update - Trump pardonee / crypto partner linked to HAMAS

[mandrill]

Donald Trump considering military operations against two US allies


US President Donald Trump has declined to rule out expanding American military operations beyond Venezuela to include Mexico and Colombia, two long-standing US allies in Latin America.

In a recent interview with Politico, Trump said he would ‘consider’ using force against targets in both countries, citing their roles in narcotics trafficking into the United States.

Mexico is the primary route for heroin, cocaine and fentanyl entering the US, while Colombia remains one of the world’s largest cocaine producers.



US President Donald Trump has declined to rule out expanding American military operations beyond Venezuela to include Mexico and Colombia — two long-standing US allies in Latin America. Pic: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
The comments come as the Trump administration intensifies pressure on Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, whom Washington has repeatedly threatened to remove.

Since early September, the US has carried out 22 strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, resulting in at least 87 deaths.

Asked whether he would consider similar actions in other Latin American nations with active drug-trade routes, Trump replied: ‘Sure, I would.’



In a recent interview with Politico, Trump said he would ‘consider’ using force against targets in both countries, citing their roles in narcotics trafficking into the United States. Pic: Pete Marovich/Getty Images
A significant US military presence, including naval warships and special operations forces, has been deployed to the Caribbean as part of what the White House describes as a counter-drug operation.

Analysts, Venezuelan officials and opposition figures have accused Washington of using the mission as a pressure tactic against Caracas.

Critics have also raised concerns about potential extrajudicial killings, arguing the US has not provided concrete evidence that the targeted vessels were carrying narcotics or posed any threat.



Mexico is the primary route for heroin, cocaine and fentanyl entering the US, while Colombia remains one of the world’s largest cocaine producers. Pic: Allison Robbert/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
Trump has also drawn scrutiny for pardoning former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been convicted in the US on multiple drug-trafficking charges and was serving a decades-long sentence.

Trump said he knew ‘very little’ about Hernández but had been urged by ‘very good people’ to issue the pardon, without specifying who made the request.

Meanwhile, the arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group in the Caribbean in November coincided with the latest US attacks on suspected drug-smuggling boats.

The most controversial incident remains a September 2 strike on a vessel the administration claimed was transporting cocaine towards the US. A second missile strike killed two survivors seen clinging to the wreckage, with Pentagon officials later insisting they posed an ‘ongoing threat’.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is now facing heavy criticism over the decision to authorise that follow-up strike. The Pentagon has yet to release public evidence supporting its claims about the targeted vessels.

 

[mandrill]

Trump sparks backlash from MAGA conservatives after sending $45 million to Taliban


President Donald Trump's administration is being sharply criticized by conservatives in both government and media for reportedly sending tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban-controlled government in Afghanistan.

Newsweek reported Tuesday that, according to Amrullah Saleh, (who leads the anti-Taliban political party Afghanistan Green Trend) the Trump administration flew $45 million in cash to Afghanistan on Monday. Saleh's group alleged that the money was "flown in via a chartered flight by Moalem Airlines," which is based in Kyrgyzstan.

The post caught the attention of conservative commentator Ann Vandersteel, who said of the cash payment "this is not America First" but rather "America deceived." Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who is a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, responded to Vandersteel's post by adding that the massive cash shipments to the Taliban are happening "every week." He then called on the U.S. Senate to "pass my bill."

Burchett's legislation — the "No Tax Dollars for Terrorists Act" — passed the House of Representatives in June, and would empower the U.S. State Department to identify and publish the names of every organization providing financial support to the Taliban-controlled government.

"The United States has sent over $5 billion in cash to Kabul. It is the duty of the State Department to ensure that any aid from the United States is kept out of the hands of terrorists in Afghanistan. The terrorists can hate us for free," Burchett stated after the bill was passed.

Burchett has been a vocal proponent of cutting off U.S. cash shipments to Afghanistan ever since U.S. troops withdrew from the war-torn country in 2021. The issue has also attracted interest from MAGA influencers in close proximity to Trump, like unofficial "loyalty enforcer" Laura Loomer.

"Why is the United States still funding the Taliban?" Loomer wrote on Tuesday. "What the hell do our reps do all day aside from ruin our country and the world?"

