The Dictatorship
Lindsey Halligan should have re-read the Constitution before going after Letitia James

In the same jurisdiction in which the Trump Justice Department indicted former FBI Director James Comey more than a week ago, the same prosecutor who brought that case has now gone after another Trump enemy: New York Attorney General Letitia “Tish” James. (Disclosure: I worked as a volunteer member of James’ transition team after her election in 2018.)
The reason for the indictment? James is accused of having falsified a mortgage application on a property purchased in Virginia. The extent of the harm she is alleged to have caused? About $18,000.
Whether the prosecution will ultimately be able to prove the case against James remains to be seen. What seems more likely is that James will be able to get the case dismissed, because it could be classified as an unconstitutional selective prosecution.
Donald Trump has railed against and threatened to prosecute James once he retook power, after she brought a civil action against him for … mortgage fraud.
James is charged with having engaged in mortgage fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. The case appears to rest on flimsy and conflicting evidence at best, has been brought on grounds that are rarely prosecuted and was filed over the objection of career lawyers within the Justice Department who did not think there was probable cause to bring the case.
What the government will have to prove in establishing the charges before a jury is that James knowingly lied when she claimed that she intended to use the home as a secondary residence at the time of the application. That is something the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Other evidence that James appears to be able to present will likely contradict that case. It will be up to the jury to decide if the prosecution can meet that burden. But there is a good chance a jury will never hear this case.
Donald Trump has railed against and threatened to prosecute James once he retook power, after she brought a civil action against him for … mortgage fraud. James won that case in New York and secured a nearly $500 million judgment against Trump, several members of his family and some of his businesses. That damages award has been overturned on appeal, and what damages should be paid is an issue that is pending final resolution. The underlying verdict that Trump committed fraud still standshowever.
While James has professed her innocence, she has another potential response to this indictment: that the prosecution itself violates the constitutional prohibition against what is known as selective prosecution.

The concept of selective prosecution is one recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. It occurs when a prosecution is brought for an improper purpose and an improper discriminatory effect. Courts generally recognize that prosecutors have wide discretion to prosecute cases as they see fit — but that discretion is not without limits. Still, establishing a claim of selective enforcement requires the defendant to meet a fairly high bar. From the publicly available information about her case and others, James would appear to be able to make out a good case that this action against her qualifies as a selective — and therefore unconstitutional — prosecution.
According to the Supreme Court, a selective prosecution claim is available to someone who says that the prosecution “had a discriminatory effect” and “was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” For example, that the prosecution was brought based on the defendant’s race or gender, or as a form of punishment for asserting a protected constitutional right.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that James is being prosecuted simply because, in carrying out her functions as a state attorney general, she enforced the law against the person who is currently president.
A prosecution of a state official for doing their job in enforcing federal law would fly in the face of critical free speech and federalism principles — in violation of the 1st and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that James is being prosecuted simply because she enforced the law against the person who is currently president.
Again, a claim of selective prosecution is hard to establish. Still, the evidence for James to try to make out this claim is in plain sight, but even that evidence may be but the tip of the iceberg. In September, the president took to Truth Social to implore Attorney General Pam Bondi to commence prosecutions against several of his enemies. (It seems quite possible that this message was not meant to be a public communication.)
Are there more communications like that that were not made public? What was the scope of the investigation into mortgage fraud by James and others? Why were these investigations even commenced? Was it simply a case of presenting a list of individuals to the Justice Department with the directive to find a crime, any crime? What steps has the administration taken to investigate the allegations that others in the administration engaged in similar conduct?
If James can present some initial evidence that the case against her constitutes an unconstitutional selective prosecution, she will then be able to explore some of these other factual questions.
From publicly reported information, the criminal case against James appears to rely on a somewhat flimsy evidentiary basis. At the same time, what we do know already from publicly available information, with some of it containing the public statements and missives of the president himself, the evidence that this was a selective prosecution may be overwhelming.
Ray Brescia
Ray Brescia is a professor of law at Albany Law School and author of the book “The Private Is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism.”
The Dictatorship
The two words Democrats are avoiding in praising the Israel-Hamas peace deal

