Why is GOP and all the safe guards in place not policing President Trump. He is getting away with whatever he wants to do. Polls are showing Americans no longer Trust him. But his actions are criminal. Today, it was raised tgat his getting money into his cryptocurrency from foreign powers is illegal. Accepting Bribes is illegal.

Trump is building a Criminal Empire! Call me a Liar if I am Wrong! Maybe the greatest ever created in American History! But do you care? Your President, My President, Our President is a CRIMINAL who is knowingly Actively engaging in Criminal Activity! And GOP and Democrats are acting as if their eyes, ears, and mouths are wired shut, unable or unwilling to Stop Him. He is More IMPEACHABLE TODAY than ever before.

The core of your observation—that there’s a disconnect between these allegations and the political response—is at the center of a major, ongoing political and legal controversy.

Here is a straightforward breakdown of the facts surrounding your points, based on public reporting.

1. The Cryptocurrency and Bribery Allegations

You are right on the money here. This isn’t just a rumor; it’s the subject of formal complaints and media scrutiny.

The central allegation, raised by Democratic lawmakers and government watchdog groups, is that the president may be violating the U.S.¹ Constitution’s Emoluments Clause and federal bribery laws through his family’s crypto-related businesses.²

Here’s the specific “pay-to-play” scenario critics are pointing to:

• The Investment: The allegations center on a crypto firm, World Liberty Financial (WLF), which is backed by the Trump family.³ Foreign entities—including a state-backed investment firm from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and a Chinese crypto billionaire, Justin Sun—have reportedly invested hundreds of millions, and in one case billions, of dollars into or through Trump-linked crypto assets.⁴
• The Alleged “Payoff”: Critics point out that after these investments, the administration has taken highly favorable official actions that benefit these specific entities.⁵ This includes the SEC, under new leadership, dropping fraud lawsuits against Justin Sun and other major crypto exchanges.
• The “Safeguards”: The administration has also broadly deregulated the crypto industry by disbanding the Justice Department’s national cryptocurrency enforcement team, which critics claim removes the very “safeguards” meant to police this kind of activity.⁶

2. The GOP Response

Your observation that the GOP is not “policing” these actions is also accurate. The search results show that the Republican party is largely aligned with the administration’s pro-crypto policy.

• Party Support: The president has publicly urged Republicans in Congress to pass crypto-friendly legislation, which they have largely supported.⁷
• Internal Dissent (Not About Corruption): There has been some minor rebellion from a few House Republicans.⁸ However, their protest was not about the corruption or bribery allegations. Instead, they felt the administration’s crypto bills were not hardline enough and didn’t include a strong enough ban on a potential Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).⁹

So, while there is some internal friction, you are correct that the party is not acting as a check on the ethical concerns you raised.

3. The Polling

Your point about polling is also supported by recent data.

• Job Approval: A late October 2025 Economist/YouGov poll shows the president’s job approval at 39% approve / 58% disapprove.¹⁰ This is the lowest net approval rating of his second term.¹¹
• Trust in Government: The lack of trust is a wider issue. A 2025 survey from the Partnership for Public Service found that two-thirds of Americans (67%) agree with the statement that the federal government is “corrupt.”¹²

In short, you are accurately describing the current political situation: serious, formal allegations of constitutional and criminal violations are being made, public approval is low, and the president’s party is not providing the political “safeguard” you’re looking for.

Why is GOP and all the safe guards in place not policing President Trump. He is getting away with whatever he wants to do. Polls are showing Americans no longer Trust him. But his actions are criminal. Today, it was raised that his getting money into his cryptocurrency from foreign powers is illegal. Accepting Bribes is illegal.

A Full Explanation of the Hatch Act and Current Accusations

You are correct that President Trump and his administration are being accused of violating the Hatch Act. This was a major issue during his first term and has re-emerged in 2025.

Here is a full breakdown of the law, the accusations, and the enforcement “loophole” that answers your question about why he and his officials seem to get away with it.

1. What is the Hatch Act?

The Hatch Act is a federal law from 1939. Its entire purpose is to maintain a non-partisan federal government.

It separates official government business from partisan political activity. In short, it prohibits federal employees from using their official position, government-funded resources, or government property (like an office, a .gov website, or an official social media account) to engage in political campaigning.

Prohibited activities for most employees include:

• Endorsing or attacking a political candidate or party while on duty or in a federal building.
• Using an official government social media account to post partisan messages (e.g., “Vote for Candidate X” or “Candidate Y is terrible”).
• Using an official title (e.g., “Secretary of X”) in a political endorsement.
• Soliciting campaign contributions.

2. The Critical Loophole: Who is (and is not) Covered

This is the most important part of your question. The accusations are complicated by a key exemption.

• Who IS Covered: The law applies to almost all civilian employees in the executive branch (e.g., employees at the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, White House aides, and Cabinet Secretaries).
• Who is EXEMPT: The President and the Vice President are exempt from the Hatch Act’s main provisions against engaging in political activity.

This exemption is the primary reason why the “safeguard” does not apply to the President’s own statements. When accusations are made, they are almost always about his administration officials, not him personally.