"Because we are crooked Laura," Burchett responded.

Click here to read Newsweek's full article.

 

[mandrill]

Supreme Court questions limits on political party spending in federal elections, hearing GOP appeal


WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared to back a Republican-led drive that would erase limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president and overturn a quarter-century-old decision.

A day after the justices indicated they would reverse a 90-year-old precedent limiting the president's power to fire independent agency heads, the court took up a 2001 decision that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old.


The lawsuit, which originated in Ohio, includes Vice President JD Vance, who joined in the Republican challenge to the limits when he was a senator from Ohio. The arguments touched on whether Vance would run for president in 2028, and whether his plans should figure in the outcome.

The case is the latest in which the conservative majority could upend congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.

Two hours of arguments showed entrenched divisions between the liberal and conservative justices over campaign finance restrictions.

"Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a dissenter in Citizens United and the court's other campaign money cases.


By contrast, Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the Citizens United majority, described the decision as “much maligned, I think unfairly maligned.” The effect of the decision was to ”level the playing field," Alito said, by expanding the right to spend freely that had previously belonged only to media companies.

The limits on party spending stem from a desire to prevent large donors from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party, with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate.

The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by Vance and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.

The court should cast a skeptical eye on the limits because they are “at war” with recent high court decisions, lawyer Noel Francisco said, representing Republican interests. The Federal Election Commission, which changed its view on the issue after Trump took office, also argued that the limits should be struck down.

Democrats are calling on the court to uphold the law, even though there is wide agreement that the spending limits have hurt political parties in an era of unlimited spending by other organizations.

“That’s the real source of the disadvantage, right?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. “You can give huge money to the outside group, but you can’t give huge money to the party. And so the parties are very much weakened compared to the outside group.”

Alito, Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas all voiced skepticism about the limits, while the three liberal justices signaled they would vote to uphold them. The other three members of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, either said nothing during the arguments or not enough to indicate how they might vote.

After the Trump administration joined with Republicans to ask the court to strike down the campaign finance law, the justices appointed a lawyer to defend it.


Roman Martinez, an experienced Supreme Court advocate, offered the justices a way out of the case without deciding anything. Among the reasons, Martinez told the court, is that Vance's claim is moot because the vice president has “repeatedly denied having any concrete plan to run for office in 2028.”

The justices did not seem to be looking for the off ramp that Martinez was offering.

In 2025, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranges from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California. For House races, the limits are $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else.

___

Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Mark Sherman, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Trump-picked judges side with Hegseth policy to ban trans troops


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Pentagon leadership subsequently ordered military officials to identify all trans troops and to strip them of access to gender-affirming care.

Pentagon guidance claims that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

The memo provides for a “case-by-case basis waiver” that effectively tells trans service members they can continue to serve if they can prove they have never transitioned and have never lived as their sex at birth for a period of time.

A lawsuit from a group of 20 active-duty trans service members argues that the orders are plainly discriminatory and fueled by animus towards trans people in violation of their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.



The order, which follows a long-running lawsuit from trans service members, will block a lower-court ruling that found the administration’s order plainly discriminatory (AFP via Getty Images)
The two Trump-appointed appellate court judges argued that because Hegseth’s policy “advances legitimate military interests, the animus cases do not help the plaintiffs here” — even when statements from the defense secretary and other administration officials repeatedly denigrated trans people and made it clear that the policy is intended to explicitly deny them from serving.

The Trump-appointed judges said a decision about the policy should only rely on “text and sources informing” it, not the “extrinsic statements made about it.”

Appellate Judge Cornellia Pillard, who was appointed by Barack Obama, ripped into her colleagues’ decision and the Trump administration’s directives, which are “based on nothing more than negative attitudes about transgender identity.”

Trump’s initial executive order to begin with is “openly hostile to transgender people,” and Hegseth adopted the Defense Department’s policy after the president “tagged all transgender service members as shameful, dishonest laggards too arrogant or selfish to serve,” Pillard wrote.

She went on to list several statements and social media posts from Hegseth himself, including his explicit admission that “transgender service members are disqualified from service without an exemption” and “no more dudes in dresses, we’re done with that s***.”

