Latest polls show Trump's supporters are deserting him, but he still "flooded the zone with s--t" in SOTU, weaving a trail of deceit that could trip up Americans

Trump gives the longest SOTU in modern history (NPR)

If you took yesterday's advice from Robert Reich, you chose to ignore Donald Trump's State of the Union (SOTU) address. That should have you feeling pretty good right now. After all, Reich helped ensure that you did not waste your valuable time listening to the worst president in American history -- and that poll of presidential historians was taken before Trump's nightmarish second term began.

Now, we have more nuggets of hope for those who yearn to see the reins of American government return to the hands of a relatively sane person. That good news comes to us courtesy of Bill Kristol, a one-time Republican who decided around 2016 that the thought of Donald Trump in the White House was more than he could stomach. Kristol now writes opinion pieces for The Bulwark, a center-right news site that caters to "politically homeless" conservatives, those who reject the GOP's current direction and regularly criticize Trump and his allies.

In the lead-up to last night's SOTU, The Bulwark published a Kristol op-ed that offered soothing numbers for those of us who dream of the day America escapes Trump's authoritarian clutches. Let's take a look at Kristol's insights from a piece he wrote before Trump's speech :

Let’s be honest: Tonight will be depressing. When the sergeant at arms proclaims in a stentorian voice to the House chamber, “Mr. Speaker, the president of the United States,” we will be reminded, vividly and unavoidably, that Donald Trump is the president of the United States.

Which is depressing.

But there is a silver lining to that undeniably dark cloud. When President Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress almost a year ago, on March 4, 2025, he was in decent shape politically. Four months before, he’d won the presidency with 49.8 percent of the vote to Kamala Harris’s 48.3 percent. Six weeks into his second term, his support was holding steady: The New York Times polling average had him at 49 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval.

That is only the beginning of the grim statistical picture facing Trump. Kristol writes:

Today, almost a year later, the Times average has Trump at 41 percent approval, 56 percent disapproval. Trump has lost about one sixth of his approval in the last year. A new poll from CNN is even more dramatic, showing Trump at 36 percent approval today, down from 48 percent in that same poll a year ago. That suggests one in four of his original supporters deserting him. And this morning G. Elliott Morris reports on his new poll, which has Trump at 37 percent approval, 59 percent disapproval.

So Trump has lost considerable ground. One of course wishes that even more of the public had changed its mind even more quickly. But as our Declaration of Independence reminds us, the people are often slow to move: “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves.” The people tend to be characterized more by “patient sufferance” than quick rethinking.

But eventually the people can be brought to see what is happening. Eventually they come to notice “a long train of abuses and usurpations” and the “repeated injuries” of their rulers. Eventually they can say, “Enough.” There’s lots of evidence they’re en route to decisively saying “Enough” at the polls this November. (The new G. Elliott Morris poll has the Democrats up ten points on the congressional generic ballot.) And it’s more likely that public opinion will continue to move in the direction it’s been going than that it will reverse course.

Now it’s true that the public might conceivably reverse course if Trump changed course. But he seems to have no interest in doing so. As was the case with "Mad King George III" of England, when the public has “petitioned for redress in the most humble terms,” those petitions “have been answered only by repeated injury.”

Like Kristol, I struggle to understand how a substantial number of Americans ever came to believe that a man convicted on 34 felony counts in a criminal trial, adjudicated a rapist in a civil trial, and caught on tape admitting to being a sexual abuser should serve as president. Heck, I'm not sure a person with such a record would even be allowed to tour the White House, much less Occupy the Oval Office. Consider this information from AI Overview:

Mandatory Background Check: All visitors over the age of 18 must submit to a background check, which requires a full legal name, date of birth, and Social Security Number.

• Automatic Denials: The system likely flags individuals with active warrants, pending felony charges, or multiple convictions for violent crimes or serious drug offenses.
• Prior Convictions: Generally, past non-violent convictions do not guarantee a denial, but they are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

It is tempting to write off Trump supporters as ignorant rubes. But I, for one, have a slight problem with that: Over the years, especially during my days in Alabama (although Missouri isn't much different; I call it "Alabama with snowballs"), I've come to know a large number of people -- people I like and respect -- that I feel certain have voted for Trump. And I know terms such as "ignorant," "stupid," "unethical," or any similar pejorative do not apply to these folks.

