Waging Peace (Right? That's What We're Doing....Right?)

 

Iran is led by bad guys. No disagreement there. But it's inarguable that the world is full of countries led by bad guys...including the United States. And from a strict viewpoint of who has the ability to bomb the United States, Iran isn't on the list. 

Why are we bombing Iran? Why have we, by way of our ally, Israel, intentionally killed their top leadership? The consensus is that no one wants Iran to have nuclear weapons (or nucular ones either). Smaller nations might reasonably ask why The United States, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, The United Kingdom all get to have nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves, but no one else can? I can understand why Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni-dominated nations might be nervous about a nuclear-armed Iran, but why is it our business? Especially since this regime was so adamant about ditching our allies and withdrawing into our borders (which it hasn't done). 

Something that often gets overlooked is, despite public revulsion of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, how nations that voluntarily give up their quest for nuclear weapons end up getting invaded. Ukraine gave up it's bombs left over from Soviet Union days in exchange for pledges from Russia to respect their independence. Libya's government was bombed out of power with no way to respond, with no threat of reprisal available to hold off attacks. North Korea's Kim dynasty is still in power because they have nuclear weapons. 

During President Obama's time in office, a coalition that included the United States, Russia, China and the European Union negotiated a treaty with Iran whereby they would foreswear their nuclear weapon ambitions in exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions. There was no evidence that Iran was violating their end of the agreement, but Trump unilaterally canceled it during his first term. Unsurprisingly Iran resumed work on a nuclear weapon. Trump acted offended that they would do so...but it wasn't Iran that violated the agreement, it was him. He could have kept the agreement in place while seeking diplomatic avenues to improve it, but the resumption of sanctions gave Iran the excuse to do the very thing they had agreed to stop doing. 

Trump's idea of diplomacy has never involved consensus or middle ground. Even with inter-governmental dealings, he has always viewed bipartisanship as the other partisans agreeing to his demands. His fumbling attempts to mediate the Russia-Ukraine War have mainly been telling the two sides what he wants them to do. His "diplomacy" in the talks with Iran were more of the same. There is evidence that Iran's negotiators were acting in less than good faith as well, but Trump had evidently decided that he was going to attack Iran unless they in effect dismantled their military and perhaps their theocratic governmental structure. Of course Iran was never going to agree to that — they would be leaving themselves open to attack by Israel at Israel's convenience. 

One of the few things I agreed with Trump about was his promise to end "forever wars" and to concentrate on domestic concerns. I'm no isolationist. I know that sometimes it's in our national interest to get involved internationally — whether by intervening militarily or by supporting financially. But our track record hasn't been good when it comes to regime change. We invaded Iraq because our leaders lied about the presence of "weapons of mass destruction" that allegedly were a threat to us. We quickly defeated the Iraqi Army and overthrew the government, but spent eight years occupying the country and fighting off various insurgencies as we propped up the corrupt successor government. After we were back in Iraq after a few years to fight the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. We quickly dislodged the Taliban government in Afghanistan, but spent 20 years occupying that nation and propping up its corrupt government. The Taliban regained power as soon as we left. Limited involvement was no better. Our bombing campaign led to the execution of the Libyan leader, but the country is governed by competing warlords who each control their own territory. This was no secret to the American people and Trump's pledge to keep us out of this kind of adventurism appealed to many. 

Oops.

Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama got one, so he wants one. He has been lobbying for the award since his first term, styling himself as the "Peace President", and falsely claimed to have ended eight wars. He has (unofficially) renamed the Department of Defense the Department of War; killed over 100 pilots of small boats in the Caribbean, bombed Venezuela and kidnapped its president, bombed Nigeria because supposedly Christians were being killed, dropped a giant bomb on Iran's nuclear research site last summer and now has started a full-fledged war with Iran. His administration has been cagey about the use of the term "war". When he started blowing up boats of alleged drug runners, it was characterized as a military operation to avoid due process, but was also termed not-a-war to avoid getting permission from Congress. 