Democrats are heaping praise on the peace deal struck between Israel and Hamas, which unlocked the release of all living hostages in Gaza. But there are two words most Democrats are omitting when discussing the peace agreement: “Donald” and “Trump.”
In statement after statement, Democrats on Capitol Hill lauded the end to the fighting, the liberation of hostages and the hope of a new chapter in the Middle East, applauding “all involved in succeeding to broker the ceasefire agreement” and touting the “power of diplomacy” for getting the globe to that moment.
“After two years of abduction and torture, every living hostage is finally home. Those who were taken on October 7th will outlast the terrorist organization that tore them from their families and homes and unleashed a war of untold suffering,” Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., wrote on social media. “Against all odds, the timeless call to ‘Let My People Go’ has been answered.”
Notably, however, there was no mention of Trump.

The same could be said for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Jeffries called the agreement “an extremely welcome development.”
“The world will be a better place with a safe and secure Israel living side by side in peace and prosperity with the Palestinian people able to achieve the dignity and self-determination they deserve. We must all recommit to achieve that outcome,” Jeffries said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., eventually gave Trump a shout-out Monday afternoon, after ignoring the president’s role when the deal was first announced.
In a 175-word statement, Schumer commended “the enormous advocacy of the tireless hostage families, President Trump, his administration, and all who helped make this moment happen.”
While he didn’t necessarily avoid Trump, he was careful to bookend his praise within a statement that celebrated the living hostages coming home and a call to build a lasting peace in the region.
And the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., posted on X that he was “deeply relieved to see the living hostages released from Gaza today.”
“May their freedom mark a process of healing for them and their families, and the beginning of a durable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians,” Meeks said.
There was no mention of Trump.
The divide between celebrating the deal while ignoring the man who helped broker it highlights the politically tricky terrain Democrats find themselves in. They want to laud the potentially historic peace agreement without giving credit to Trump, a figure they and their voters largely loathe and whose actions throughout the war have drawn criticism.
It’s the latest flashpoint in the long-simmering debate within the Democratic Party over Israel, which has pitted pro-Israel Democrats against progressive lawmakers who sharply criticized the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza — a discourse that has played out publicly.
Republicans, for their part, are taking note of the lopsided reaction. On Monday, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., criticized Democrats for not explicitly giving Trump “any credit,” accusing them of being fearful of the blowback from their base.
“They’re afraid, again, as I said in the press conference, of their Marxist base,” Johnson told reporters. “They’re afraid of the radical left, the growing number of radical leftists in the Democrat Party who will attack them if they say anything positive or affirmative about President Trump and his work, and it is a great shame and a great danger to the country.”
The speaker noted that he was “heartened” by the comments of some Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Trump’s rival from the 2016 election. In an appearance Friday on CBS News, Clinton said, “I really commend President Trump and his administration, as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20-point plan and seeing a path forward for what’s often called the day after.”
Of course, some congressional Democrats have joined Clinton in calling out the president.
Sen. Jon Ossoff — who faces a tough re-election next year in Georgia — praised the White House. “I commend the efforts of the Trump Administration and international partners to achieve this moment and will vigorously support the hard work ahead necessary to secure peace, security, and freedom for all people in the Middle East,” he wrote in a statement.

In a post on social media, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., called it an “amazing day for the families” of returned hostages. “And for @POTUS and all the negotiators who made this day possible,” he said.
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a vocal supporter of Israel, also congratulated Trump the day he announced the peace deal.
And asked during a Sunday appearance on BLN how much credit Trump deserves for the deal, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Trump “should get a lot of credit.”
“This was his deal,” Kelly added. “He worked this out.”
Of course, Trump has played into the stewing domestic political divide over the situation in the Middle East, criticizing his Democratic predecessors as recently as Monday during his speech before the Knesset.
“All of the countries in the Middle East could have — what we’re doing now — it could have happened a long time ago, but it was strangled and set back, almost irretrievably by the administrations of Barack Obama and then Joe Biden,” Trump said in his hour-plus remarks.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for BLN. He previously served as Washington correspondent for Spectrum News NY1. A graduate of George Washington University, he grew up in Pennsylvania. When he isn’t roaming the halls of Congress, you’ll find Kevin singing with a local choir.
Mychael Schnell is a congressional reporter at BLN, where she covers all happenings on Capitol Hill involving both Democrats and Republicans. She previously covered Congress at Blue Light News. She graduated from George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and mass communication and political science. She is a native New Yorker, Billy Joel’s No. 1fan and a Rubik’s Cube aficionado.
The Dictatorship
Washington state waters down child abuse law after pressure from Trump administration