On top of that, my wife Carol and I might be the only liberals on my side of our family. My niece, Dr. Erin Gerhardt, is a physician in St. Louis, and she seems to have progressive sensibilities. She and I have never had any political discussions -- I learned a long time ago that is a subject best avoided on family occasions -- so I'm not sure where she stands on the right/left divide. But I'm confident she is a fine doctor and a swell citizen -- and she tends to get five-star ratings from her patients, so I think that's pretty cool. In fact, I have a number of nieces and nephews that I think either are -- or will turn out to be -- swell citizens. And whether they agree with me or not, I find it hard to put political labels on them. 

As for Trump, I will admit my feelings toward him fall into the "hatred" range. And I will further admit that probably isn't terribly healthy. But I also don't think it's healthy to stay silent regarding someone who slings insults at my family's heritage -- and the heritage of many other American families -- who have seen loved ones put their lives on the line for U.S. democracy. 

I've written before about my father, William J. Shuler, who was part of a squadron that arrived at Normandy Beach three days after D-Day. My late father-in-law, Mark Tovich, served in the South-East Asia Theatre in World War II, especially in India and Burma, contracting a near fatal case of malaria or yellow fever. My late aunt Imogene Stamps, my late uncle Carl Stamps (both of Arkansas), and my late uncle Henry Shuler (of Aldrich, Missouri) all served in WWII. 

To have Trump refer to my relatives, and millions of people like my relatives who served as "suckers" and "losers" is hard to forgive in my mind -- especially when Trump has never acknowledged that he was in the wrong.

Did last night's SOTU help Trump? It might, but only if Americans allow themselves to be conned by a president who lies with impunity. NBC News conducted a fact check that showed Trump's claims related to tariffs, drug prices, inflation, global investments, tax cuts, mail voting, and election fraud were false. Claims related to Trump ending wars, fraud in Minnesota, new construction jobs, and crime in D.C. were exaggerated or lacked evidence.

For closing thoughts on Trump, let's give the last word to Bill Kristol:

Tonight, we’ll see a president who will speak—at length!—making the case for the path he’s chosen. But this speech is no more likely to help Trump than his address a year ago, which helped him not at all. It was a week after his appearance before Congress that Trump’s approval and disapproval lines crossed for the first time since he returned to the presidency. Since then his approval has steadily continued down, and his disapproval has steadily gone up. Those trends are likely to continue.

It’s worth noting that this public rejection has happened without war and without a recession, two common proximate causes of a decline in presidential popularity—though we may be teetering close to both. On the economy in particular, it turns out not to be always true that it’s the economy, stupid. After all, it doesn’t seem to have mostly been the economy in 1776. Almost none of the charges in the Declaration is about the material well-being of the colonists. The indictment there is that “a prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” 

That’s surely the case today.

But it’s also worth noting that unfit rulers can sometimes hold on to power. The publication of the Declaration of Independence didn’t achieve independence. That took years of war. And like Mad King George, Trump will not give up easily. He has many levers of power in the executive branch at his disposal. He and his supporters have tons of money to spend on the coming elections. They have the acquiescence of many elites outside of government. They will not go gently into their well-deserved night.

Tonight Trump will, as Steve Bannon memorably put it, “flood the zone with shit.” The good news is that the American people seem increasingly sickened by the odor. But we have a long struggle ahead to get rid of it.

Robert Reich already knows the state of our union -- and it's abysmal; so he is tuning out on Donald Trump's address and encourages you to tune it out, too

(imgflip)

Robert Reich, former labor secretary under Bill Clinton and longtime professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley, is one of our most astute political observers. In fact, Reich is so astute that he already knows our state of the union, and he confesses that he has no intention of listening to Donald Trump bloviate in tonight's State of the Union address, which is expected to be heavy on no-shows in the midst of a blizzard that has hit D.C. (plus possible Democrat boycotts) and surely will be light on facts as Trump seeks to provide cover for his failing presidency. Reich recommends that we all follow his lead by ignoring the address, perhaps giving Trump record low viewership that is likely to blow his increasingly demented mind.