Constitutionally, Congress has the responsibility and authority to declare war while the president has the responsibility and authority to command the military. The War Powers Act allows the president to send the military into action in the case of an emergency, i.e. an attack or imminent attack on the United States. The Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours and requires an end to the military action within 60 days. In recent decades presidents have acted with impunity or skirted the requirements regularly, Trump is not the first one to do this, however, it's unique in that there was no effort to convince either Congress or the American people of the necessity of action at this time. It's appears to me to me a combination of doing a favor for his buddy Netanyahu and a reaction to not getting his own way. Either way, sober thinking, and even sanity seems to pay no role.  

The MAGA double talk has already begun. Despite the fact that the United States under President Trump started a war, it is being framed, not as starting a new war, but as ending a "forever war", one that Iran started a generation ago with the taking of American hostages in 1979. Supporters of the Iran War point to Iran's support of Shi'a militias in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza over the years, as well as Iraqi militias who were funded by Iran being responsible for American military deaths. It is conveniently ignored that these groups were fighting a power that was occupying their country...us. 

Already there are casualties. Many among regular Iranians, in addition to Iranian military. There have been deaths in Israel and in some of the Gulf nations. Several U.S. service members have died. Kuwait "accidently" shot down three of our F-15s. What comes next? Will the opposition take over? Will the Kurds declare independence? Will Iran get lucky and sink one of our ships? Will there be troops on the ground? Will we just bomb the shit out of their infrastructure for a few weeks and then hallucinate a victory? Who knows. But it's never as easy as the politicians think it is. 

Trump's War-Ending Scorecard

Trump's continuing to claim that he ended eight wars, here's an update. 

The Navy is blowing up boats of alleged drug smugglers near Venezuela, and has invaded the country,  kidnapping its president. He has impounded a several Venezuelan oil tankers, one of which was flying a Russian flag and was escorted by a Russian submarine. He is threatening to take over Greenland by force. As of this update, we are at war with Iran. 

Trump has claimed that he has ended eight wars, part of his pathetic grasping for a Nobel Peace Prize. But has he?

1. Israel-Gaza:

I wrote about this recently. In this article I showed how the supposed "New Dawn of Peace in the Middle East" was virtually identical to the cease fire that was in place when he took office in January which was over in March. This one has already been violated multiple times. Hamas has not agreed to several of the terms, in fact they were not consulted and had the "agreement" imposed upon them.

Update: ceasefire violations are continuing on a daily basis. None of the other items in the "20 Point Peace Plan" have been started, other than the weirdly named "Board of Peace", which has done nothing other than collect money. The Israeli government continues to not only allow Jewish settlers to steal Palestinian territory, but to abuse or kill individual Palestinians with impunity. This side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will surely blow up before long. 

2. Pakistan-India:

It wasn't a war, just another in the many border scuffles that these two countries have engaged in since their existence. India says that Trump has nothing to do with the cessation of hostilities which were negotiated directly between India and Pakistan.

Update: ceasefire has held

3. Rwanda-Democratic Republic of The Congo:

These two countries have had on again-off again periods of border fighting for years. As well as cease fires and "peace agreements" that are regularly violated. Peace talks are ongoing, as are the violations of the cease fire. 

Update: The so-called peace agreement was signed with great fanfare at the "United States Institute Of Peace", recently named "Donald J. Trump Institute Of Peace" on Thursday December 4th, but fighting has not stopped, and has in fact escalated. 

4. Thailand-Cambodia:

After a week of cross-border fighting, Malaysia brokered a ceasefire. The only involvement by Trump was a threat to leave high tariffs in place. 

Update: fighting has broken out again

5. Armenia-Azerbaijan:

These two former Soviet Republics have been fighting over where the border should be since they achieved independence. The biggest disagreement has been over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan effectively ejected all Armenians from the enclave, making the settlement of the conflict moot. 

Update: No active fighting, but core issues have not been addressed, let alone solved

6. Egypt-Ethiopia:

Not even fighting, let alone a war. They're arguing over water use. 

Update: there never was a war, not even border skirmishes. Still none. 

7. Serbia-Kosovo:

Also no fighting. Trump is claiming that he stopped a war before it started.

