Trump blasts U.S. Supreme Court as "inept and embarrassing" even though its dubious rulings have kept him in the White House and likely out of prison

(Facebook)

Donald Trump's ignorance of, and contempt for, the rule of law is so blatant that we have written more than a dozen posts on the topic. Perhaps our most direct attack on Trump's cluelessness regarding a subject that should be of at least mild interest to a president came under the headline "Donald Trump proves that he is ignorant of the Constitution, and the rule of law in general, probably because he doesn't plan to abide by the law anyway After learning of Trump's Sunday night rant on Truth Social, focusing heavily on his unhappiness with the U.S. Supreme Court, I could not understand how Trump refuses to accept that we are "a government of laws, not of men," as stated by Founding Father John Adams in 1780.

As might be expected from a president who has shown inclinations toward being a dictator, Trump seems to see the U.S. as a nation of "one man" -- and that is Donald J. Trump. The president's malignant narcissism was on vivid display as he seems to suggest that he -- and he, alone -- should be the one to determine what is lawful and what is not in the United States. Politico's Kyle Cheney provides a rundown of Trump's most recent grievances, with special emphasis on the nation's highest court. Under the headline "Trump is losing one battle after another. Cue the posts," Cheney writes:

President Donald Trump is increasingly at the mercy of forces he unleashed but can’t control — so he’s taking aim at the umpires.

Gas prices surging. Unemployment climbing. War with Iran threatening to engulf his presidency. The fracturing of his political coalition. The collapse of his signature trade-negotiations-by-tariff strategy. Relentless scrutiny of the Epstein files. A public backlash to his agenda that could swamp Republicans in the midterms. Failure after failure to criminalize the conduct of his political adversaries. 

So it was, in a fit of Sunday night fury that set Washington’s armchair psychoanalysts ablaze, that the president channeled his rage at the few functioning checks on his power: the media, independent regulators and — most pointedly — the federal judiciary.

Trump’s Sunday night outburst took on all of them, but it was most notable for how he cast the Supreme Court — one that has staved off the destruction of his agenda and even his own criminal prosecution — as “a weaponized, and unjust Political Organization.”

Of Trump's many unattractive qualities, Cheney spotlights one that is particularly grating -- his inability to show gratitude toward anyone, even those who have cut him one favor after another, as the SCOTUS conservative majority has done. The high court gifted Trump a form of immunity that has no basis in legal precedent. It even allowed Trump to remain on the presidential ballot when the Constitution demanded he be excluded due to his status as an insurrectionist. 

In short, Trump likely would be in prison, not the White House, if SCOTUS had not ruled unlawfully in his favor. Is Trump grateful for the justices bailing him out? Not in the least, based on the following from Cheney's report:

“This completely inept and embarrassing Court was not what the Supreme Court of the United States was set up by our wonderful Founders to be,” the president blared on Truth Social. “They are hurting our Country, and will continue to do so.”

It was a remarkable attack. Until the Feb. 20 tariff ruling, the Trump administration had been touting its winning streak at the Supreme Court. The justices have salvaged Trump’s broadest efforts to end legal protections for hundreds of thousands of noncitizens in the United States, allowed him to assert unprecedented control of once-independent agencies and unilaterally slash congressionally authorized spending.

The court, as Trump knows, is arguably responsible for his return to power in the first place: The justices blocked an effort by some blue states to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot by labeling him an insurrectionist responsible for the Jan. 6, 2021,  attack on the Capitol. And the court’s decision to adopt a sweeping view of presidential immunity helped stave off special counsel Jack Smith’s most potent criminal case against Trump.

But to Trump, that’s ancient history.

I would quibble with only one word in Cheney's analysis. The U.S. Supreme Court is not "arguably" responsible for Trump's return to power; it is "absolutely" responsible  for giving us the most corrupt and dysfunctional government in U.S. history. But Trump was not finished roasting his benefactors in the Sunday night tirade.  Cheney writes:

The core of the attack is the frustration that Trump often exhibits when he brushes up against the limits of his power. He spent Sunday lashing out at the news media, cheering on FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s threat to revoke broadcast licenses for stations that report unfavorably on the war in Iran, and lamenting his inability to control the independent Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions.

Trump describes the high court’s recent rejection of his unfettered ability to levy tariffs against American trading partners as a deeply personal affront — one that contradicted the ethos of his entire decade in public life.

