U.K. action helps expose DOJ coverup:

Feb 7: Bondi DOJ memo: "We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties."

Sept 16: Kash Patel testimony: "There is no credible information, none" that Epstein trafficked girls to other men. 2/ Plus: Norway's former PM charged with gross corruption over Epstein links

bbc.com/news/articles/…

PSA for magistrate judges

"An FBI search warrant affidavit ... shows that a criminal investigation into 2020 election results in Fulton County, Ga., was set off by a leading election denier in the Trump administration and relied heavily on claims ... widely debunked." source

nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/…

Imagine this in a trial.

Devastating first-hand witness to Alex Pretti's killing

Declaration filed in federal court:

"I don't know why they shot him. He was only helping. I was five feet from him and they just shot him." 2/ "The agents pulled the man on the ground. I didn't see him touch any of them-he wasn't even turned toward them. It didn't look like he was trying to resist, just trying to help the woman up. I didn't see him with a gun."

Document: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2650…

On camera: Vance, Noem say ICE doesn’t use race.

In court: DOJ's filings say the exact opposite.

Here's what the Justice Department actually told the Supreme Court, and how DOJ defends ICE's use of racially profiling.

Full analysis on my YouTube and Substack
🧵 2/ Shareable link to full analysis⤵️

A close look at what the DOJ left undisputed.

And how DOJ admitted to the courts that stopping racial profiling would “upend immigration enforcement efforts” in the way ICE currently carries it out.

Why does DHS keep telling you false information on Minnesota about:

- what they mean by "criminal" immigrants
- the legal standard for arrests
- what the Supreme Court has said

Also, what implications does this have for the Insurrection Act?

Preview below of one issue.
1/2 2/ Here's my full discussion.⤵️

Unreasonable Suspicion: Decoding DHS Propaganda on ICE Arrests

A time for choosing, from main street to wall street.

"This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress’s oversight role. .... Those are pretexts."

Thank you, Chairman Powell.

https://twitter.com/federalreserve/status/2010510130970849338

2/ "I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. ... Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats."

NEW

An initially-secret report for Customs and Border Patrol in 2013 found:

In many cases, the “driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby … creating justification for the use of deadly force.”
🧵 2/ I discuss this report at greater length on my YouTube channel and Substack

Substack: substack.com/home/post/p-18…
YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=izontt…

It was an honor to work with Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman on this important piece.

- The President did not have constitutional authority for the Venezuela operation.

- It also violated the "supreme Law of the Land" - UN Charter, which the Senate passed 89-2.

1/ 2/ source

Congress, the President, and the Use of Military Force in Venezuela

By Brian Egan, Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman

justsecurity.org/128211/congres…

I joined with two great legal experts on this analysis.

In this thread, I highlight 3 items you may not see covered in same way, if at all, elsewhere.

Panama 'precedent'
safeguards for Heads of State
Venezuelan nationals new legal protections in US

🧵
justsecurity.org/127981/interna… 2/ "Panama precedent" of 1989 US action to capture Noriega counts against, not in favor, of US actions in Venezuela.

a) UN General Assembly "strongly deplored" US 1989 action
b) HW Bush, James Baker, Amb Pickering cited justifications nowhere in Venezuela case

Excerpt⤵️

WSJ report is extraordinary in implicating Mar-a-Lago in Epstein systematic sexual abuse.

It takes a close read, but looks like WSJ is reporting Trump was informed and told Mar-a-Lago manager to "kick out" Epstein in 2003 not from Mar-a-Lago, but from the Mar-a-Lago Spa.

1/

https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/2006191502683222170

2/ Note the WSJ report says:

"But Epstein continued to attend parties and events at Mar-a-Lago."

gift link (reporting by @joe_palazzolo @rebeccaballhaus @khadeeja_safdar):
wsj.com/us-news/trump-…

With Admiral Bradley's lawyer speaking to Congress this upcoming week.

Threshold question is how ANY of these strikes are legal.

On Sept 2 strike: Q is whether they applied standard Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology.

Because look what it says (declassified 2012)⤵️
1/ 2/ The Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology goes to the heart of the latest DoD claims about the strike.

The claim is that the second strike was targeting the (possible) cocaine, not the shipwrecked.

I do not see how that could have possibly complied with the Methodology.