Update: there never was a war, not even border skirmishes. Still none. 

8. Israel-Iran:

Israel had been conducting preemptive strikes against Iran and it's regional non-state allies like Hezbollah in tandem with its war against Hamas. Israel and Iran traded missile strikes for 12 days, ending after Trump had our military drop a bomb on Iran's nuclear facility. Iran declined to escalate. There is no peace agreement, but their is a cessation of hostilities. 

Update: There's been no resumption of hostilities, but Trump can hardly be called a peacemaker if he had to drop a bomb to get their attention. Trump is threatening to attack Iran with little or no reasons given for doing so

So here's the score:

• Diplomatic disagreements that involved no fighting whatsoever and therefore there was nothing to end: 2
• Fighting that stopped after we dropped a huge bomb on one side: 1
• Peace plan with a cease fire that is currently being violated: 3
• Conflicts that involved decades-long border fighting that will likely continue, but the ceasefire is currently holding: 2
• Actual lasting peace: 0

Meanwhile, the one war that we were involved in, Afghanistan, which he campaigned on ending in his first term, was not ended in his first term. And of course, the Russia-Ukraine war, which claimed he could end "in 24 hours, even before he was inaugurated" is still going on. 

Chaos: Ignorance, Incompetence, and Illusion

It's not simply a matter of partisan disagreements. It's not a case of what the Trump Cult calls Trump Derangement Syndrome, or mindless "Orange Man Bad", we are in multiple overlapping Constitutional Crises, and it's simultaneously being shouted (literally) in the streets and ignored by those who can do something about it. 

The Epstein Files are at once a glimpse into a horrible underworld of powerful people trafficking and abusing women and girls and an indictment of the justice system in our country. As bad as what is being alleged in what has been released so far, the out in the open lying, cover-ups, and enabling by a woman who is supposedly the top law enforcement officer in the country, is just plain disgusting. Add to that, the head of the FBI, who is heading the agency who should be taking the lead on any investigations, is too busy using government resources to party with the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team and shuttle his girlfriend to gigs around the country. Here's a link to an article outlining why releasing the files publicly may have enabled those involved to forever escape consequences. 

Next we have the reign of terror by the Department of Homeland Security. Frankly when this department was created post 9-11 I thought the name had an ominous fascist-like tenor to it, and they're certainly living up to it. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) [The actual Border Patrol is part of CBP] have operated as de facto secret police/storm troopers. The initial, and quite reasonable, campaign promise to detain and deport all the "violent, criminal, illegals" quickly morphed into shock and awe invasions of Democratic run cities with immigrants, many here legally, being snatched off the streets, from their beds, and from mandated appointments with immigration officials, and have many times detained citizens. They have killed around a dozen people so far. I have some doubt whether he has actually even "closed the border".

The chaotic purge of government workers by DOGE in the early days of the regime may appear to be in the past, but the results are still with us and politically motivated firings of employees deemed to be disloyal continue. DOGE was touted as a program that was tasked with rooting out waste and corruption but it didn't even come close. Union protections were illegally trod upon, Congressionally authorized agencies were dismantled, and programs and expenditures were unilaterally killed. Trump continues to flout the law, daring Congress and the Supreme Court to do something about it. Even when he technically obeys a court order, he rails against the courts and finds legally questionable work arounds. 

The imposition of tariffs, which can only loosely be called a "policy" is based on ignorance what tariffs and balance of trade are. I've covered tariffs a number of times; this article was reposted today. His tariffs, in addition bringing chaos to world trade and made planning next to impossible for American businesses, have imposed a de facto sales tax on American consumers. 

Attempts to stifle dissent and free speech continue, including attempts to control the media and sources of information. He has turned the Justice Department into the Department of Trump Retribution. 

By the time you read this, we may be at war with Iran. Trump has named himself  "The President of Peace", and repeatedly claimed that he has ended eight wars, which is easily debunked after 10 minutes of internet searches. Our quickie invasion of Venezuela, our kidnapping of their president, and the Cuban blockade, in addition to the previous unprovoked bombing of Iran, makes you wonder what his definition of peace is. What is even more disturbing is that Congress has made no effort to assert their Constitutional authority to declare war and that Trump is not even pretending to seek their input or the support of the public. Mainstream media, which I usually defend from progressives who believe it should be a partisan cheerleader, is reporting the run-up to a possible war, as if it's just another day at the White House. 