Many online commenters have described Trump as an overgrown toddler. And the Sunday rant is an example of such behavior. He can dish out insults with impunity, but he can't handle it when he does not get his way. That kind of immature leadership can shake a democracy to its foundations. From the Politico report: 

Since the stinging tariffs decision last month, Trump has seemed fixated on the ruling, weighing in against the high court every few days.

“Our Country was unnecessarily RANSACKED by the United States Supreme Court,” he wrote Sunday.

When asked for comment, a spokesperson for the White House referred POLITICO to Trump’s posts.

Trump’s bristling anger over the tariffs decision is akin to the umbrage he felt after the justices rejected his last-ditch courtroom bid to overturn the 2020 election.

Unsurprisingly, both of those cases featured in Trump’s post, are adorned by false claims about what the justices actually decided in each one. They did not, in fact, bless Trump’s alternate scheme to re-issue tariffs. And they did not, six years ago, tell Trump he lacked standing to challenge the 2020 election results.

Trump's approval ratings have been in decline, possibly hurting his party's chances in the 2026 midterms, but the president is unlikely to take the blame for any of that. Cheney writes:

“All I can do, as President, is call them out for their bad behavior!” Trump lamented of the co-equal branch. He even acknowledged his vent session could be a strategic blunder: “This statement about the United States Supreme Court will cause me nothing but problems in the future, but I feel it is my obligation to speak the TRUTH.”

That admission comes as Trump has appeared powerless at times to shape the fallout of his own decisions — even though they may control his, and his party’s, fate. The war in Iran has rattled markets and sent gas prices surging, while Americans have largely looked askance at the prospect of a prolonged military conflict that has already claimed the lives of several American service members.

His effort to suppress interest in the sex trafficking operation run by late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein went largely ignored and has drawn extensive international attention and an expansive review by Congress — rare pushback by the GOP-controlled House against Trump’s own appointees.

Meanwhile, Trump’s MAGA coalition appears to be splintering over the war in Iran, with factions accusing each other of being shills for foreign governments or even criticizing Trump for falling victim to interventionist forces in Washington.

Some of Trump’s most visible loyalists have broken with him in recent days, prompting Trump to declare, “THEY ARE NOT MAGA, I AM.” Trump’s push for Republicans to rewrite election rules and redraw political boundaries to maximize their chances in the midterms are both faltering. Poll numbers reveal dissatisfaction with the economy and a backlash to Trump’s mass deportation efforts.

And Trump’s Justice Department has failed in its efforts to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and six Democratic lawmakers who filmed a video encouraging members of the military to disregard unlawful orders. And on Friday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg capped that losing streak with an exclamation point: tossing out a grand jury subpoena aimed at Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

The Obama-appointed chief of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.,  delivered a memorable rebuke of the administration’s pursuit of that criminal probe in what he concluded was an effort to harass and punish Powell for refusing to bend to Trump’s demand that he lower interest rates quicker. 

To be upbraided by an Obama appointee was almost more than Trump could bear. It prompted him to suggest that Boasberg should be subjected to some form of punishment, even though the president has no authority over matters of judicial discipline. Cheney writes:

Trump’s personal vendetta against Boasberg began behind closed doors in 2023, when the newly minted chief blessed special counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to compel testimony from a raft of high-profile Trump aides. But it deepened when Boasberg attempted to halt the abrupt deportation of 137 Venezuelan men Trump accused of being gang members.

That history was palpable as Trump — in an encore to his initial Sunday night post — uncorked a long list of adjectives to demean the Obama-appointed judge: wacky, nasty, crooked, totally out of control, flagrant, extreme. “Exactly what Judges should not be!” he added.

“A man who suffers from the highest level of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), and has been ‘after’ my people, and me, for years,” Trump wrote, calling for Boasberg and other judges to “suffer serious disciplinary action.”

A hacker broke into the FBI's stash of Epstein files three years ago, and the story is just now surfacing, raising questions about national security under Trump

(Tony Michaels, Instagram)

A hacker broke into FBI riles related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and with the name of U.S. President Donald Trump mentioned an estimated 38,000 times in the files, implications of the hack could be profound. 

The hack occurred three years ago, but the incident just began to receive widespread media attention last week. The FBI describes the hack as "isolated" and says it has "rectified" the network. One of the most detailed accounts we have seen so far comes from Reuters and is dated last Wednesday (3/11/26). Under the headline "Exclusive: Foreign hacker in 2023 compromised Epstein files held by FBI, source and documents show," Raphael Satter writes:

A foreign hacker compromised files relating to the FBI’s investigation of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a digital break-in at the bureau’s New York Field Office three years ago, according to ​a source familiar with the matter and recently published Justice Department documents reviewed by Reuters.