“Previous defense secretaries devoted months of study, with the help of experts, to understanding the facts and circumstances relevant to transgender service,” Pillard noted.



Outside of court, Hegseth has made a series of anti-trans remarks calling for the removal of trans people from the military, which Trump-appointed appellate court judges say shouldn’t be taken into consideration when it comes to the constitutionality of Pentagon policy that does exactly that (POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Hegseth, meanwhile, came up with his policy “in just one month,” rejecting the military’s own “substantial and growing experience” with trans service members that contradict his spurious claims, according to the judge.

Trans service members are “already suffering substantial and irreparable harm” under Hegseth’s policy and his “grave disruption” of the status quo, Pillard wrote.


“The majority’s decision makes it all but inevitable that thousands of qualified servicemembers will lose careers they have built over decades, drawn up short by a policy that would repay their commitment and service to our nation with detriment and derision,” she added. “We should not accord deference to the military when the [Pentagon] itself carelessly relied on no more than blatant animus.”

Attorneys will return to federal court January 22 to argue against the administration’s ban.

District Judge Ana Reyes “correctly found that this ban causes irreparable harm and is rooted not in facts, data, or reason — but in animus,” Shannon Minter, legal director with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs, told The Independent.

“Notably, all three judges on today’s panel acknowledged that the ban is driven by animus,” he said. “The court still has the opportunity to protect our troops and their families by upholding Judge Reyes’s decision.”

 

[mandrill]

'Earthquake': Experts sound alarm as Republicans lose key seats in red states


Democrats notched two major special election wins on Tuesday night, and observers on both sides of the aisle are suggesting the races could be a bellwether for what the GOP can expect in the 2026 midterms.

In Miami, Florida, Democrat Eileen Higgins won the city's mayoral race, marking the first time in nearly 30 years a Democrat has held the position. Republican businessman Emilio González, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, lost the race by nearly 20 points.

MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, who has been described as Trump's unofficial "loyalty enforcer," wrote on her official X account that Higgins' victory meant that "a bright red city in a bright red state just went blue."

"President Trump’s Presidential library will now be constructed under the control of a rabidly anti-Trump Democrat who supports soft on crime policies," Loomer wrote. "Midterms will be a bloodbath."

"If a Republican had been elected Mayor of NYC under a Biden administration it would have been (rightly) viewed as an earthquake," TV producer Tom Brennan wrote. "Things are VERY bad for the Republicans under Trump."

"Dear Republicans. Stop fighting each other and realize the commies are rapidly gaining ground," tweeted Blake McClellan, who is the chairman of the Forsyth County, Georgia Republican Party.

Georgia also saw a Democratic victory in a red state House of Representatives district. CNN reported that Democrat Eric Gisler flipped Georgia's 121st House District from red to blue, despite Trump winning the district last year by double digits. Vote Hub analyst Zachary Donnini wrote on X that Gisler's victory came about despite Republicans carving up the state's legislative districts to give the GOP an advantage.


“A Republican gerrymander just backfired in Georgia,” Donnini wrote. “Despite splitting Athens into three conservative-leaning districts, Democrats flipped Trump+12 GA HD-121 — turning one of those engineered red seats blue tonight.”

Columnists were already sounding alarms on GOP hyper-aggressive gerrymandering that split what they through were dedicated Republican voters into blue districts to dilute Democratic votes. The wake-up call first sounded off following nationwide victories by Democrats in November.

“After widespread defeats in last week's off-year elections, Republicans should realize they made a bad bet by following President Donald Trump's lead on mid-decade redistricting,” said Columnist Mary Ellen Klas. “Desperate not to lose the House in the midterms, the president sought to rig the game. He pressured legislatures in red states to create new Republican-leaning districts, and lawmakers duly redrew their maps. That weakened some safe red seats, but the GOP assumed that it would hurt Democrats more. [The November] results demonstrate the folly of Trump's gamble.”