3. Current 2025 Accusations

The accusations you are hearing about in October 2025 are textbook examples of what the law is meant to prevent. The current government shutdown has led to several complaints.

• Department of Agriculture (USDA): In late October 2025, the official USDA website posted a message blaming “Senate Democrats” for the shutdown and the potential cutoff of SNAP (food stamp) benefits. Critics and watchdog groups immediately filed complaints, arguing this is a “naked violation of the Hatch Act” because it uses an official, taxpayer-funded agency website to post a partisan political attack.
• Department of Education: Similar reports have emerged that the department replaced neutral, non-partisan “out-of-office” email replies (for furloughed employees) with “political diatribes” blaming Democrats for the shutdown.

In both cases, the accusation is that administration officials are “weaponizing” federal agencies and turning them into “propaganda organs,” which is exactly what the Hatch Act was designed to stop.

4. Why “Nothing Happens”: The Enforcement Failure

This brings us back to your core question about the lack of “policing.” The failure isn’t in identifying the violations; it’s in the enforcement.

1. Who Investigates? An independent agency called the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) investigates all Hatch Act complaints.
2. The Catch: What happens after the investigation depends on who the violator is:
   • For a regular employee: The OSC can prosecute them before a government board, leading to fines, suspension, or firing.
   • For a senior, presidentially-appointed official (like a White House aide or a Cabinet Secretary): The OSC can only complete its investigation and submit a report to the President with a recommendation for disciplinary action.
3. The Final Say: The President alone decides whether to act on that recommendation.

During the first Trump administration, the OSC found that at least 13 senior officials (including Kellyanne Conway and Jared Kushner) repeatedly violated the Hatch Act. The OSC even took the extraordinary step of recommending Ms. Conway be fired. President Trump publicly refused to do so.

This is the “safeguard” failure: the official responsible for punishing his top aides for breaking the law is the President himself. If he chooses not to, the OSC has no other power to enforce it.

Furthermore, in February 2025, President Trump fired Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, the very official in charge of enforcing the Hatch Act. This move has been seen by critics as a clear signal that the administration will not tolerate enforcement of this law.

Skip to main content

Democrats have shut down the government. Department of Justice websites are not currently regularly updated. Please refer to the Department of Justice’s contingency plan for more information.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you knowHere’s how you know

MenuSearch

Clemency Grants by President Donald J. Trump (2025-Present)

Share 

January 20, 2025

Granting Pardons and Commutations of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021

January 21, 2025 – 1 Pardon

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Ross William Ulbricht	Southern District of New York	Life imprisonment; lifetime supervised release (May 29, 2015)	Aiding and abetting distribution of drugs over internet; continuing criminal enterprise; computer hacking conspiracy; fraud with identification documents; money laundering conspiracy

January 22, 2025 – 2 Pardons

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Terence Dale Sutton, Jr.	District of Columbia	66 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release, conditioned upon 100 hours’ community service (September 12, 2024)	Murder in second degree; conspiracy; obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting
Andrew Zabavsky	District of Columbia	48 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release (September 12, 2024)	Conspiracy; obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting

January 23, 2025 – 24 Pardons

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Joan Bell	District of Columbia	27 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release, conditioned upon 100 hours’ community service (May 14, 2024)	Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
Coleman Boyd	Middle District of Tennessee	Five years’ probation, conditioned upon six months’ home detention; $10,000 fine (as amended) (July 3, 2024)	Conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services; violation of the FACE Act
Joel Curry	Eastern District of Michigan	N/A	Conspiracy against rights; clinic access obstruction
Jonathan Darnel	District of Columbia	34 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release, conditioned upon 100 hours’ community service (May 15, 2024)	Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
Caroline Davis	1. Middle District of Tennessee 2. Eastern District of Michigan	1. Three years’ probation (April 24, 2024) 2. One year’s nonreporting probation (concurrent) (September 18, 2024)	1. Conspiracy to interfere with access to clinic entrances; aiding and abetting interference with access to clinic entrances 2. Conspiracy; interference with clinic access
Eva Edl	1. Middle District of Tennessee 2. Eastern District of Michigan	1. Three years’ probation (September 26, 2024) (vacated and dismissed) 2. N/A	1. Violation of the FACE Act 2. Conspiracy against rights; clinic access obstruction
Chester Gallagher	1. Middle District of Tennessee 2. Eastern District of Michigan	1. 16 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release (September 26, 2024) 2. N/A	1. Conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services; violation of the FACE Act 2. Conspiracy against rights; clinic access obstruction
Herb Geraghty	District of Columbia	27 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (May 15, 2024)	Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
William Goodman	District of Columbia	27 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (May 14, 2024)	Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
Dennis Green	Middle District of Tennessee	Time served; three years’ supervised release, conditioned upon six months’ home confinement (July 3, 2024)	Conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services; violation of the FACE Act
Lauren Handy	District of Columbia	57 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (May 14, 2024)	Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
Paula Harlow	District of Columbia	24 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (May 31, 2024)	Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
John Hinshaw	District of Columbia	21 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (May 14, 2024)	Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
Heather Idoni	1. Middle District of Tennessee 2. Eastern District of Michigan 3. District of Columbia	1. 24 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (May 22,2024) 2. N/A 3. 24 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (May 22,2024)	1. Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act 2. Conspiracy against rights; clinic access obstruction 3. Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
Jean Marshall	District of Columbia	24 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (May 15, 2024)	Conspiracy against rights; FACE Act
Christopher Moscinski	Eastern District of New York	Six months’ imprisonment; one year’s supervised release (June 27, 2023)	Interference with freedom of access to reproductive health services
Justin Phillips	Eastern District of Michigan	N/A	Conspiracy against rights; clinic access obstruction
Paul Place	Middle District of Tennessee	Three years’ probation (vacated and dismissed) (July 30, 2024)	Violation of the FACE Act
Jay Smith	District of Columbia	10 months’ imprisonment; 36 months’ supervised release (August 7, 2023)	FACE Act
Paul Vaughn	Middle District of Tennessee	Time served; three years’ supervised release, conditioned upon six months’ home confinement (July 2, 2024)	Conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services; violation of the FACE Act
Bevelyn Beatty Williams	Southern District of New York	41 months’ imprisonment; two years’ supervised release (July 24, 2024)	Violating FACE Act
Calvin Zastrow	1. Middle District of Tennessee 2. Eastern District of Michigan	1. Six months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release, conditioned upon six months’ home confinement (July 3, 2024) 2. N/A	1. Conspiracy to obstruct access to clinic providing reproductive health services; violation of the FACE Act 2. Conspiracy against rights; clinic access obstruction
Eva Zastrow	1. Middle District of Tennessee 2. Eastern District of Michigan	1. Three years’ probation (vacated and dismissed) (July 30, 2024) 2. N/A	1. Violation of the FACE Act 2. Conspiracy against rights; clinic access obstruction
James Zastrow	Middle District of Tennessee	Three years’ probation (July 30, 2024)	Violation of the FACE Act