The details of who accessed a server at the FBI’s New York Field Office, ‌including the allegation that a foreign hacker was involved, are being reported here for the first time.

In a statement, the FBI said what it described as a "cyber incident" was "an isolated one."

"The FBI restricted access to the malicious actor and rectified the network. The investigation remains ongoing, so we do not have further comments to provide at this time."

While the FBI's official statement is somewhat comforting, many questions remain: For example, how much information was accessed, and how might the hacker(s) use it? Also, this happened on the watch of Donald Trump's Department of Justice, headed by Pam Bondi (who has acted essentially as Trump's personal attorney, rather than as an objective seeker of justice), so what issues does that raise? The Reuters report addresses those questions and more:

Although the source said the intrusion appeared to have been carried out by a cybercriminal rather than a foreign government, ​the incident underscores the files' potential intelligence value, one academic said. The legally mandated publication of U.S. Justice Department documents has exposed the dead financier's ties to prominent people in politics, finance, academia, and business, ​triggering investigations in numerous countries around the world.

“Who wouldn’t be going after the Epstein files if you’re the Russians or somebody interested in kompromat?” said ⁠Jon Lindsay, who researches the role of emerging technology in global security at Georgia Tech. “If foreign intelligence agencies are not thinking seriously about the Epstein files as a target, then ​I would be shocked.”

The breach was reported contemporaneously by CNN and Reuters on February 17; the connection to Epstein materials was made by the French magazine Marianne.

Epstein, a longtime associate of President Donald Trump, ​pleaded guilty in 2008 to prostitution charges, including soliciting an underage girl. He was found hanged in his jail cell in 2019, in what was ruled a suicide, after being arrested again on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors.

There is Trump's name again, along with a reference to his longstanding friendship with perhaps the best-known pedophile in world history. In fact, Jeff Tiedrich, at the "Everyone is entitled to my own opinion" Substack page, refers almost daily to Epstein, from Trump's perspective, as "my dead pedo bestie." If you already didn't feel squeamish about the Epstein-Trump connection, you probably will when you learn more about the hack. Speaking of which, here is more from Raphael Satter:

The hack occurred after a server at the Child Exploitation Forensic Lab in the FBI’s New York Field Office was inadvertently left vulnerable by Special Agent Aaron Spivack, who was trying to navigate the bureau’s complex ​procedures for handling digital evidence, according to the source and the documents.

A timeline written by Spivack and included in the large cache of Epstein documents released earlier this year said the break-in happened ​on February 12, 2023. It was discovered the following day when Spivack turned on his computer and discovered a text file warning him that his network had been compromised, according to that document.

Further investigation turned up traces ‌of unusual activity ⁠on the server, the document said, adding that the activity "included combing through certain files pertaining to the Epstein investigation.”

You might want to keep that name Aaron Spivack in mind. He already is a central figure in this story, and his role might only get bigger. Reuters has more:

The timeline does not say which specific files were accessed, whether the hacker downloaded the data, or who the hacker was. Reuters could not establish what, if any, overlap the affected data had with the Epstein documents published earlier this year or the files that remain under wraps. 

Spivack, whose name appears elsewhere in the Epstein files, did not return repeated messages seeking comment. Reuters was unable to reach the man identified in the documents as Spivack’s lawyer, Richard J. Roberson, Jr. Seven FBI ​agents identified in the documents as being involved ​in the investigation into the incident did ⁠not return messages.

Spivack already appears to be taking a defensive posture to questions about the data breach, Satter reports:

In his statement to FBI investigators examining whether he was responsible for the breach, Spivack said he was being made "a scapegoat for the intrusion" and that conflicting bureau policies and faulty guidance around information technology were to blame. Reuters could not establish the result ​of the bureau's internal investigation.

The person familiar with the breach said the intrusion was carried out by a foreign hacker who did not appear ​to realize they had penetrated ⁠a law enforcement server. The hacker expressed disgust at the presence of child abuse images on the device and left a message threatening to turn its owner over to the FBI, the person said.

The source said bureau officials defused the situation by convincing the hacker that they actually were the FBI, in part by having the hacker join a video chat where they flashed their law enforcement credentials in front ⁠of a web ​camera.

Reuters could not determine - and the source said they did not know - who the hacker was, what country they ​were operating from, what they did with the material accessed, or whether any effort was made to identify or punish them for breaking into the FBI’s server.

Many of the Justice Department's documents have been heavily redacted and others have been kept ​secret altogether despite a law mandating their full release last year. The Trump administration says it is withholding material that could compromise victims’ identities or jeopardize ongoing investigations. 

This is a classic example of a story that raises more questions than it answers. But the number of press accounts on the hack is growing, and we intend to be in the middle of the effort to shine light on the latest unsavory chapter in the Epstein-Trump saga. We invite you to stay tuned.

Trump's survival instinct might be his No. 1 asset; he used it to defund one Epstein-related probe and to plant a roadblock for another. What will he try next?

Zorro Ranch in New Mexico (PBS)

We have had two reports this week of the Trump administration trying to shut down investigations connected to the Epstein files. That raises this question: Why would Trump and his toadies be trying to keep anyone from scrutinizing documents surrounding the legal, financial, and "other" matters of the late pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein? Let's allow that question to percolate for a few moments as we examine events that suggest the White House is perplexed about matters that go beyond the war in Iran.

The most recent instance of the Trump regime trying to suck the life out of an Epstein-related probe came on Tuesday evening when U.S. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), a Trump ally who probably spoke out of turn by accident, said the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) asked New Mexico investigators to shut down a 2019 probe into a ranch owned by convicted child-sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. That's from a jointly published report at Mediaite and Yahoo! News, and reporter Zachary Leeman provides more details:

Comer joined Fox News’s Jesse Watters on Tuesday evening after New Mexico authorities searched a ranch in the state once owned by Epstein. Victims of Epstein have said they were trafficked at the ranch. This is the second time the property has been investigated.

The property was being probed in 2019, but federal investigators reportedly took over and shut things down. Epstein died of an apparent suicide in 2019 while incarcerated awaiting sex trafficking charges.

Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, said on Tuesday:

The federal government asked New Mexico to stop their investigation, I believe  back in 2019, of that ranch. So there’s just so many questions about how the government failed the victims and how government failed in trying to prosecute Epstein sooner. I mean, this whole thing doesn’t make sense. Everyone has conspiracy theories on how Epstein was able to get away with it. Was it because he had powerful friends? Was it because he was an agent? We don’t know, but we’re gonna find out and I’m glad that they’re on the ground now in New Mexico searching that property.

Rational people generally do not tune to Fox News for serious journalism. But in this instance, Jesse Watters at least proved he was paying attention to what Comer said:

“Congressman, you said in 2019 the government told New Mexico authorities to stand down in investigating the ranch,” Watters replied. “Do you know what branch of the government?”

It was the Department of Justice, I believe. And I believe it was because they had– I believe, it perhaps was Southern District of New York because they had taken over the investigation at that point. So, again these are questions that we have. We want to get the answers.

We have to give Comer credit for one thing: He said New Mexico officials were on the ground "now" searching the former Epstein property -- and a subsequent report from CNN on Tuesday evening proves he was right. Michael Williams writes:

Authorities in New Mexico launched a search this week of a sprawling ranch formerly owned by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which has come under renewed interest after allegations surrounding the estate were included in files recently released by the US Justice Department.

The New Mexico Department of Justice announced the Monday morning search of the property, known as Zorro Ranch, in a brief statement posted to its website. It is part of the criminal investigation announced by state authorities last month into allegations of illegal activity surrounding the ranch at the time Epstein, who died in 2019, owned it.

The statement did not indicate whether anything of interest has been found during the search or how long it is expected to continue.

The family of Donald Huffines, a Republican politician and businessman from Texas, purchased Zorro Ranch via a limited liability company (LLC), and the secluded property has been renamed San Rafael Ranch, according to a report at the Santa Fe New Mexican. CNN's Williams, hinting at Trumpian interference, writes:

The ranch had previously not been subject to the same level of law enforcement scrutiny as Epstein’s other properties in New York, South Florida and the Caribbean. But following the release of federal government files related to Epstein, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez ordered the reopening of the state’s criminal investigation into the property, which he said closed in 2019 at the request of federal prosecutors.

Included in the millions of files released by the Justice Department in late January was a 2019 email received by a local radio host that alleged  “somewhere in the hills outside the Zorro, two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey and Madam G.” That allegation is unverified, but it is also not clear to what extent it had been investigated by law enforcement before the recent renewed interest in Epstein.