Reich spells out his plan for tonight in an opinion piece at AlterNet titled "I already know the state of the union -- it's abysmal." I like the way Reich gets right to the point -- and he is a straight shooter, one who is disinclined to play softball when Trump deserves to have hard balls zinging by his head -- so let's follow along as Reich encourages us not to show Trump the kind of respect we would offer most any relatively normal president in  modern history:

I’m not going to watch the State of the Union address Tuesday night. I urge you not to, either.

I hope Nielsen (or whoever makes such estimates these days) will find that far fewer Americans watched Trump’s State of the Union than have watched any other State of the Union in recent memory. It will drive Trump nuts.

There are plenty of other reasons for not watching.

First, he doesn’t deserve our attention. He’s abused and defiled the American presidency, even worse than he did in his first term.

He’s openly taken bribes. He’s blatantly usurped the powers of Congress. He has overtly used the Justice Department to punish people he considers his enemies and pardon people loyal to him. He has willfully rejected the rule of law, broken treaties, literally destroyed part of the White House, thumbed his nose at our allies (including our closest and heretofore loyal neighbors), and utterly failed his constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He lies like most people breathe. He’s a fraud and a traitor.

See, I told you Reich would not play softball with a charlatan like Trump. Reich also has little patience for Trump's fractured relationship with the truth -- and the impact his incessant lies have on our democracy. Reich writes:

Second, we already know what he’s going to say because he’s already stated and restated his lies every chance he gets. He says the economy is in wonderful shape, that he’s settled six wars, that he’s brought peace to the Middle East, that he’s made America safer and more secure, that the 2020 election was stolen from him, ad nauseam.

He assumes that if he repeats these lies often enough, people will believe them. Why should we give him more of an audience for his lies?

The answer, of course, is "we shouldn't." The tube will be off in the Legal Schnauzer household tonight, and we hope it's off in yours, too. Reich is a shrewd analyst, one who makes one good point after another -- but this might be my favorite of all his insights regarding Trump:

Third, [Trump] refuses to be president of the United States, [instead focusing] only on the people who voted for him in 2024.

Reich is making a profound point here -- that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president and never should have sought the job or been elected to serve. In short, Trump's view of the presidency is directly at odds with language embedded in our founding documents.

Here is how the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History (GLIAH) describes the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence: "The Second Continental Congress declared that all human beings shared natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Legitimate governments were founded through consent of the governed, and a people retained the right to resist tyrannical governments that threatened natural rights. The Declaration helped justify separation from Britain and the establishment of a new government. Its concepts were drawn from the pages of philosophical, political, and legal books and shaped by conditions in the colonies. No concept, however, was more potentially transformative, or more consequential to later generations, than the idea that “all men are created equal.” 

Note that our government receives its authority through consent of the governed -- that's all those governed, not just the ones who voted Republican or declared fealty to the MAGA movement. Robert Reich's words make it clear that Trump never intended to respect consent of the governed.

As for the U.S. Constitution, consider these words from the League of Women Voters, which compared Trump's actions to the oath of office he has taken twice: "[Trump] has sworn—twice—to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Yet, during an interview with Kristen Welker of Meet the Press, when asked whether he would uphold the Constitution, he said, “I don’t know.” Let that sink in: the president of the United States publicly admitted he doesn't know whether he would uphold the Constitution. It isn’t optional. It isn’t a choice. It is a mandate. He promised. He swore. He affirmed. He lied. Trump’s response? That his “brilliant” lawyers will “obviously follow what the Supreme Court says” (but not necessarily the Constitution itself)—but that he didn’t know whether he would. His oath wasn’t to his lawyers. His oath was to the Constitution.

This is a lawless man, a lawless administration, and a lawless movement.

This also is a deeply unserious man, one who never intended to do the job he was sworn to fulfill. Is it any wonder that Robert Reich holds Trump in such contempt? Here is more from Reich's opinion piece:

[Trump] talks in glowing terms about “my” people while denigrating “them” — those of us who didn’t vote for him, who still disapprove of him, or who refuse to give him whatever he wants.

He won’t even fund so-called blue states. So far this year he’s axed over $1.5 billion in blue-state grants, contrary to the wishes of Congress.

If he doesn’t believe he’s my president, why should I treat him as my president and watch his State of the Union?