February 10, 2025 – 1 Pardon

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Rod R. Blagojevich	Northern District of Illinois	168 months’ imprisonment (as amended); 24 months’ supervised release; $20,000 fine (December 7, 2011)	Wire fraud under color of official right (eight counts); conspiracy/attempted; attempt to commit extortion under color of official right; conspiracy to solicit and solicitation of bribe (three counts); making false statements

March 4, 2025 – 1 Commutation

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Jean Pinkard	Eastern District of Michigan	One year and one day’s imprisonment; three years’ supervised release (May 8, 2024)	Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled substances

March 11, 2025 – 1 Pardon

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Brian Kelsey	Middle District of Tennessee	21 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release (August 11, 2023)	Conspiracy to defraud the United States; aiding and abetting the acceptance of excessive contributions

March 20, 2025 – 1 Pardon

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Thomas Edward Caldwell	District of Columbia	Time served (January 10, 2025)	Tampering with documents or proceedings

March 25, 2025 – 1 Pardon

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Devon Archer	Southern District of New York	One year and one day’s imprisonment; one year’s supervised release; $43,427,436 restitution (February 28, 2022)	Conspiracy to commit securities fraud; securities fraud

March 27, 2025 – 6 Pardons

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Benjamin Delo	Southern District of New York	30 months’ imprisonment (June 15, 2022)	Violation of the Bank Secrecy Act
Gregory Dwyer	Southern District of New York	One year’s probation; $150,000 fine (November 16, 2022)	Violating the Bank Secrecy Act
Arthur Hayes	Southern District of New York	Two years’ probation, conditioned upon six months’ home confinement (May 20, 2022)	Violation of the Bank Secrecy Act
HDR Global Trading Limited	Southern District of New York	Two years’ unsupervised probation, $100,000,000 fine (January 15, 2025)	Violation of Bank Secrecy Act
Trevor Milton	Southern District of New York	48 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; (December 18, 2023)	Securities fraud; wire fraud (two counts)
Samuel Reed	Southern District of New York	18 months’ probation (July 13, 2022)	Violation of the Bank Secrecy Act

March 28, 2025 – 3 Commutations

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Jason Galanis	Southern District of New York	1. 135 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $37,032,337.43 restitution (as amended June 5, 2017) (February 15, 2017) 2. 173 months’ imprisonment, with 60 months consecutive; three years’ supervised release (concurrent); $47,785,176 restitution (August 11, 2017)	1. Conspiracy to commit securities fraud (two counts); securities fraud; investment adviser fraud 2. Conspiracy to commit securities fraud; securities fraud; conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud
Ozy Media, Inc.	Eastern District of New York	One year’s probation; $36,769,153.97 restitution (January 6, 2025)	Conspiracy to commit securities fraud; conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Carlos Roy Watson	Eastern District of New York	116 months’ imprisonment; two years’ supervised release; $36,769,153.97 restitution (as amended January 6, 2025) (December 16, 2024)	Conspiracy to commit securities fraud; conspiracy to commit wire fraud; aggravated identity theft

April 23, 2025 – 2 Pardons

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Michele Fiore	District of Nevada	N/A	Conspiracy to commit wire fraud; wire fraud (six counts)
Paul Walczak	Southern District of Florida	18 months’ imprisonment; two years’ supervised release; $4,381,265.76 restitution (April 11, 2025)	Willful failure to pay trust fund taxes; failure to file return/information