Officials in the state of Washington have agreed to water down a child abuse law after pressure from the Trump administration and local Catholic leaders.
Catholic bishops and the Trump administration had filed lawsuits seeking to overturn a bill signed by Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat and a Catholic, that required faith leaders of all denominations to report allegations of abuse they received in private religious settings — including confession. Though the Catholic Church has a documented history of enabling child sexual abuse, the sponsor of Washington’s bill said the legislation was inspired by reports of abuse within Jehovah’s Witness churches.
Catholic leaders have argued that being forced to report admissions made during a confession amounts to religious discrimination. And after a federal court temporarily blocked the law in July, Washington’s attorney general said late last week that the law will be pared back:
Clergy in Washington will remain mandatory reporters under stipulations filed today by the state Attorney General’s Office and the plaintiffs in lawsuits against the state over Senate Bill 5375. Under the stipulations, however, the state and county prosecutors have agreed — as the court ordered — not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths. The stipulation now awaits approval by the court.
Most states have so-called clergy-penitent privilege laws that effectively shield religious leaders from having to report child abuse claims they hear in confessional settings. A 2022 report by Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, detailed how this loophole has protected churches from prosecutions and civil lawsuits from victims seeking accountability. Washington had sought to join the few other states without such protections.
In Washington, the governor had denounced the lawsuit filed by Catholic bishops in his state, with Ferguson saying that he was “disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids.”
Jean Hill, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference, said in a statement last week that “preventing abuse and upholding the sacred seal of confession are not mutually exclusive — we can and must do both.”
The Dictatorship
Trump administration eyes higher food prices as a result of the immigration crackdown

About a month after Election Day 2024, as Donald Trump prepared to return to the White House, the Republican appeared on “Meet the Press” and explained his victory to NBC News’ Kristen Welker.
“I won on groceries,” he saidadding: “I won an election based on that.” Looking ahead, Trump concludedin reference to food prices for consumers: “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”
After returning to power, the president began boasting about his successes on the issue, assuring Americans that he had lowered the cost of groceries — despite the administration’s own data, which shows grocery costs have gone up this year, not down.
Complicating matters, the president’s own team fears that the problem will soon get worse, as a direct result of the Republican White House’s own agenda. The Washington Post reported:
The Trump administration said that its immigration crackdown is hurting farmers and risking higher food prices for Americans by cutting off agriculture’s labor supply. The Labor Department warned in an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that ‘the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’
According to the Labor Department’s assessment, which was first reported by The American Prospectthe administration needs to act “immediately” to prevent the problem from getting worse.
The Post’s report noted that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has predicted that, in the aftermath of Trump’s mass deportation agenda, the U.S. farm workforce will become “100% American.” Trump’s Labor Department doesn’t see that as realistic, since Americans lack the will and skills to replace migrant farmworkers.
“The Department concludes that qualified and eligible U.S. workers will not make themselves available in sufficient numbers,” the agency said.
In other words, the president who claimed that he won a second term based on food prices, and who vowed to bring consumer costs at grocery stores “way down,” is already lying about his recent record. But making matters even worse is the fact that his own administration expects the problem to get worse, as food production slows as a result of the White House’s campaign against immigrants, which is likely to reduce supply, pushing prices up.
At that point, Trump will have to choose between competing campaign promises: Will he let immigrants stay and help stabilize food costs, or will he deport these workers and risk the fury of consumers who’ll see prices at their local grocery store climb?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Uncategorized11 months ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics8 months ago
Former ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Josh Fourrier Show11 months ago
DOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship8 months ago
Pete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship8 months ago
Luigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics8 months ago
Blue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics11 months ago
What 7 political experts will be watching at Tuesday’s debate
-
Politics8 months ago
Former Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid