President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[falafel]

One of the things I learned as an S2 (Bn Intel Officer) was that many times the intel was not classified because of what it was but because of how we knew that information, in other words, the source. If we were to stop hiding behind classification nonsense, there is a high likelihood that some or many of our HUMINT sources would be compromised and put in danger. I would not be surprised if we had infiltrated at least one of the cartels at a level that makes the boat strikes non-random. I am not in favor of putting our HUMINT sources in danger.

All that said, I do think that the AUMF was too broadly granted and any such authorization should have had an automatic sunset clause that required congressional approval to extend. I also think that the executive extension of the definition of terroists to cartels is tenuous at best, but since congress is too feckless to have put any guardrails on the AUMF in the first place, it will probably stand.

This is a solid and informed post that learned me sumthin' today. Thanks Cope.

[chrisrenrut]

Two can play this game.. And a “Former JAG” working group is opinion based.. As if there is no bias in that interpretation..


Hey ChatGPT: What law or rule is Trump using to attack boats in international waters and his military action toward Venezuela



Short answer: there is no single “new” law. The Trump administration relied on a combination of existing constitutional authority, statutes, and international law doctrines to justify actions involving boats in international waters and military or quasi-military pressure toward Venezuela.




Below is the clear breakdown:

Presidential Commander-in-Chief authority


Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President (at the time, Donald Trump) is Commander in Chief of U.S. armed forces.


Presidents of both parties have long claimed this authority allows:

• Limited military actions
• Naval interdictions
• Defensive or protective strikes
  without a formal declaration of war

This is the primary legal foundation used. Drug interdiction & maritime law (boats in international waters) Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) The U.S. relies heavily on the MDLEA, which allows the U.S. military and Coast Guard to:

• Stop, board, seize, or destroy vessels in international waters
• When they are stateless, flying false flags, or engaged in drug trafficking

This law has been upheld repeatedly by federal courts and applies outside U.S. territorial waters.


International law principles


Under customary international law:

• Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection
• Any nation may interdict them
• Drug trafficking is treated as a transnational crime

Many Venezuelan-linked boats intercepted were justified under this framework.

Counter-narcotics national emergency (Venezuela)


Trump issued executive orders declaring:

• Venezuela a national security threat
• Venezuelan drug trafficking (often linked to the Maduro regime) a threat to U.S. security

This allowed:

• Expanded naval patrols
• Military support for law enforcement
• Intelligence sharing and interdiction operations

This is not a declaration of war, but a law-enforcement–military hybrid operation.


Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) – indirect use


Trump did not rely on a Venezuela-specific AUMF. However, administrations often argue that:

• Existing AUMFs (2001/2002)
• Combined with Article II powers

Allow limited force when:

• U.S. personnel are threatened
• Regional stability is at risk
• Criminal or terrorist networks overlap

This is controversial but longstanding executive branch interpretation.


War Powers Resolution (why Congress wasn’t asked)


Under the War Powers Resolution:

• The President may deploy forces up to 60 days without congressional approval
• If not engaged in sustained hostilities

Trump’s actions were framed as:

• Interdiction
• Deterrence
• Law enforcement support
  Not “hostilities” triggering the clock.

Congress was notified but not asked to vote. What Trump did not have legal authority to do


Without Congress, Trump could not legally:

• Declare war on Venezuela
• Launch a sustained bombing campaign
• Invade or occupy territory
• Overthrow the Venezuelan government by force

That is why actions stayed naval, covert, economic, and diplomatic.


Bottom line


Trump’s actions toward boats in international waters and pressure on Venezuela relied on:

• Article II Commander-in-Chief powers
• Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act
• International law on stateless vessels
• National emergency declarations
• War Powers Resolution limits

Whether this use of authority is wise or overbroad is debated — but it follows the same legal framework used by multiple prior presidents, including Obama and Bush.

That explanation uses the word “interdict” a lot. I wasn’t sure exactly what that means. Gemini explains it thusly (I don’t see anything about bombing, destroying, or killing)


To interdict a vessel in the ocean means to intercept, stop, and inspect it at sea to disrupt illegal activities like smuggling (drugs, weapons, people) or to enforce sanctions, using naval or coast guard forces to assert control and potentially detain the ship, its cargo, or crew, often under specific international legal mandates
. It's a tactic to prevent illicit goods or persons from reaching their destination, acting as a "gray area" tool between peace and war.
Key aspects of maritime interdiction:

• Purpose: To prevent unauthorized activities, enforce UN resolutions (like arms embargoes), combat terrorism, stop drug trafficking, or manage migration.
• Actions Involved:
  • Detection & Monitoring: Identifying suspicious vessels.
  • Querying: Contacting the vessel via radio.
  • Stopping & Boarding: Using force or consent to get onto the ship.
  • Inspecting & Searching: Looking for contraband or illegal items.
  • Detaining/Seizing: Taking control of the vessel, cargo, or people if violations are found.
  • Repatriation: Returning migrants to their country.

[dabrockster]

Well, I have no quibbles with that. I fully accept that the public doesn't need and probably shouldn't have everything. (I do find that response odd when the WH and Sec. of WAR post videos of the strikes on social media and then acts like its all way too sensitive for the public.

What I DO quibble with is your My reply to you was 90% about this action did not appear legal under the various justifications we have heard. I don't need to prove it one way or the other because I'm not a judge and I'm not a DOJ lawyer. But remember when you said:

I have shown you why I think it is illegal, as you requested, with specific citations. Do you have any citations to argue that it is legal? Or do you have a response to my argument that designating Tren de Aragua as a FTO doesn't cut it, and you can't name an entire country a FTO. If you attack a sovereign state, its called War.

I am not sure how to respond as if I didn’t cite who think it is legal. BP or Bo have also spoke in the past on how Trump is cloaking it in a way for it to be legal. We have both provided why we believe it to be legal or illegal. I do not need to provide any further citations.

As for the drug cartel based out of “Venezuela”, which the opposition leader has stated Maduro is connected too. Again, it falls under the same executive power he is using. No backpedaling at all.

I agree with the videos. No need to show them and find no reason especially based on my opinion of what should be shared. I guess they think they are being transparent by providing that. I don’t think so. I believe it is about ego and is it helpful at all.

[chrisrenrut]

I am not sure how to respond as if I didn’t cite who think it is legal. BP or Bo have also spoke in the past on how Trump is cloaking it in a way for it to be legal. We have both provided why we believe it to be legal or illegal. I do not need to provide any further citations.

As for the drug cartel based out of “Venezuela”, which the opposition leader has stated Maduro is connected too. Again, it falls under the same executive power he is using. No backpedaling at all.

I agree with the videos. No need to show them and find no reason especially based on my opinion of what should be shared. I guess they think they are being transparent by providing that. I don’t think so. I believe it is about ego and is it helpful at all.

Trump, Miller, Hegseth et all may all think and claim it is legal. But they got rid of most of the government's legal safeguards. Didn't Hegseth explicitly state he was getting rid of the military lawyers that prevented the military from exacting violence on our enemies? And Trump and his surrounding legal advisors are usually losers when things actually go to court, making their claims of legality even more suspect.

[frank ryan]

So they are the releasing Epstein files but redacting all of the files and info containing Trump, conservative folks, despite this being illegal. It was nice to see MTG push for the files to be released but is there going to be any follow-through?

[Shaka]

So they are the releasing Epstein files but redacting all of the files and info containing Trump, conservative folks, despite this being illegal. It was nice to see MTG push for the files to be released but is there going to be any follow-through?

Let's turn to Grok for more info:

Redactions and Official Statements


Redactions were extensive and primarily focused on:

• Protecting over 1,200 victims and relatives (names, faces in photos, especially women's).
• Grand jury materials.
• The full "masseuse list" of over 250 names.
• Other sensitive investigative content.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche explicitly stated there was "no effort" to redact Trump's name and that any documents mentioning him would be released (consistent with victim privacy rules). The law (Epstein Files Transparency Act) prohibits redactions based on embarrassment or political sensitivity.
Criticisms and Context


Critics (bipartisan, including Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie) argued the release was incomplete, over-redacted, and non-compliant with the law's requirement for full disclosure with explanations. Some accused the Trump administration of delaying or burying potentially embarrassing material, noting heavy focus on Bill Clinton photos while Trump appeared minimally.

However, no sources directly claimed Trump's specific involvement (e.g., alleged wrongdoing) was redacted—his known social ties were already public, and the files added little new on him.

The DOJ described this as a partial, rolling release, with more documents expected in coming weeks.

Not good enough? Let's turn to ChatGPT:

???? Was Trump’s name deliberately redacted from the release?

No—senior Justice Department officials deny any effort to specifically remove or redact Trump’s name simply because he’s Trump. The DOJ said it is not redacting politicians’ names just due to their status and that there’s no effort to scrub mentions of President Trump from the Epstein files. CBS News+1

According to reporting and DOJ statements:

• Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the DOJ isn’t redacting names of politicians and that if Trump is mentioned and it’s legally appropriate to publish, it will be published. CBS News+1

???? But why does Trump barely appear in the released documents?


The initial tranche of files contains very few references or photos of Trump. Observers and journalists noted that while the release included many photos and documents, mentions of Trump were scarce or absent in the publicly available portion so far. CBS News+1
???? So is that the same as redacting him?


Not necessarily in the legal sense:

???? The law allows redactions for:

• protecting the identities of victims and private individuals,
• withholding materials that could jeopardize ongoing investigations,
• national security/sensitive content. TIME

The DOJ says the redactions and withheld materials are legally required to protect victims and ongoing cases, not to shield Trump or other political figures. CBS News

???? Critics argue the release was incomplete and so heavily redacted that it effectively obscures a lot of potentially relevant context, leading to the perception that high-profile names might be minimized or appear only in heavily redacted records. The Guardian
???? Key point

• There’s no verified evidence that Trump’s name was specifically redacted or removed because of who he is. The DOJ denies such targeted redactions. ABC News
• The scarcity of Trump references stems from the limited, heavily redacted first batch of releases—and more records are expected to be released in the coming weeks. CBS News

???? Bottom line


So far:
✔ The DOJ says it has not redacted Trump’s name due to political status. ABC News
✔ The initial release contains few Trump mentions—but that’s because most documents are heavily redacted or withheld for legal reasons, not confirmed targeted censorship. CBS News

[LVAllen]

Let's turn to Grok for more info:



Not good enough? Let's turn to ChatGPT:

???? Was Trump’s name deliberately redacted from the release?

Actual documents that showed Trump have been actively scrubbed and removed from the release once it became public that the document showed Trump.

[Shaka]

Actual documents that showed Trump have been actively scrubbed and removed from the release once it became public that the document showed Trump.

Cite them. I've perused the mainstream news sites. None of them report what you're alleging. I included two AI sources that aggregate the available informaiton. I'll take my, and my AI minions, research over your confirmation bias.

[LVAllen]

Cite them. I've perused the mainstream news sites. None of them report what you're alleging. I included two AI sources that aggregate the available informaiton. I'll take my, and my AI minions, research over your confirmation bias.

AI is not a source.

Embedded Tweet

[Shaka]

AI is not a source.

Embedded Tweet

AI aggregates hundreds of news sources. Depending on the AI, it's a very good source.

How do I know that tweet isn't FOS? It proves nothing. The picture he presents is already released.

[LVAllen]

AI aggregates hundreds of news sources. Depending on the AI, it's a very good source.

How do I know that tweet isn't FOS? It proves nothing. The picture he presents is already released.

That's why hashes are helpful. If the hash of file 1 on day 1 is different from the hash of file 1 on day 2, the two files are not identical and something has changed. Perhaps something has been removed and then replaced, but something has changed.

The photo file in question is of a countertop with several different photographs. It's just curious that it showed a well-known photo of Trump, and it was then removed.

[Shaka]

That's why hashes are helpful. If the hash of file 1 on day 1 is different from the hash of file 1 on day 2, the two files are not identical and something has changed. Perhaps something has been removed and then replaced, but something has changed.

The photo file in question is of a countertop with several different photographs. It's just curious that it showed a well-known photo of Trump, and it was then removed.

It's far more likely it was just a copy. Again, this really isn't evidence.

[frank ryan]

There were not supposed to be these extensive redactions. They failed to meet deadlines that were set.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ng-trump-photo

At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.

The missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.


The Justice Department did not say why the files were removed or whether their disappearance was intentional. A spokesperson for the department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-files-release




T

he justice department’s document dump this afternoon does not comply with Thomas Massie and my Epstein Transparency Act,” Ro Khanna, the California Democratic congressman who co-authored the law requiring full disclosure of all Epstein files by 19 December, said in a video statement.

“It is an incomplete release, with too many redactions. Thomas Massie and I are exploring all options,” he also said, among them possible impeachment of justice department officials, finding them in contempt of Congress.


Khanna also floated the possibility of “referring for prosecution those who are obstructing justice”.

“Unfortunately, today’s document release by @AGPamBondi and @DAGToddBlanche grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law that @realDonaldTrump signed just 30 days ago. @RepRoKhannais correct,” Massie, a Kentucky member of Congress and co-author of this legislation, said on X.

“A future [justice department] could convict the current AG and others because the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not like a Congressional Subpoena which expires at the end of each Congress,” Massie said at another point.


At least 16 files disappeared from the department’s public webpage, according to an Associated Press tally. The documents included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, is a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

The unexplained missing files have fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified. Democrats on the House oversight committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”


Trump’s justice department was required to release all investigative files involving the late financier by 19 December under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The legislation does allow for records to be withheld or redacted if their disclosure would imperil present criminal investigations, threaten national security or identify Epstein’s victims – but otherwise it mandates disclosure of everything else.

The department’s initial disclosure on Friday afternoon, and subsequent releases throughout the night, did not abide by this requirement. Justice officials recognized as much on Friday morning, pre-empting this apparent slow walk on television. Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer turned deputy attorney general, said the justice department would not release all its files on Friday.

[Shaka]

People not liking the redactions doesn't necessarily mean that the reductions painted Trump in a bad light. It doesn't mean they had anything to do with Trump at all.

[Pelado]

People not liking the redactions doesn't necessarily mean that the reductions painted Trump in a bad light. It doesn't mean they had anything to do with Trump at all.

I don't care if the redactions paint Trump in a bad light or not. Trump and/or his underlings are not complying with the law. This should be an easy "Bad Trump" response.