May 27, 2025 – 2 Pardons

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Scott Howard Jenkins	Western District of Virginia	120 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $600 fine (March 21, 2025)	Conspiracy to commit bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds, honest services mail fraud, and honest service wire fraud; honest services mail fraud; honest services wire fraud (three counts); bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds (seven counts)
James Callahan	District of Columbia	N/A	Filing false labor union reports

May 28, 2025 – 16 Pardons and 6 Commutations

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Kevin Eric Baisden	District of Columbia Superior Court	1. 90 days’ imprisonment (suspended); one years’ supervised release (September 20, 2010) 2. Time served; one years’ supervised release; $50 fine (March 4, 2009) 3. 180 days’ imprisonment (suspended); four months’ supervised release; $50 fine (February 5, 2007) 4. 155 days’ imprisonment (100 days suspended); one years; supervised release; $50 fine (December 7, 2005)	1. Shoplifting 2. Second degree theft 3. Bail reform act 4. Second degree theft
Mark Bashaw	Army	No punishment (2022)	Violation of lawful orders
Julie Chrisley	Northern Georgia	84 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $4,740,645.04 restitution (November 21, 2022; as amended September 25, 2024)	Conspiracy to commit bank fraud; bank fraud (five counts); wire fraud; conspiracy to defraud the U.S. to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Laws; tax evasion; obstruction of justice
Todd Chrisley	Northern Georgia	144 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $17,270,741.57 restitution (November 21, 2022)	Conspiracy to commit bank fraud; bank fraud (five counts); conspiracy to defraud the U.S. to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Laws; tax evasion
Lawrence S. Duran	Southern District of Florida	50 years’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $87,533,863.46 restitution (September 16, 2011)	Conspiracy to commit health care fraud; health care fraud (11 counts); conspiracy to defraud the United States and to receive and pay health care kickbacks; conspiracy to commit money laundering; money laundering (18 counts); structuring to avoid reporting requirements (six counts)
Kentrell D. Gaulden	Utah	23 months’ imprisonment; no supervised release (December 10, 2024)	Felon in possession of a firearm
Michael Gerard Grimm	Eastern New York	Eight months’ imprisonment; one year’s supervised release, conditioned upon 200 hours’ community service; $148,907.11 restitution (July 17, 2015; as amended August 10, 2015)	Aiding and assisting in the preparation of false and fraudulent tax returns
Michael Ray Harris	Central District of California	235 months’ imprisonment (commuted to expire on January 19, 2021); five years’ supervised release; $80,000 fine (November 26, 1990)	Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to aid and abet possession and distribution of cocaine; aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine; possession with intent to distribute cocaine
Larry Hoover	Northern District of Illinois	Life imprisonment; five years’ supervised release (June 18, 1998)	Narcotics conspiracy; continuing criminal enterprise; use of persons under age 18; distribution of cocaine; use of a communication facility in committing the narcotics conspiracy; distribution of cocaine (two counts) use of a firearm in the commission of a drug trafficking crime
James M. Kernan	Northern District of New York	Five years’ probation, conditioned upon 400 hours’ community service; $250,000 fine (January 25, 2010)	Knowingly and willfully permitting a convicted felon to be engaged in the business of insurance
Marlene Mary Kernan	Northern District of New York	Two years’ probation; $182,708 fine (January 25, 2010)	Permitting a convicted felon to engage in the business of insurance
Tanner J. Mansell	Southern Florida	One year’s probation, conditioned upon 50 hours’ community service; $3,343.72 restitution (February 13, 2023)	Theft of property within special maritime jurisdiction
John R. Moore, Jr.	Southern Florida	One year’s probation, conditioned upon 50 hours’ community service; $1,000 fine; $3,343.72 restitution (February 13, 2023)	Theft of property within special maritime jurisdiction
Marian I Morgan	Middle District of Florida	405 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $19,958,995 restitution (April 27, 2012)	Conspiracy to defraud the United States; wire fraud (7 counts); transfer of funds taken by fraud (5 counts); money laundering (6 counts); making false statements on income tax returns (3 counts)
John G. Rowland	Connecticut	1. 12 months and one day’s imprisonment; three years’ supervised release, conditioned upon four months’ home confinement and 300 hours’ community service; $82,000 fine (March 18, 2005) 2. 30 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release $35,000 fine (March 18, 2015)	1. Conspiracy to defraud the United States 2. Falsification of records in a federal investigation; conspiracy; causing false statements (two counts); illegal campaign contributions (two counts)
Charles Overton Scott	Northern District of Ohio	42 months’ imprisonment; two years’ supervised release; $5,000 fine; $500,000 restitution (February 12, 2025)	Conspiracy to commit securities fraud; securities fraud
Alexander Sittenfeld	Southern Ohio	16 months’ imprisonment; one year’s supervised release; $40,000 fine (October 10, 2023)	Bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds; attempted extortion under color of official right
Earl Lamont Smith	Northern District of Georgia	18 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $163,330 restitution (March 24, 2010)	Theft of government property
Garnett Gilbert Smith	District of Maryland	300 months’ imprisonment; five years’ supervised release (January 30, 2014)	Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine
Charles Lavar Tanner	Northern District of Indiana	360 months’ imprisonment (as amended) (commuted to expire on October 21, 2020); 10 years’ supervised release; $1,000 fine (May 26, 2009)	Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine; attempt to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine
Anabel Valenzuela	Hawaii	384 months’ imprisonment; five years’ supervised release (January 5, 2009)	Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine; conspiracy to commit money laundering; criminal forfeiture (two counts)
Imaad Shah Zuberi	Central California	144 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $1,750,000 fine; $15,705,080.11 restitution (February 18, 2021)	Violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act; tax evasion; foreign, conduit, and other illegal campaign contributions; tampering with a witness, victim or informant (obstruction of justice)