Last but not least — Trump's mental state. He has always been a loose cannon, making decisions based, not on any evidence, or consideration of what's best for the country, but on what the last person he had lunch with told him, or what he heard on Fox News. Economic stability and national security have always taken a back seat to his sense of grievance, his thin skin, and need for adulation. He's always been ignorant and incompetent. But it's gotten worse. His public statements, both in person and on his inaccurately named Truth Social platform, have been increasingly incoherent and divorced from reality. (See the statement about sending the USS Comfort, a hospital ship that is not currently in service, to Greenland to help with a crisis that doesn't exist). What's worse is that no one is going to do anything about it. Half of them agree with his craziness and the other half benefit from his deranged patronage and are terrified of offending him. The two Constitutional ways of removing him will not happen.

I'm sure I've left things out...but we are screwed.

Nebraska Tax Incentives - Fraud?

In my opinion Auditor of Public Accounts Mike Foley does a thorough job. He and his team of auditors are responsible for auditing all state government departments, including the legislature and the governor's office. They audit village councils in small towns. He's currently going after the governor. Today there were news reports that he had uncovered $1.2 billion in lost revenue. The articles suggested that there was fraud. I do not agree, at least not based on what Foley is quoted as saying. 

There are several tax incentives programs in Nebraska. The largest are the Nebraska Advantage Act (NAA) and ImagiNE (a relatively new program). There are a also smaller programs like Microenterprise (for businesses with five or fewer full-time equivalent employees) and Nebraska Historic Tax Credits (for rehabilitating and renovating buildings on the National Register of Historic Places), but the bulk of tax incentives go to companies participating in NAA and ImagiNE. Before I retired from the Department of Revenue in 2025 I worked with tax incentives. From 2016-2022 I was the initial reviewer on NAA tax refund claims as well as doing preliminary audit work for new applicants. From 2023-2025 I also reviewed the work of the initial examiners and approved claims for payment. I had little to with ImagiNE, since claims were just starting to come in a few months before I retired. 

The goal of NAA is to reward companies who do two things: (1) Increase employment and (2) Increase investment. There are multiple tiers within the program — each tier has a different benchmark for how much additional employment (measured by total compensation) and investment is required. For example, Tier 1 projects require $1 million in additional investment and 10 additional Full Time Equivalents (FTE's); Tier 2 requires $3 million in additional investment and 30 additional FTE's. The requirements increase with each tier. There are sub-tiers for large data centers and a tier for investment only. 

The year that a company applies is called "the base year". The applicant must show increases in compensation and investment compared to the base year. In order to determine what is an the increase a "qualification audit" is done to determine what the increase in compensation and investment actually is. A preliminary review of the applicant's calculations is done by an examiner. The applicant provides a list of employees and investment in the base year as well as the years that they believe they have met the requirements of the tier in which they are applying. The examiner is basically checking the math. If it adds up, an auditor takes over and examines the applicant's books to determine whether they have met the requirements for an incentive project. Once the auditor approves the project, the applicant can now begin earning credits.

For most tiers, the entitlement period (the number of years in which the project owner can earn and use tax credits) is seven years. The amount of the tax credits available for use is calculated using a standard formula. The incentives company can then use the tax credits earned to receive a tax refund. The refund is most commonly used for a refund of sales and use taxes, but also can be used to refund payroll taxes or corporate income taxes. For sales and use taxes, the refund can only be for tax paid at the location listed in their incentives application (for example sales tax paid for a corporate retreat at a hotel, or tax paid at an out-of-state location are not eligible). Once the seven-year entitlement period ends the incentives company no longer earns credits, but there is a "carryover period" of varying length when they can continue to use credits. 

The incentives company is required to meet the benchmarks for their tier every year within the entitlement period. If they do not meet the requirements in any of the seven years they will be charged back 1/7 of the refunds previously received; future refund claims will be reduced by 1/7 for each year the benchmarks are not achieved. 

For example: Company XYZ has an incentive project with an entitlement period of 2012-2018. They have a carryover period from 2019-2023. This means that they are earning credits from 2012-2018. They can use the credits if the tax was accrued any time from 2012-2023, even if they submit their claim after December 31, 2023. (There is a three-year statute of limitations for filing sales tax refunds, unless a request for extension is filed — these extensions are routinely granted)

This is where the State Auditor's information strays from reality and the reporting gets it wrong. If our example company, XYZ Corp ceases operations — all employees are terminated, and there are still unused credits, the XYZ Corp can continue to submit refund claims for sales tax accrued for any of the entitlement or carryover years. (There are also aging  of credits issues, which I don't need to get into to explain the system) This may seem counter to the goals of the program, which is to attract and keep businesses in Nebraska, but nothing in the incentives statute requires that an incentives company remain in Nebraska after the term of their agreement has expired. They are penalized, as I stated two paragraphs previously, if they close shop before the term of their agreement is up, but afterwards there is nothing to prevent them from leaving the state, selling to another company, or simply ceasing to operate.

Mr. Foley is framing his findings as if there is either fraud on the part of some incentives companies, or malfeasance on the part of the Department of Revenue (DOR). I was employed in DOR from 2016-2025, for the first 7 1/2 years in the Incentives Group, and the rest in a related work group. I can attest that the leadership of the Incentives Group is extremely diligent at following the statutes, and that there are numerous checks and balances to ensure that every dollar is correctly allocated. If anything, I thought auditors and managers were overly picky in their reviews. 

It has been suggested that DOR is understaffed and overworked and that explains the alleged "lost revenue". I can say with confidence that elimination of remote work by Governor Pillen has contributed in large part to the staffing issues. When his edict was finally executed, the Incentives Group lost half of its experienced auditors. Despite this loss of key people, the work was still getting done in a timely manner. At least it was when I retired last June. 

Foley has declined to name companies who are "uninvesting", citing the fact that tax returns are confidential. But you don't need tax returns. All companies receiving tax incentives are public record, listed on the DOR website, including how much they receive each year. 

Does Foley have a point? Yes he does. There are numerous aspects of the state's incentives programs, not just NAA, that allow companies to game the system. Should we still be sending out millions to companies which are no longer operating in Nebraska? I don't think anyone would argue that we should. But Foley's argument is with the legislature, not the agency that executes the statutes. 

Fearing For Their Lives? - Again

In 2024 I served on the Lancaster County Grand Jury as Jury Foreman. Unlike trial juries, grand jurors serve for a term of one year. The same 19 jurors (including three alternates) deliberate on all the grand jury investigations for the year. In Nebraska any death that occurs at the hands of law enforcement, or while in law enforcement or corrections custody, requires a grand jury investigation. During my term we mainly looked at sick or elderly inmates who died while incarcerated. We also investigated and indicted  former Seward County Sheriff's Deputy Anthony Gann who was acquitted on Friday of manslaughter charges. 

Since grand jury deliberations are secret, I'm not able to write about anything that didn't make it into the trial, which is public record. At least I don't think so — better safe than sorry! Anything that I do write is publicly available information. 

On October 23, 2023 Seward County Sheriff's Deputy Anthony Gann spotted Jorge Luis Santana Ramírez driving west on Interstate 80. Santana Ramirez had fled from Deputy Gann a week earlier — and a pursuit ensued. Santana Ramirez, presumably to avoid arrest, changed directions and drove east in the westbound lane until crossing over into the eastbound lane, eventually leaving Seward County and crossing into Lancaster County. At some point Santana Ramírez's  vehicle broke down. He refused to exit his vehicle as Gann shouted for him to "get out of the fucking car" for several minutes. Another Deputy, Chase Palmer, arrived while this was going on. After Palmer arrived, a knife in Santana Ramírez's hand was incorrectly identified as a gun. Gann then began shooting, pausing once to reload, ultimately firing 35 rounds into the back of the vehicle which was facing away from the deputies. Santana Ramírez was seated in the front seat during this time. 