An important step in the right direction:

"The Senate Armed Services Committee ... has asked Adm. Alvin Holsey ... to testify before the committee next week, according to Blumenthal and another person familiar with the matter."

Report by @theodoricmeyer @noahjrobertson
1/ 2/ source

washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

How is U.S. military killing these 11 people keeping drugs (fentanyl) out of the United States?

DOD knew the drugs (cocaine) were headed to Suriname.

Yes, that's the OTHER DIRECTION.

Read what Bradley-Caine told lawmakers:

Scoop by @NatashaBertrand

🧵 1/ 2/ Problems for Bradley's credibility.

On left:

Bradley argued to lawmakers "still a possibility" drugs could've made way to US.

On right:

Trump State Dept: "Suriname is a transit country for South American cocaine, the majority of which is likely destined for Europe."

NEW info on shipwreck attack. Gets worse.

The 2 survivors climbed atop wreckage and waved to overhead.

"Some of the people viewing the video thought ... could have been an attempt to surrender"

Others "said the most logical explanation was ... signaling for a rescue."

1/ 2/ What Adm. Bradley and Gen. Caine told Congress raises credibility concerns.

"The military officers briefing Congress on Thursday said the survivors could have been trying to beckon to other alleged drug traffickers in a plane or boat to come get them...."

But get this ...

🚨🚨🚨This collapses the one 'argument' Hegseth had against it being war crime:

"Two men killed as they floated holding onto their capsized boat .. DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE RADIO OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES, the top military official overseeing the strike told lawmakers."

1/ 2/ Secretary Hegseth bears ultimate responsibility as the designated Target Engagement Authority.

And recall how many times he has said Admiral Bradley acted within the authority Hegseth gave him, and that Bradley made "the correct" decision.

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1995930156192469171

Debrief of shipwreck attack by Ranking Member of House Armed Services Adam Smith:

"The idea is supposed to be that if they could get assistance, they could get back 'in the fight,' ...But Smith said the officials confirmed...they have no recording of these communications."
1/ 2/ “Smith said the video shows two men, sitting without shirts, atop a portion of a capsized boat that was still above water. ...

... He called it a 'highly questionable decision that these two people on that obviously incapacitated vessel were still in any kind of fight.'”

USG has a new explanation on why they (now admittedly) intentionally killed 2 shipwrecked men. It does not pass the laws-of-war smell test

Worse for Hegseth, NYT: "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved contingency plans for what to do if an initial strike left survivors."
🧵 2/ The Hegseth-approved contingency plan:

US military could try to kill shipwrecked survivors if "they took what the United States deemed to be a hostile action, like communicating with suspected cartel members."

Textbook war crime/extrajudicial killing

"Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck. The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack ... ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions."

reporting by @AlexHortonTX @nakashimae 2/ "Killing any of the men in the boats 'amounts to murder,' said Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign."

washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

On patently unlawful boat strikes

Hard for USGs to claim ‘mistake of law’ or ‘advice of counsel’ – when they’re firing lawyers who wouldn't sign off on the strikes.

WaPo's new revelations on firing/removal:

CIA General Counsel
NSC Legal Adviser
CIA Mission Center’s lawyer
🧵 2/ CIA Acting General Counsel, career lawyer, "was among those who had raised questions about the legality of the agency’s use of lethal force."

What happened next?

CIA Deputy Director Ellis took over as acting GC and still held his policy position. He then approved the ops.

A Thursday in U.S. courts

1) "This Court has grave concerns about the government’s apparent willingness to disregard this Court’s orders, even after previous admonition."

- Judge Stephanie Gallagher, Trump appointee, Nov. 20, 2025 2) "At some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that [U.S. Government] Defendants represent."

- Judge Sara Ellis, November 20, 2025

Today, Trump-Hegseth run out of time on War Powers Resolution and boat strikes.

DOJ has come up with a theory why the law does not apply.

It's wrong, and per this article, several GOP Senators and a Trump cabinet member flat rejected that theory when Obama tried it in 2011.
1/ 2/ In 2011 Libya operation, Obama tried the same theory as part of a four-factor test. Trump does not even have three of those four factors.

On the fourth one, which Obama tried (and now Trump does) there was very strong bipartisan pushback including from ...

Kristi Noem...