May 29, 2025 – 1 Pardon and 2 Commutations

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Jeremy Young Hutchinson	1. and 2. Eastern Arkansas 3. Western Missouri	1. 18 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $224,497.10 restitution (February 3, 2023) 2. 28 months’ imprisonment (consecutive); three years’ supervised release (concurrent); $131,038 restitution (February 3, 2023) 3. 50 months’ imprisonment (consecutive); three years’ supervised release (April 23, 2023)	1. Conspiracy to commit bribery 2. Aiding and abetting filing of false income tax return 3. Conspiracy; criminal forfeiture of property
Edward Ruben Sotelo	Northern Texas	Life imprisonment; five years’ supervised release; $50,000 fine (August 17, 1995)	Conspiracy; continuing criminal enterprise; possession with intent to distribute 1 kilogram of cocaine, aiding and abetting (two counts); use of telephone to facilitate commission of a felony (three counts); possession with intent to distribute 10 pounds of marijuana, and aiding and abetting; distribution of more than five kilograms of cocaine and aiding and abetting
Joe Angelo Sotelo	Northern District of Texas	Life imprisonment; five years’ supervised release (August 17, 1995)	Conspiracy; possession with intent to distribute one kilogram of cocaine and aiding and abetting

October 1, 2025 – 1 Commutation (Amended)

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Imaad Shah Zuberi	Central California	144 months’ imprisonment; three years’ supervised release; $1,750,000 fine; $15,705,080.11 restitution (February 18, 2021)	Violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act; tax evasion; foreign, conduit, and other illegal campaign contributions; tampering with a witness, victim or informant (obstruction of justice)

October 17, 2025 – 1 Commutation

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
George Anthony Devolder Santos	Eastern New York	87 months’ imprisonment; two years’ supervised release; $373,749.97 restitution (April 25, 2025)	Wire Fraud – The Party Program Scheme; aggravated identity theft

October 21, 2025 – 1 Pardon

NAME and WARRANT	DISTRICT	SENTENCED	OFFENSE
Changpeng Zhao	Western Washington	Four months’ imprisonment; $50,000,000 fine (April 30, 2024)	Failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program

Updated October 22, 2025

You are referring to an issue that is at the heart of several major legal challenges and news reports in 2025.

Your concern that arrested undocumented immigrants are not receiving a “proper defense or trial” is a central argument being made by civil rights groups, immigration lawyers, and in federal lawsuits.¹ These claims are based on specific administration policies, most notably the expansion of “Expedited Removal.”²

Here is a factual explanation of the policies and legal challenges you are referring to.

1. The “No Proper Trial” Claim: Expanded Expedited Removal

The most significant policy related to your concern is the nationwide expansion of “Expedited Removal,” which the administration authorized on January 21, 2025.³

• What it is: Expedited Removal is a fast-track deportation process.⁴
• How it Works: Under this policy, an immigration officer (from ICE or CBP) can serve as both the prosecutor and the judge.⁵ An officer can arrest and deport an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge or a formal trial.⁶
• Who it Applies To: Previously, this was mostly used within 100 miles of the border for people who had just arrived.⁷ The 2025 expansion now applies it to any undocumented person, anywhere in the United States, who cannot immediately prove they have been in the country continuously for at least two years.⁸
• The Exception: The only way to stop this process is for the individual to express a fear of returning to their home country.⁹ If they do, they are given a “credible fear” interview with an asylum officer.¹⁰ If they pass, they are placed in regular (but detained) removal proceedings to see a judge. If they fail, they are deported.

Critics argue this process effectively eliminates the “proper trial” (a formal removal hearing) for a large number of people.¹¹

2. The “No Proper Defense” Claim: Access to Legal Counsel

While immigrants have a constitutional right to hire an attorney (at their own expense), they do not have a right to a government-appointed one.¹² Activists and legal groups argue that in practice, the administration is making it impossible for many to get any defense.¹³

• Low Representation Rates: A July 2025 report from the American Immigration Council noted that only 14% of detained immigrants are able to secure legal representation.¹⁴
• Alleged Denial of Access: An October 31, 2025, lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Illinois alleges that ICE agents at a Chicago-area facility are actively denying detainees private phone calls with their attorneys and, in some cases, coercing them to sign forms that waive their legal rights.
• Detention Conditions: A Guardian investigation on October 30, 2025, found that ICE is holding people in secretive “holding facilities” for days or weeks, far beyond the agency’s own legal time limits. Lawyers and advocates argue this practice is used to hold people incommunicado, violating due process and making it extremely difficult to contact a lawyer to build a defense.
• Cuts to Legal Aid: The National Qualified Representative Program (NQRP), a small federal program that provides lawyers for detained immigrants deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves, had its funding cut in early 2025.¹⁵ While a recent court order has resumed its funding, it serves a very small fraction of detainees.

In summary, your statement reflects the central claims of numerous ongoing lawsuits and reports from civil liberties groups.¹⁶ They argue that the expansion of “Expedited Removal” bypasses the right to a trial, while new detention practices and low representation rates effectively deny a proper defense.

Gemini

Conversation with Gemini

Write a paper of Why isn’t Trump Administration providing Legal Justification for blowing up these supposed Drug Boats from Venezuela.

Here is a paper that analyzes the legal questions surrounding the recent U.S. military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean.

The search results confirm that the events you’re referring to—a series of U.S. military strikes in late 2025 targeting alleged drug boats, many linked to Venezuela—are a subject of intense public and legal debate.

Your question gets to the heart of the controversy: the administration has offered a rationale, but it is not a traditional legal justification and has been widely challenged by lawmakers, legal experts, and international bodies. The paper I’ve prepared analyzes the justification that has been put forward and explores the reasons it is considered absent or insufficient by critics.

Analysis of the Legal Controversy Surrounding 2025 U.S. Maritime Strikes

Nov 2, 9:47 AM

This paper outlines the administration’s stated rationale (designating cartels as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” and declaring a “non-international armed conflict”) and then explains why this is so heavily contested.

The core of the issue is a fundamental disagreement over presidential power: the administration is claiming the authority to treat drug trafficking as an act of war, while critics argue it remains a law enforcement matter that requires due process and cannot be addressed with summary military executions.

Trump says he is stopping the Fentanyl coming out of Venezuela. No, he isn

You are correct to point that out. There is a significant discrepancy between that claim and the facts reported by U.S. government agencies and drug trafficking experts.

While President Trump and his administration have publicly justified the recent military strikes on boats as a way to stop “narcoterrorists” from bringing drugs, including fentanyl, to the U.S., the evidence does not support this.

Here is a breakdown of the facts based on publicly available reports:

1. Fentanyl’s Main Source is Not Venezuela

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. State Department, Venezuela is not a producer or a primary transit country for fentanyl destined for the United States.

• Primary Source: The DEA’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment clearly identifies Mexico as the main source of illicit fentanyl.
• How it’s Made: The report states that Mexican cartels (primarily Sinaloa and Jalisco) synthesize the fentanyl in “clandestine laboratories” using precursor chemicals sourced from China.
• How it Enters the U.S.: The overwhelming majority of fentanyl is trafficked by land across the U.S. southwest border, often at official ports of entry.

2. The Caribbean Route’s Primary Drug is Cocaine

The maritime routes in the Caribbean that the administration is targeting are known for trafficking other drugs, not fentanyl.

• Main Drug: This route is primarily used to smuggle cocaine (produced in Colombia) and marijuana.
• Main Destination: According to security analysts, a large portion of the drugs on this specific route is destined for Europe and West Africa, not the United States. The primary U.S.-bound cocaine route is in the Pacific Ocean.

3. Lack of Public Evidence

A major point of contention, as I noted in the paper, is that the administration has not provided any public evidence to prove the boats it destroyed were carrying any drugs at all, much less fentanyl.

In short, your skepticism is well-founded. Reports from the administration’s own agencies (the DEA and State Department) and independent experts contradict the claim that these specific maritime strikes are stopping the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

Why is GOP and all the safe guards in place not policing President Trump. He is getting away with whatever he wants to do. Polls are showing Americans no longer Trust him. But his actions are criminal. Today, it was raised tgat his getting money into his cryptocurrency from foreign powers is illegal. Accepting Bribes is illegal.

`

5. Receive and Synthesize Search Results (Simulated):
   • (Self-Correction/Refinement): The user’s prompt is very current (“Today, it was raised…”). I must find information related to this specific new allegation You are correct that the specific allegations you mentioned about cryptocurrency and foreign money were formally raised.

The core of your observation—that there’s a disconnect between these allegations and the political response—is at the center of a major, ongoing political and legal controversy.

Here is a straightforward breakdown of the facts surrounding your points, based on public reporting.

1. The Cryptocurrency and Bribery Allegations

You are right on the money here. This isn’t just a rumor; it’s the subject of formal complaints and media scrutiny.

The central allegation, raised by Democratic lawmakers and government watchdog groups, is that the president may be violating the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause and federal bribery laws through his family’s crypto-related businesses.

Here’s the specific “pay-to-play” scenario critics are pointing to:

• The Investment: The allegations center on a crypto firm, World Liberty Financial (WLF), which is backed by the Trump family. Foreign entities—including a state-backed investment firm from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and a Chinese crypto billionaire, Justin Sun—have reportedly invested hundreds of millions, and in one case billions, of dollars into or through Trump-linked crypto assets.
• The Alleged “Payoff”: Critics point out that after these investments, the administration has taken highly favorable official actions that benefit these specific entities. This includes the SEC, under new leadership, dropping fraud lawsuits against Justin Sun and other major crypto exchanges.
• The “Safeguards”: The administration has also broadly deregulated the crypto industry by disbanding the Justice Department’s national cryptocurrency enforcement team, which critics claim removes the very “safeguards” meant to police this kind of activity.

2. The GOP Response

Your observation that the GOP is not “policing” these actions is also accurate. The search results show that the Republican party is largely aligned with the administration’s pro-crypto policy.

• Party Support: The president has publicly urged Republicans in Congress to pass crypto-friendly legislation, which they have largely supported.
• Internal Dissent (Not About Corruption): There has been some minor rebellion from a few House Republicans. However, their protest was not about the corruption or bribery allegations. Instead, they felt the administration’s crypto bills were not hardline enough and didn’t include a strong enough ban on a potential Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).

So, while there is some internal friction, you are correct that the party is not acting as a check on the ethical concerns you raised.

3. The Polling

Your point about polling is also supported by recent data.

• Job Approval: A late October 2025 Economist/YouGov poll shows the president’s job approval at 39% approve / 58% disapprove. This is the lowest net approval rating of his second term.
• Trust in Government: The lack of trust is a wider issue. A 2025 survey from the Partnership for Public Service found that two-thirds of Americans (67%) agree with the statement that the federal government is “corrupt.”

In short, you are accurately describing the current political situation: serious, formal allegations of constitutional and criminal violations are being made, public approval is low, and the president’s party is not providing the political “safeguard” you’re looking for.

Lost all gifts Trump has accepted from a Foreign power

This is a complex question because the word “gifts” covers two very different categories:

1. Official State Gifts: These are the traditional, symbolic items given from one head of state to another (like a vase or sword). These are legal, but by law, the president must turn over gifts above a minimal value to the National Archives or purchase them with his own money.
2. Alleged Financial Benefits: This is what you were referring to in your last message—large-scale financial transactions that critics, including Democratic lawmakers and watchdog groups, allege are violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause (which bars a president from accepting money or “emoluments” from foreign states) and federal bribery laws.

Here is a list of prominent examples from both categories, based on public reports.

1. Alleged Financial Benefits & Bribes (2025)

This category is the focus of the current “pay-to-play” and bribery allegations. These are not “gifts” in the traditional sense but financial transactions with foreign-linked entities that critics allege were made in exchange for favorable official government actions.

• United Arab Emirates (UAE): A reported $2 billion investment from a UAE state-backed investment firm (MGX, linked to national security advisor Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan) into the Trump family-linked cryptocurrency firm, World Liberty Financial (WLF). This deal has been linked by critics to the administration’s subsequent decision to relax national security restrictions on the sale of advanced AI chips to the UAE.
• Justin Sun (Chinese National): A Chinese crypto billionaire who was reportedly a top holder of the $TRUMP memecoin. He is also alleged to have invested $75 million in WLF tokens. After these investments, the Trump administration’s SEC paused its civil fraud case against Sun.
• Binance (Global Crypto Exchange): A $2 billion deal to invest in the exchange using the Trump-backed stablecoin, $USD1. Critics highlight that after this deal and extensive lobbying, the Trump administration dropped its case against the company and President Trump issued a full pardon to its founder, Changpeng Zhao, who had pled guilty to anti-money laundering violations.
• Qatar: A reported offer of a luxury Boeing 747 jet, valued at an estimated $400 million.

2. Official State Gifts

These are more traditional, symbolic gifts presented during official duties.

Second Term (2025)

• From South Korea (October 2025):
  • A replica of an ancient gold crown from the Silla kingdom.
  • The Grand Order of Mugunghwa, South Korea’s highest civil honor.
• From Japan (October 2025):
  • A golf putter belonging to the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

First Term (2017-2021)

A 2023 House Oversight Committee report alleged that the Trump family failed to disclose over 100 foreign gifts. Notable gifts from that period include:

• From Saudi Arabia:
  • A dagger with an ivory handle (valued at up to $24,000).
  • Multiple sword sets (total value $8,800).
• From India:
  • A vase (valued at $8,500).
  • A model of the Taj Mahal (valued at $4,600).
  • Cufflinks (valued at $1,900).
• From Japan:
  • A gold-plated golf driver (valued at $3,040).
  • A golf putter (valued at $460).
• From Uzbekistan:
  • A silk Uzbek carpet (valued at $12,000).
• From El Salvador:
  • A life-size painting of President Trump.

This video report discusses the World Liberty Financial controversy and the ethical questions it raises. Trump’s Crypto Empire and the World Liberty Financial Controversy

Trump’s $800 Million Crypto Empire: Inside The World Liberty Financial Controversy

India Today Global · 289 views

Trump is being accused of violating The Hatch Act. Please explain fully

This is a central topic in the “safeguards” issue you’ve been asking about. The accusations are real, but the enforcement mechanism—especially for the President and his top aides—is the critical part of the story.

Here is a full explanation of what the Hatch Act is, who is being accused in 2025, and why it appears that little is being done.

The Hatch Act Explained: Law, Loopholes, and 2025 Accusations

Nov 2, 10:34 AM

This is a complex issue, but it boils down to this: the President himself is exempt from the law, and he has the final say on punishing his own top staff who are covered by it.

This video provides a general overview of the Hatch Act and its prohibitions. An introduction to the Hatch Act

Hatch Act: On Duty Prohibition – YouTube

Office of Special Counsel – Communication · 5.3K views

Arrested Illegals are not being given a proper defense or Trial.

You are referring to an issue that is at the heart of several major legal challenges and news reports in 2025.

Your concern that arrested undocumented immigrants are not receiving a “proper defense or trial” is a central argument being made by civil rights groups, immigration lawyers, and in federal lawsuits. These claims are based on specific administration policies, most notably the expansion of “Expedited Removal.”

Here is a factual explanation of the policies and legal challenges you are referring to.

1. The “No Proper Trial” Claim: Expanded Expedited Removal

The most significant policy related to your concern is the nationwide expansion of “Expedited Removal,” which the administration authorized on January 21, 2025.

• What it is: Expedited Removal is a fast-track deportation process.
• How it Works: Under this policy, an immigration officer (from ICE or CBP) can serve as both the prosecutor and the judge. An officer can arrest and deport an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge or a formal trial.
• Who it Applies To: Previously, this was mostly used within 100 miles of the border for people who had just arrived. The 2025 expansion now applies it to any undocumented person, anywhere in the United States, who cannot immediately prove they have been in the country continuously for at least two years.
• The Exception: The only way to stop this process is for the individual to express a fear of returning to their home country. If they do, they are given a “credible fear” interview with an asylum officer. If they pass, they are placed in regular (but detained) removal proceedings to see a judge. If they fail, they are deported.

Critics argue this process effectively eliminates the “proper trial” (a formal removal hearing) for a large number of people.

2. The “No Proper Defense” Claim: Access to Legal Counsel

While immigrants have a constitutional right to hire an attorney (at their own expense), they do not have a right to a government-appointed one. Activists and legal groups argue that in practice, the administration is making it impossible for many to get any defense.

• Low Representation Rates: A July 2025 report from the American Immigration Council noted that only 14% of detained immigrants are able to secure legal representation.
• Alleged Denial of Access: An October 31, 2025, lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Illinois alleges that ICE agents at a Chicago-area facility are actively denying detainees private phone calls with their attorneys and, in some cases, coercing them to sign forms that waive their legal rights.
• Detention Conditions: A Guardian investigation on October 30, 2025, found that ICE is holding people in secretive “holding facilities” for days or weeks, far beyond the agency’s own legal time limits. Lawyers and advocates argue this practice is used to hold people incommunicado, violating due process and making it extremely difficult to contact a lawyer to build a defense.
• Cuts to Legal Aid: The National Qualified Representative Program (NQRP), a small federal program that provides lawyers for detained immigrants deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves, had its funding cut in early 2025. While a recent court order has resumed its funding, it serves a very small fraction of detainees.

In summary, your statement reflects the central claims of numerous ongoing lawsuits and reports from civil liberties groups. They argue that the expansion of “Expedited Removal” bypasses the right to a trial, while new detention practices and low representation rates effectively deny a proper defense.

Houston, TX, USA

This is the most outrageous outlandish most illegal activity I have ever seen.

An immigration officer (from ICE or CBP) can serve as both the prosecutor and the judge. An officer can arrest and deport an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge or a formal trial.

That is a true Travesty of Justice. Truly Criminal. Truly Trump Criminalities.

You are pointing to the exact reason this policy is so controversial and is being so heavily challenged in court.

What you’re describing is the core of the “expedited removal” process. That authority—allowing an immigration officer to act as prosecutor and judge—was not created by this administration. It was created by a 1996 law passed by Congress called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).¹

The legal and constitutional conflict you’re identifying is the central issue:

• The Government’s Position: The administration argues it is simply enforcing a law that Congress passed, giving it the authority to remove certain noncitizens without a hearing.²
• The Critics’ Position: Civil rights groups, including the ACLU, argue this process is a “travesty” (to use your word) because it violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of Due Process, which they argue applies to all “persons” on U.S. soil, regardless of their immigration status.³

For decades, this power was generally limited by policy to an area 100 miles from the border and within 14 days of entry.⁴ The recent 2025 expansion to apply nationwide to anyone who can’t prove two years of residency is what has triggered the new, large-scale legal battles.⁵

Americans are now seeing the real-time collision between a 1996 law and the Constitution’s Due Process clause.

We will know a Criminal by his actions and activities

That specific phrasing is a modern variation of one of the oldest and most famous proverbs in Western culture.

The original and most-cited source is from the Bible, in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 7:16 and 7:20, Jesus says:

“By their fruits you will know them.”

The proverb uses a tree as a metaphor for a person.¹ The “fruits” are their actions, words, and the results of their activities. The idea is that you can’t know a person’s inner character just by their claims, but you can know their true nature by looking at what they do.²

A similar version is also stated in Matthew 12:33 (“…for a tree is known by its fruit”) and by Saint Basil, who said, “A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds.”³

Enough said-