The Seward County Sheriff "investigated" the incident and concluded that Gann had followed department procedures for the use of lethal force. The other deputy on the scene, who had more experience than Gann, testified at trial that Gann was not justified in shooting Santana Ramírez. 

This is what the law says:

Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1412

(b) The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:

(i) The actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily harm to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons...

So, according to 28-1415 (b) (i), if the officer believes that there is substantial risk that death or serious bodily harm will come to the officer or any anyone else, then lethal force is justified. 

Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1409, which is the self-defense statute, is similar:

(4) The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, nor is it justifiable if:

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be..

Prior to the trial, Gann's attorney attempted to have the charges dismissed based on the allegation that the grand jury was briefed on 28-1409, the self-defense statute, and not 28-1412, the statute dealing with use of force by law enforcement. The judge did not grant their motion to dismiss. Gann's attorney appealed the decision and the appeals court upheld the judge's decision. 

One of the reasons that you rarely see any law enforcement officer charged, let alone convicted of manslaughter or murder, is the word "believes" in both of these statutes. How many times have we heard "I feared for my life" after a cop shot someone reaching for their wallet, or who saw a child playing with a toy gun? It's a subjective decision, determining whether deadly force was necessary, but it's impossible to determine what was going on in someone's mind. How could you prove whether someone didn't genuinely fear for their life, or truly didn't believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm? You can't do it, and in our legal system it's not the job of the defendant to prove their innocence, but the job of the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Gann testified at his trial that he was facing an armed threat that necessitated deadly force. Except that he didn't based on objective facts, but he believed that he did. Or at least said that he believed that. The grand jury didn't think he was justified and indicted him, the trial jury apparently did, acquitting him after two and a half hours of deliberation. 

I understand that law enforcement is a stressful job, and they all want to come home alive at the end of their shift, but what we see, time after time, is law enforcement officers prioritizing their own safety over the lives of people who often have been convicted of no crime. There's even a cop saying: "I'd rather by tried by 12 than carried by 6" — in other words, I'd rather take my chances with a trial than risk getting killed. Than risk aversion often results in unarmed people being killed "just in case". 

The legal system needs to change — we have to stop assuming that law enforcement is always legally in the right.  

In the case of Jorge Luis Santana Ramírez, he didn't do himself any favors, but fleeing to avoid arrest isn't a capital crime, and Sheriff's Deputies aren't authorized judges, juries, or executioners. 

The Problem With The Epstein Files

The biggest problem with the so-called Epstein files, now that they've been released (at least in part) is that nothing is going to come of them. 

No indictments, no trials, no convictions beyond Maxwell and Epstein himself.

Ghislaine Maxwell was tried and convicted in 2021 for "conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor." See this statement by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for the details leading to her conviction. 

Epstein himself had been convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in in 2008, but only served 13 months, most of that on work release. He was arrested again in 2019 but died before being tried, likely for the same crimes for which Maxwell was convicted. 

One of them is in prison and the other one is dead. Problem solved right?

Not really. Not at all. What about all the people who Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls to? Shouldn't they be subjected to investigation, indictment and trial? Well, yes. But what does that look like? What it doesn't look like is releasing to the public every note, every tip, every witness statement, every allegation, every theory. In this blog post by John Sipher he lays out the reasons why a mass info-dump is a bad idea. 

"The bigger danger in an all-at-once “files” release isn’t that we’ll learn something uncomfortable about famous people. It’s that we’ll further damage the one thing a society cannot function without: credible trust in the rule-of-law process, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and the professionalism that makes those institutions something other than weapons.

"If our standard for justice becomes “dump everything and let the internet sort it out,” we are not strengthening accountability. We’re degrading it into a spectacle."

The "release the Epstein files" cry has it's origins in the QAnon online conspiracy movement outlined in a NY Times article that I have transcribed in one of my blog posts. The QAnon followers were convinced that there was a vast network of pedophiles operating in the shadows and that Donald Trump was the messiah who would expose them all. Donald Trump. Trump latched on to them and in his campaign for re-election in 2020 curried favor with this crucial portion of his support by promising to release the Epstein files, suggesting that doing so would expose former President Clinton and other Democrats as pedophiles and rapists. Once he got into office, however, he conveniently forgot all about his pledge, at least he hoped that his supporters would forget about it as well. Democrats, spotting some hypocrisy, started demanding that the files be released. 

The Epstein files were called a "Democrat Hoax" by Trump, despite his repeated calling for it. Attorney General Pam Bondi couldn't make up her mind about what was in them. The "Epstein client list" was on her desk, ready for review, then it didn't exist. The files didn't contain any information that warranted further investigation, then investigations were being opened into prominent Democrats. Before the giant data dump I wrote this about what possibly would be in these files. I predicted that there would be little if any new information. There's a lot of information, 3.5 million documents released so far, but what can be done with them?

This article by Alison O'Leary gives a pretty good synopsis of what is in the files that have been released and what they mean. 

"The “Epstein Files” are not a monolith but a chaotic archive of a life spent weaponizing philanthropy and social connections to obscure predation."

"...the so‑called “Epstein Files” [are] not a single “client list,” but a mix of court filings, flight logs, contact books, investigative reports, civil case materials, and estate records released by the House Oversight Committee."

The search for an “Epstein Client List” is a search for a document that likely never existed in the form the public imagines. The forensic record reveals something perhaps more disturbing than a simple list of customers: it reveals a complex web of social capital, influence peddling, and moral indifference.

"As of late 2025, the investigative landscape is defined by a tension between judicial closure and political openness. The DOJ’s July 2025 conclusion that no further prosecutions of third parties are warranted stands in stark contrast to the renewed, politically motivated investigations ordered by the executive branch in November 2025."

"Legally, the distinction between association and complicity remains the highest hurdle for any potential prosecution. Mere presence on a plane or in a contact book is not a crime, and the recently released emails, while damaging to reputations, often fall short of the evidentiary standards required for criminal indictment."

The release of the mountain of documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein's depredations is a lot of information, but it doesn't provide much in the way of conclusions. Of course we're all free to come to our own conclusions. Sadly though, I am not optimistic that the release of "The Epstein Files" has brought us any closer to putting anyone in front of a grand jury, let alone a trial, nor do I see it happening in the future. Not because terrible abuses didn't happen, not because there are revelations that make some of Epstein's guests look like candidates for the lowest circles of Hell, but because enough evidence to indict anyone other than Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell isn't there. 

It's no stretch to believe that the increasingly misnamed Department of Justice, including the FBI, has been corrupted in service to Trump. Of course it's possible that evidence of Trump culpability exists, but has been suppressed or destroyed.  But the NY Times recently reported about interviews with many current and former FBI agents, critical of the rot that has set into the agency. If there was evidence for further arrests and indictments, surely there is someone out there who knows about it. Maybe. I'm not optimistic.

I hope I'm wrong.

Our Broken Immigration System

I'm not in favor of open borders. To my knowledge, no serious person is in favor of open borders. Under President Biden we didn't have open borders. Border Patrol was apprehending those who crossed the border illegally. People were being deported. What we had was a system that was unprepared and unable to process the numbers of people who legally entered the country, some by requesting asylum, and adjudicate in a timely manner whether they would be admitted. 

The real solution to the many people petitioning to become American citizens would be to exponentially increase the number of judges assigned to review asylum and immigration claims; to set a maximum time frame for review whereby a failure to review would be result in an automatic permission to enter. Asylum claims by those in fear of violence would be fast tracked. The whole bureaucracy supporting green cards, visas and citizenship would be revamped and made easier, faster, and cheaper. Biden and Trump chose vastly different "solutions". 