 

[mandrill]

State Department forced to change fonts as Trump's DEI crackdown comes for typefaces


Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued an order for diplomats to stop using a word processing typeface he considers too woke, and go back to using Times New Roman, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

Rubio's order reverses a 2023 directive from Antony Blinken, then-President Joe Biden's Secretary of State, which "had switched to Calibri, a modern sans-serif font, saying this was a more accessible font for people with disabilities because it did not have the decorative angular features and was the default in Microsoft products."



A Dec. 9 cable proclaims, "To restore decorum and professionalism to the Department’s written work products and abolish yet another wasteful DEIA program, the Department is returning to Times New Roman as its standard typeface," arguing that serif fonts are a better fit for official work.

It's yet another front in Trump's efforts to dismantle so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that seek to improve participation by discriminated groups in public and professional life.

"Trump, a Republican, moved quickly after taking office in January to eradicate federal DEI programs and discourage them in the private sector and education, including by directing the firing of diversity officers at federal agencies and pulling grant funding for a wide range of programs," said the report. "DEI policies became more widespread after nationwide protests in 2020 against police killings of unarmed Black people, spurring a conservative backlash. Trump and other critics of diversity initiatives say they are discriminatory against white people and men and have eroded merit-based decision-making."

In some cases, however, even Republicans have worried that Trump's war on DEI programs has gone too far. After Trump killed a program that awards grant money to colleges with large Hispanic student bodies,

 

[mandrill]

Trump allies likely headed for major Supreme Court disappointment


On Tuesday. December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission— which finds allies of President Donald Trump challenging a federal law limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination. The High Court's 6-3 GOP-appointed supermajority has been quite favorable to Trump in a long list of rulings, but The New Republic's Matt Ford, in an article published on December 10, lays out some reasons why he believes this case may not go Trump's way.


"The Supreme Court appeared uncertain about whether it would strike down a major campaign-finance restriction during oral arguments on Tuesday, with some of the Court's conservative members questioning a right-wing push to do so," Ford explains. "The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, revolves around a legal challenge to Congress' ban on 'coordinated party expenditures.' Federal election law currently forbids political parties from coordinating their election spending with federal candidates for office."

Ford adds, "A group of challengers, including the GOP's Senate campaign-finance arm and Vice President J.D. Vance, argued that the ban violates their First Amendment rights to political speech through campaign spending."

Ford notes that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the High Court's three Democratic appointees, was "not persuaded" by the plaintiffs' arguments during the December 9 hearing — and that Justice Sonia Somayor, appointed by former President Barack Obama, "strenuously disputed" assertions by Noel Francisco, a witness for the plaintiffs.

But it is the GOP appointees who Ford says give him reason to believe that in the end, the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission ruling won't go the plaintiffs' way.

"In addition to (Justice Clarence) Thomas, whose questions suggested concerns about the Court's own jurisdiction over the matter, Chief Justice John Roberts signaled that he might not accept the challengers' interpretation of the law in question," Ford observes. "He asked Francisco to explain the difference between 'coordinated expenditures' and actual contributions, describing it as a 'legal fiction'…. While none of the conservatives expressed regret about their past rulings, only Justice Samuel Alito seemed interested in lauding them…. Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh's questions expressed some concern that the 'overall architecture of our jurisprudence' may have 'weakened or disadvantaged political parties as compared to outside groups,' but did not clearly signal what conclusions that might lead him to."

Ford adds, "Justice Neil Gorsuch asked no questions, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked only one that shed little light on her overall thinking.

Matt Ford's full article for The New Republic is available at this link.

 

[mandrill]

New email trove reveals Epstein’s ruthless 'handbook' to stay in Wall Street’s good graces


Many of the documents from trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's estate have revealed shocking ties to top Wall Street executives previously unknown. However, a new collection of documents shows that Epstein's hands reached much further than initially thought.

Five reporters authored a detailed piece for Bloomberg digging through the recent trove of emails that provide a glimpse inside Epstein's work as an investor and financial adviser. The piece is the seventh in a series of stories as the team at Bloomberg sorts its way through the release of emails.

Max Abelson, Harry Wilson, Jason Leopold, Jeff Kao and Surya Mattu revealed that the Epstein didn't only used his leverage over people when his financial gambles flopped. He also used it to score relationships with some of the most "sought-after hedge funds" like Renaissance Technologies, "whose reputation for success is almost mythical," wrote Leopold in an X thread.