The host, Eddy Aragon, previously told CNN that he believed the email was sent to him by someone who worked at the ranch but wouldn’t disclose who he thought the person was. He said he tried sending an email to the address, but it bounced back. The files show he forwarded the allegations to a redacted email address four days after receiving it. . . . 

The release of the email sent to Aragon prompted Stephanie Garcia Richard, New Mexico’s commissioner of public lands, to send a letter last month asking the state Department of Justice to investigate the claims. She told CNN in February that the special investigative office of the New Mexico DOJ later reached out to her for “background information” on state lands and her agency’s processes and documents it released in 2019.

Garcia Richard told CNN on Tuesday that the New Mexico State Land Office granted the state Department of Justice a right of entry to the state land portions of the property for 180 days, which can be renewed.

“I just feel very gratified that it seems like the New Mexico Department of Justice has been responsive to the mounting calls for someone finally to go out to that property — both the state land and the private part of the ranch — and look for evidence, gather evidence,” Garcia Richard said.

What about the other incident of White House interference with the investigative process? We addressed that in Wednesday's Legal Schnauzer post, which was based on the original investigative reporting of Jason Leopold from Bloomberg News. From our post:

An informant's tip that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in the funding and distribution of so-called club drugs -- including ecstasy, ketamine, and methamphetamine -- led to the noted sex trafficker becoming part of a long-running federal investigation of organized crime that had been secret until now. That's from a new story by investigative reporter Jason Leopold at Bloomberg News. It's a winding tale that provides valuable insight on Epstein and the powerful figures in his orbit. It also raises many disturbing questions, and No. 1 on the list is this: Why did the second Trump administration, in September 2025, defund and shut down a government task force known for its ability to combat illicit finance and take down transnational criminal networks. In other words, it was exactly the kind of outfit that needed to be front and center on the Epstein case. But Trump shut it down. Is that because Trump saw a need to stunt the Epstein probe in any way he could, thereby protecting himself and perhaps any political or corporate toadies who support him? We invite you to ponder that question as you follow the trail Leopold and Bloomberg have set out for us, presenting the very latest reporting on the Epstein saga.

What was the task force that Trump targeted? Our post provides details, with the help of Leopold's reporting:

In December 2010, long before Epstein or anyone in his circle surfaced in their probe, the DEA and the FBI started investigating a drug trafficking operation in nightclubs in New York, New Jersey, Nevada, Florida, South Carolina, and Mexico, according to the five people familiar with the case. One person who’d been arrested in connection with the probe had attempted to ship a package to Florida containing ecstasy tablets and ketamine, a drug known to facilitate date rape.

The following year, the DEA requested the help of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), a Reagan-era Justice Department division made up of hundreds of prosecutors and thousands of intelligence and law enforcement personnel from across the federal government. OCDETF, as it’s called, worked jointly on investigations with other agencies to combat illicit finance and take down transnational criminal networks. Getting OCDETF’s buy-in unlocked additional funding and resources — including access to its fusion center, which the DOJ called “the single largest repository of federal and foreign investigative reporting throughout the federal government.”

Last year, as Bloomberg News first reported, OCDETF was defunded and shut down amid the Trump administration’s cost-cutting spree, sparking alarm among law enforcement officers given the task forces’ achievements over the decades, which included a leading role in the 2019 capture of Sinaloa Cartel leader Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. The administration transferred various responsibilities, including 5,000 existing cases, to a new set of task forces under the Department of Homeland Security that are focused mainly on immigration enforcement. In short, Trump took the task force duties away from veteran professionals and put them under Kristi Noem, who since has been ousted when the raging incompetence on her watch became too much for even Trump to stomach. 

What were the chances that a task force under the direction of Kristi Noem would would discover anything worthwhile? The correct answer probably is "zero." With the OCDETF dispersed and unfunded, it appears Trump was successful in his bid to make sure that investigation went nowhere. Meanwhile, a search is underway in New Mexico, and it might take a while, but new evidence could lead to enlightenment for the public and justice for Epstein victims and their families.

As for the question we asked at the beginning ("Why did Team Trump try to block efforts to investigate Epstein-related matters?"), we don't have a definitive answer. But here is one thought that comes to mind: Why does anyone hide potentially damaging information? It's probably because they know they've done something wrong, and they don't want to be found out. In Trump's case, the wrong might be so serious that it could affect his freedom, his very existence. We all have seen signs Trump is a tortured soul, but he does have a will to survive; in fact, survival instincts might be one of his strongest assets. So far, he has used that asset to stay one step ahead of the law. The question now? How long can he keep it up?