President Biden chose to effectively ignore the problem. While it's true that a lasting solution needs Congress to get involved — and they didn't — the Biden administration made no effort to unclog the backlog of asylum claims and allowed claimants to remain in the country while their applications were pending, essentially placing them in legal limbo — here technically legally, but with no legal status. Trump did the opposite, refusing all asylum claims and immediately deporting anyone that was caught crossing the border. Trump's approach was effective if all you were trying to do was prevent immigration, but it also cut off legal entry, i.e. asylum seekers. He has also declared that a zone adjacent to the southern border is a "military base", turning illegal entry, a civil offense, or possibly a misdemeanor, into a felony, turning the people who do manage to cross into the U.S. de jure felons. 

Trump campaigned on ridding the country of "the worst of the worst", the violent criminals who were here illegally. If he had stuck to that plan I don't think I could have opposed it. Who could be against that? It was obvious, however,  that doing the hard work of rooting out criminal gangs who surely were operating off the grid was not what Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was doing. Confronting violent drug dealers who were armed with military grade weaponry was dangerous. So much easier to lurk around school pick up zones or wait at the courthouse for someone to pay their speeding ticket. 

What is often lost in the discussion regarding ICE's mission is that many of the people being targeted for deportation were here legally. Immigrants from certain countries, such as Venezuela and Haiti, were given Temporary Protected Status. Many of those who arrived during the Biden administration had applied for asylum and were awaiting their day in court. Green Card holders (Permanent Legal Residents) were being deported because they had a DUI twenty years ago. At least one person was detained and presumably deported on their way to the final step in the citizenship process. These were all people who "did it the right way" and were still caught in the net. Even some people who initially arrived here illegally were allowed to stay as long as they checked in with ICE every year and stayed out of trouble. They were being detained when they showed up for their annual appointment. 

As if the wholesale roundup of people who have lived her peaceably for decades, contributing to their communities, raising their children here, holding down jobs, paying taxes (and Social Security, which they will never collect) wasn't enough, ICE isn't limiting themselves to following leads and detaining and deporting people who have been investigated and determined to have overstayed their welcome. No, they quickly escalated to stopping and detaining people who look like they might be illegal. They have picked up, not only legal immigrants, but United States citizens, often refusing to accept their identification or their assertion that they were citizens. They're no longer merely doing their jobs, enforcing immigration laws, they are rampaging through our cities, terrorizing us.

And they've been shooting and killing people.

• Silverio Villegas González (killed)
• Marimar Martinez (shot 5 times, survived)
• Carlitos Ricardo Parias (shot, wounded)
• Jose Garcia-Sorto (shot, wounded)
• Carlos Jimenez - U.S. Citizen (shot, wounded)
• Isaias Sanchez Barboza (killed)
• Tiago Alexandre Sousa-Martins (shot, wounded)
• Renee Good - U.S. Citizen (killed)
• Luis David Nino Moncada and Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras (both shot, wounded)
• Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis (shot, wounded)
• Alex Pretti  - U.S. Citizen (killed)
• Patrick Gary Schlegel - U.S. Citizen (shot, wounded)
• Keith Porter - U.S. Citizen (killed) - Mr. Porter doesn't appear on many of these lists. There are accusations that it is because he is Black, in my opinion it's more likely it's because although he was killed by an ICE officer, the agent was off duty and the shooting was unrelated to an ICE immigration operation

This article lists the circumstances in each shooting. Although a few of them appear to be law enforcement related (one involved a Tren de Aragua gang member and another a guy who transported illegal immigrants) a lot of them involve situations where ICE agents are claiming that they feared for their lives — they maintained that they were in danger of being run over by a fleeing vehicle. Can none of these idiots resist standing in front of moving vehicles? Or move out of the way? 

In the Trump administration's manic efforts to Make America White Again, to "cleanse the blood" of our nation he has, like every administration before, made no effort to reform the immigration system. Instead, he has unleashed a poorly trained cadre of cop wannabes on our communities and turned them into an unaccountable paramilitary who are shooting people for traffic violations and then disappearing from sight. Trump's justification for all of this is that he has "closed the border" and is deporting all the "illegals". But all he has done is closed the border to all legal avenues for people to apply for asylum and caused people whom we have allowed to live here, sometimes for decades, to be uprooted from their lives. 

But the terror isn't, as they say, a bug, but a feature.