Once Epstein’s abuse of teenage girls became public, Wall Street tycoons still stayed close to him. He kept ties to big names in global finance, including billionaire Carl Icahn’s firm, and while he pushed prosecutors for a lenient plea deal, he was also threatening to sue Bear Stearns and its top executives over heavy financial losses, Leopold continued in the thread.

The one observation he had is that "the email cache doesn’t solve a central Epstein enigma: How did a former math teacher without a college degree turn himself into a globetrotting money manager with his own island?"


What it does show, however, is that he was friendly when it suited him, aggressive when needed, and it was often effective enough to score influence and make money.

Epstein "found the right doors to banks, brokerages, billionaires and investments. When something went wrong, he had a playbook to handle it, often ruthlessly," wrote Leopold.

When things took a turn legally, the emails show that many of his elite Wall Street pals rushed to help jumped to help keep the cash flowing.

Thanks to Epstein, Bear's investment fund scored "tens of millions of dollars."

Epstein also "helped oversee one of Bear CEO Jimmy Cayne’s trusts," Leopold said of the documents. "When Bear’s stock hit $100 for the first time, Epstein bought 100 shares and presented them to Cayne as a gift."

When the subprime mortgage market crashed and Bear’s hedge funds — where Epstein had money — collapsed, a lawyer representing other wealthy investors invited Epstein to join a quiet plan to vote out the funds’ directors, install an ally, and investigate the debacle to claw back losses.

After Bear Stearns fell apart the following March, Epstein prepared to sue the firm and several top executives, casting himself as a victim in a June 2008 draft lawsuit.

In any given week, a deal sent Epstein’s way might be for him personally or for billionaire Les Wexner, the force behind Victoria’s Secret — and even Epstein was sometimes "hesitated to say what went where," characterized Leopold.

Read the full report of the documents.

 

[mandrill]

Trump's handpicked judge just put Kristi Noem in a bind: ex-prosecutor


One of President Donald Trump's favorite judges issued a ruling last week that could make Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's contempt proceedings much more difficult to navigate, according to a legal expert.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has been conducting a contempt investigation into Noem concerning an instance from mid-March where DHS failed to turn around a plane carrying detained immigrants to El Salvador's infamous CECOT prison. Boasberg had previously ordered DHS to turn the plan around, and Noem has not yet provided satisfactory answers to the department's decisions that day, according to a CNN report on the case.



Emil Bove, a judge on the Third Circuit Court and former Trump defense attorney, issued a little-noticed, two-page declaration on Dec. 5 where he admitted he provided legal advice to officials who spoke with Noem about the event.

Mitchell Eppner, a former federal prosecutor, discussed the potential implications of Bove's filing in a new episode of "Legal AF" with Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News.


"If this is to be taken at face value ... [Bove] did not communicate directly with Secretary Noem that day, but he did communicate with people he understood to be communicating with her," Eppner said. "It's very clear that they were aware of the judge's orders."

"So, now Kristi Noem is going to be put in a bind," Eppner said.

"Either she's going to say she was just following the lawyer's advice or she won't. If she says she was following her lawyer's orders, that waives privilege," which would require Bove and other officials like Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche or DHS general counsel Joseph Mazzara to provide "more specific information," he continued.

"That's an unpalatable situation for DOJ in most cases," Eppner added. "But the alternative here is that Kristi Noem is the one here who is just left holding the bag because she has no excuse that she didn't hear about the order.

Trump DOJ Walks Right Into Judge's Trap in Criminal Contempt Proceeding by Legal AF

Read on Substack

 

[mandrill]

Trump official claims '50 years of discrimination' against whites as lawyers flee DOJ

Real America's Voice/screen grab© provided by RawStory
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon claimed that the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division was guilty of "50 years of discrimination" against white people after about 75% of the agency's lawyers said she was behind a plot to drive them out.

"I think there was some denial and they had crying sessions together," Dhillon told The New York Post this week. "Frankly, it was shocking to them. They had unhappy hours. It was like a lot of drama and handwringing."


"I didn't fire anybody. I just told them they have to approach their job differently. They self-deported with a nice golden parachute from the government."

On Wednesday's appearance on The Charlie Kirk Show, Dhillon encouraged viewers to apply for jobs at the reconstructed Civil Rights Division.


"We just sued Minneapolis for discriminating against teachers who are not minorities and, you know, on and on and on," she promised. "And so we are hiring, and so lawyers with at least 18 months of experience who are interested in serving a tour of duty to help their country."

Charlie Kirk Show producer Andrew Kolvet lamented that white people could soon no longer hold majority status in the U.S.

"Let's say it was 83% white country [in the 1960s]; now we're basically 50%," he noted. "You give that another 10 years, it's going to be probably under 50%, maybe right around 50%. ... When I was born, I think we were around 80% white still."

Dhillon admitted that "we have a history of discrimination in our country."

But she suggested that the courts went too far with a 1971 decision that started the concept of disparate impact.

"So in other words, you no longer necessarily had to prove in your discrimination case, whatever the context was, that you are actually being the victim of intentional discrimination," she remarked. "You could simply prove that there's a hiring process or a policy, or there's certain, you know, tests that are required, and I, because I'm African-American, I can't pass a test."

"We have now issued a guidance that says that this 50 years of discrimination is against frankly law-abiding practices and businesses and recipients is over," she added. "It is harming a lot of people. It is wrong."

 

[mandrill]

Trump-pardoned founder accused of aiding Hamas


A stunning new lawsuit is putting cryptocurrency giant Binance and its co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao — who was recently and controversially pardoned by President Donald Trump — back in the spotlight.

Families of Americans killed or kidnapped by Hamas operatives in Israel on October 7, 2023, say the world’s largest crypto exchange “knowingly” allowed more than $1 billion to reach Hamas and other U.S.-designated terror groups ahead of the attacks.

What the lawsuit claims


The allegations in the 284-page federal filing are explosive.

Lawyers argue that in the years leading up to the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history, which triggered a war in Gaza, Binance “deliberately” failed “to monitor inbound funds” connected to Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

A total of 306 American plaintiffs are named.

Many are relatives of dual Israeli-American victims of the October 7 attacks.

They include family members of hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin and the loved ones of IDF soldier Itay Chen, who was killed while being held by Hamas, Mediaite reported.

What they say Binance did and didn’t do


According to a new lawsuit, cryptocurrency giant Binance “pitched itself to terrorist organizations, narcotics traffickers and tax evaders as beyond the reach of any single country’s laws or regulations.” By: Kanchanara on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
The filing claims Binance’s oversight was so lax that “terrorists and other criminals could deposit and shuffle enormous sums on the exchange with impunity.”

The complaint also alleges that “Binance allowed those customers and accounts to shift the assets into other Binance accounts, thus negating the effect of any ‘blocking’ or ‘seizing.'”

This conduct, the plaintiffs argue, “demonstrates Binance’s deliberate and conscious effort to enable users to operate on the Binance platform and clearly helps facilitate financial crime on an industrial scale.”

In a statement to Jewish Insider, Binance said it “cannot comment on any ongoing litigation,” insisted it complies with sanctions rules and pointed out that U.S. Treasury officials have previously said Hamas does not widely use cryptocurrency.

Zhao’s legal past and pardon from Trump


Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao was convicted in 2023 of breaking money laundering rules and served four months in prison before President Donald Trump pardoned him in 2025. By: @Binance/YouTube© Knewz (CA)
Zhao is personally named in the lawsuit, as is his associate Guangying Chen.

Billionaire Zhao previously pleaded guilty to violating U.S. anti-money-laundering laws in 2023 and served four months in prison.

But this fall, Trump pardoned him, drawing scrutiny because the move came after Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of a stablecoin from World Liberty Financial — the Trump family’s cryptocurrency firm — launching it to international recognition.

What Trump said


When “60 Minutes” correspondent Norah O’Donnell pressed Donald Trump about the appearance of corruption after he pardoned Binance’s co-founder, the president told her he didn’t like the question and “could have walked away” instead of allowing her to quiz him. By: @60Minutes/YouTube© Knewz (CA)
When asked during a recent CBS 60 Minutes interview about Zhao’s pardon, Binance and the appearance of pay for play, Trump said he knew “nothing about it” and pushed back when journalist Norah O’Donnell grilled him on the subject.