Reich concludes with a zinger aimed directly at Trump and the soul of the MAGA movement (assuming MAGAs have souls):

Fourth and finally, I already know the real state of the union. It is s----

The economy has been good for big business and wealthy Americans but s----- for small businesses and average working Americans.

Although Trump repeatedly promised that his tariffs would reduce U.S. imports, shrink the trade deficit, and lead to a revival in American manufacturing, the opposite has happened. The annual trade deficit in goods last year hit a record high. And U.S. manufacturers cut 108,000 jobs.

In the 2024 election, Trump also promised to bring down prices, but inflation is still steaming ahead. Prices grew at an annual rate of 3 percent in December. He’s so out of touch with what most Americans are enduring that he calls the crisis of affordability “fake news.”

He promised to control immigration, but 6 out of 10 Americans think he’s gone “too far” by sending federal agents into American cities, causing mayhem and murder.

He promised to avoid foreign entanglements, but he abducted the president of Venezuela, killed more than 150 Venezuelans, and is now planning to attack Iran.

His menacing the Middle East has created another inflation risk: The possibility that a key oil export route will be disrupted has caused the price of Brent crude to soar.

For all these reasons, I’m not going to watch Trump’s State of the Union. I recommend that you don’t, either.

Your senators and representatives in Congress should boycott it, too. You might call their offices to suggest this. (Some Democrats are already planning to skip it, opting instead for a counter-programming event on the National Mall dubbed “The People’s State of the Union.” Good!)

And why the hell should justices of the Supreme Court show up, especially after [Trump] says he’s “ashamed” of the six who decided his tariffs exceeded his authority — calling the three Democratic appointees a “disgrace to our nation” and the three conservatives who voted against him “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats,” “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution,” “swayed by foreign interests,” and “an embarrassment to their families”? 

Boycott the State of the Union. It's the least we can do.

Austin Tucker Martin, fatally shot by Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago, was a one-time Trump supporter who became obsessed about an Epstein files cover-up

Austin Tucker Martin (far right), with family members (NY Post)

The 21-year-old man Secret Service agents fatally shot at President Donald Trump's Florida estate early Sunday had become deeply concerned about the administration's handling of the Epstein files and expressed fear of elites "getting away with it,"  an apparent reference to wealthy and powerful men not being held  accountable for using the Jeffrey Epstein network to commit sex crimes against women and under-age girls. That's from a report at the UK Daily Mail under the headline "Gunman shot dead at Mar-a-Lago was 'obsessed with Epstein 'cover-up,' came from family of 'avid Trump supporters.'  U.S. Senior Reporter Stephen M. Lepore writes:

The man who entered Trump's Mar-a-Lago property with a shotgun and gas canister comes from a family of Trump supporters and became 'obsessed' by the administration's handling of the Epstein files. 

Austin Tucker Martin, 21, was shot and killed on Sunday morning after entering President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. 

Braeden Fields, Martin's cousin, reacted with disbelief, calling Martin 'quiet' and saying his family was almost entirely in favor of Trump.

'We are big Trump supporters, all of us. Everybody,' Fields said, but his cousin was 'real quiet, never really talked about anything.'

Martin hardly fits the profile of someone who might appear on Trump's property, with the apparent intent of harming the president. The Daily Mail's Lepore writes:

Martin himself also was allegedly a Trump supporter, expressing his belief in Trump as recently as late last year, anonymous co-workers told TMZ.

However, a text message uncovered by the outlet shows that Martin may have been influenced by the Department of Justice's release of the files related to dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

On February 15, just a week before he was killed by law enforcement, Martin texted a co-worker at Pine Needles Lodge & Golf Club in North Carolina about the files.

'I don't know if you read up on the Epstein Files, but evil is real and unmistakable,' Martin said.

Did increasingly detailed and disturbing reports about Trump's connections to Epstein -- including DOJ  documents tying the president's name to reports of child rape and murder -- cause scales to fall from the eyes of one young Trump supporter? For now, that appears to be the case. From the Daily Mail:

"The best people like you and I can do is use what little influence we have. Tell other people about what you hear about the Epstein files and what the government is doing about it. Raise awareness."

President Trump has never been charged with any involvement in any wrongdoing involving Epstein and has long said he cut ties with the financier over 20 years ago. 

