regarding the Henry Nowak case.

Leftist apologists immediately rushed to psychiatric excuses before any details emerge about the attacker’s identity, background, or possible motive.

The recurring question remains the same. How many of these daily attacks on native people have to happen before meaningful action in the form of closing the borders and mass remigration are instituted?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/09/2026 – 09:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZKONMAW Tyler Durden

Trump Insists US In ‘Final Throes’ Of Iran Deal; Death Toll Soars As Israel Pounds South Lebanon

Trump Insists US In ‘Final Throes’ Of Iran Deal; Death Toll Soars As Israel Pounds South Lebanon

The southern Lebanese city of Tyre is being pounded by Israeli airstrikes on Tuesday, despite President Trump’s insistence that Lebanon not come under attack. Israel’s military had hours prior issued an evacuation order for all civilians in the area, amid the unraveling and failing ceasefire.

Casualties are already high, coming at a tense moment after starting on Sunday Iran sent ballistic missiles against Israel over its renewed airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut, where it says Hezbollah command centers are located.

The NY Times reports of the growing death toll Tuesday, “At least eight people were killed in the bombardment, and dozens more were wounded, Lebanon’s health ministry said. The Israeli military also targeted towns and villages across southern Lebanon, including areas that were not covered by evacuation warnings, according to the country’s state-run news agency.”

Attack on Tyre, via AFP

So clearly the air raids are expanding, per the report, even after the latest Trump warnings directed at Netanyahu to not do anything that would sabotage a broader Iran peace agreement.

President Trump is still maintaining that Washington and Tehran are in the “final throes” of cementing a deal, and is even suggesting (once again) that an agreement will be done in days:

Asked whether it would be matter of days or weeks, he said it would take “two or three days”.

Tehran has repeatedly stated any deal should include Lebanon—where Israel has been pressing its war with Iran-backed Hezbollah—and fired missiles at Israel on Sunday. That prompted Israeli retaliation, despite US pressure for restraint.

Iran fired another salvo before announcing it was ceasing military action, and hours later Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the “fire on that front is contained”.

Of course, we’ve been hearing that the war is merely ‘days’ away from ending from basically the start of the war. And yet, all too predictably, the two sides keep going up the escalation ladder in an escalation trap.

But the White House is saying that it will forge a deal which is good for the American people, whether Israel likes it or not. “Israel may like that, they may not like that — but this is in the best interest of the United States,” Vice President JD Vance spelled out to Fox this week.

Escalation: Houthis in Yemen unleash ballistic missile on southern Israel, as Hezbollah sends drones on north

But in the meantime Lebanon continues to suffer, also as Hezbollah and most recently the Houthis out of Yemen fire projectiles on Israel. According to some of the latest via Al Jazeera:

For the residents in Tyre, anybody who is staying behind is in a lot of danger. In the past hour, we’ve seen another Israeli air strike near a Palestinian refugee camp.

The strike happened at a roundabout leading into the camp, a very busy location. There’s also a bus station right at the entrance to the el-Buss refugee camp. Initial reports are coming in of a lot of injuries in that attack.

Israel continues to carry out artillery fire on the city, and there are drones flying over Tyre. For anyone trying to get out of the city, the road is quite dangerous. There have been a series of air strikes north of Tyre along the same road people would use to exit.

So the Lebanon conflict is escalating, not growing more stable, which doesn’t bode well for achieving a final Iran deal. Tehran has insisted all along that a deal incorporate the Israel-Lebanon situation. 

Vance had also said in his latest comments to Fox that “I think where the president has been very clear here is that while Israel obviously has some objectives that it has, the United States’ main objective in Iran is to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.”

It seems Washington is willing to tolerate some Israeli ‘counter-terror’ action, but only up to a point. Probably the limits will be reached in more renewed bombings of Beirut itself. Tehran has been seeking to impose some red liens on IDF action in Lebanon, and the White House has so far appeared to respond with compromising language.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/09/2026 – 09:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Wt70Hvm Tyler Durden