“Norah, I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good. You know, they’re running a business, they’re not in government,” Trump said.
I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you’re talking about the Biden government,” the president continued.

“It’s a corrupt government. [Former President Joe] Biden was the most corrupt president and he was the worst president we’ve ever had. I only care about one thing. Will crypto be — will we be No. 1 in crypto?” Trump added before continuing to talk about crypto.

When O’Donnell pressed him further, asking if he was worried about the appearance of corruption, Trump said he was “not concerned,” though added, “I’d rather not have you ask the question.”

Binance CEO Richard Teng, who took over as CEO in 2023 after Zhao stepped down as part of a settlement with U.S. regulators, denied that the crypto exchange promoted the Trump-linked stablecoin before Zhao’s pardon.

 

[mandrill]

Judge orders Trump to end California National Guard troop deployment in Los Angeles


The Trump administration must stop deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles and return control of the troops to the state, a federal judge ordered Wednesday in an emphatic ruling.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction sought by California officials, but also put the decision on hold until Monday, presumably to give the administration a chance to appeal.

In an extraordinary move, President Donald Trump called up more than 4,000 California National Guard troops in June without Gov. Gavin Newsom’s approval to further the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts. The number had dropped to several hundred by late October, but California remained steadfast in its opposition to Trump's command of the troops.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson suggested in a statement that the administration would appeal Breyer's ruling, saying it looked forward to "ultimate victory on the issue.”

“President Trump exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets following violent riots that local leaders like Newscum refused to stop,” she said, using a pejorative moniker Trump has used to refer to the Democratic governor.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the ruling was a victory for democracy and the rule of law, and he accused the administration of playing “political games” with the troops.


“But the President is not king,” he said in a statement. “And he cannot federalize the National Guard whenever, wherever, and for however long he wants, without justification.”

Breyer rejected the administration's arguments that he could not review extensions of a Guard deployment and that it still needed Guard troops in Los Angeles to protect federal personnel and property, saying the first claim was “shocking” and the second one bordered on “misrepresentation.”

“The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances,” added Breyer, a nominee of President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. “Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.”

The 100 or so California troops that remain in Los Angeles are guarding federal buildings or staying at a nearby base and are not on the streets with immigration enforcement officers, according to U.S. Northern Command.

California argued that conditions in Los Angeles had changed since Trump first deployed the troops following clashes between federal immigration officers and people protesting his stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. During one demonstration, protesters threw rocks at Border Patrol vehicles. One man later pleaded guilty to throwing a Molotov cocktail.

The Republican administration has extended the deployment until February while also trying to use California Guard members in Portland, Oregon as part of its effort to send the military into Democratic-run cities over the objections of mayors and governors. It also sent some California National Guard troops to Illinois.

In his ruling, Breyer accused the Trump administration of “effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops.”

The idea that risks from demonstrations in the Los Angeles area could not be managed today without the National Guard defied “common sense,” the judge wrote.

“After all, local law enforcement like the LAPD, the LASD, and the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) have not only been willing to manage the protests, but have capably done so since June,” he wrote.

The June call-up was the first time in decades that a state’s national guard was activated without a request from its governor and marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to carry out its mass deportation policy. The troops were stationed outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles where protesters gathered and later sent on the streets to protect immigration officers as they made arrests.

California sued, arguing that the president was using Guard members as his personal police force in violation of a law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs. The administration said courts could not second-guess the president’s decision that violence during the protests made it impossible for him to execute U.S. laws with regular forces and reflected a rebellion, or danger of rebellion.


Breyer said in Wednesday's decision the suggestion there was danger of rebellion was even more “farfetched” when the administration extended the deployment than it was in June.

Breyer initally issued a temporary restraining order that required the administration to return control of the Guard members to California, but an appeals court panel put that decision on hold.

After a trial, Breyer ruled in September that the deployment violated the law.

Other judges have blocked the administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago.

Sudhin Thanawala, The Associated Press