Co-workers said that Martin - who was open about his Christian faith - was fixated on the Epstein saga and said he would talk about "the elites 'getting away with it.'"

Journalist Julie Brown, who brought the Epstein case back to life, says Prince Andrew's arrest shows justice is taken seriously when you go 'across the pond' to UK

Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre

It likely is a safe bet that hardly anyone on the planet knows more about the Jeffrey Epstein case than Miami Herald journalist Julie K. Brown. And yet, even Brown -- who is credited with sparking a second round of criminal charges against the notorious sex trafficker -- was caught off guard by yesterday's news that the former Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom had been arrested on suspicion of misconduct related to his well-documented ties to Epstein.

The title of Brown's Substack page, "The Epstein Files," is indicative of her expertise on the subject. Here is the headline from yesterday's post: "Prince Andrew's Arrest: Across the pond in Britain, justice and accountability is a serious matter." I suspect that is a not-so-subtle dig at the U.S. justice system, which Brown seems to see as not terribly serious about matters such as accountability, fairness, and the rule of law. I wholeheartedly share Brown's assessment of our putrid court system, and as longtime readers of our Legal Schnauzer blog know, I received a graduate-level education while living in Alabama on how our courts (both state and federal) tend to spew forth rulings that have little or nothing to do with the facts as presented and the law as written. 

What kind of wreckage can crooked courts inflict on the lives of everyday Americans? My wife Carol and I (we know her in the blogosphere as "Mrs. Schnauzer") are Exhibit A regarding the ruination that can befall those who are forced to participate in a system where protecting the interests of the legal tribe is No. 1 on the agenda and the dispensing of justice is not even in the top 100. 

What was our court experience like? It launched when a criminally inclined neighbor named Mike McGarity and an integrity-challenged lawyer named Bill Swatek (who the Alabama State Bar has disciplined multiple times, including a suspension of his license) joined forces to file a lawsuit against me in Shelby County that had zero basis in fact or law. But defending myself against a groundless lawsuit set off a series of events that included me being cheated out of my job of 25 years as an editor at the university of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and Carol losing several jobs (one at Southern Medical Association, one at Infinity Insurance, plus three or four sales positions). Every time we seemed to get close to landing new jobs, the offer or the interest disappeared. Somebody, perhaps angry about my reporting on court corruption at this blog, seemed to be undermining our job-search efforts -- essentially robbing us of the ability to support ourselves. That can cause a solid financial situation to turn shaky in a hurry.

That wasn't the only "robbery" we experienced. After almost 25 years of making house payments on time and in full every month, we lost our home to what appeared to be a wrongful foreclosure and got screwed on the disbursement of funds from the foreclosure sale by our mortgage company, JPMorgan Chase. After I had written unflattering stories about certain powerful, conservative political figures in Alabama -- including former state attorney general and current U.S. judge for the 11th Circuit Bill Pryor, plus Homewood lawyer and GOP political operative Rob Riley (son of former governor Bob Riley) -- someone apparently took offense and sicced Shelby County Sheriff's deputy Chris Blevins -- who gave the appearance of being intimately familiar with steroids -- on me. Blevins almost drove his cop car into the side of our house and then walked into our garage (which was underneath the main portion of our house), and without showing a warrant or stating his purpose for being there, proceeded to beat me up in my own home, knocking me to a concrete floor three times, and then spraying me in the face with pepper spray. A second officer, Jason Valenti, who threatened to break my arm, helped Blevins remove me from the garage and applied handcuffs, placing me in the back seat of a cop car for the 35-minute ride to the Shelby County Jail in Columbiana. The main charge against me was for contempt of court, apparently for failing to appear at a hearing in a defamation lawsuit Rob Riley and his lobbyist friend Liberty Duke had filed against Carol and me. Oddly, we didn't appear because we were never lawfully served, and we had filed documents challenging service, with a ruling pending when Blevins showed up in our garage.  

A lawyer named David Gespass visited me twice in jail and wrote a letter, stating that he had seen the court file, which Riley had asked to be sealed, and it showed no summons had been issued, much less served. A preliminary injunction was issued against me on Sept. 30, but a summons was not issued in the case until Oct 16. That means Judge J. Claud Neilson granted a preliminary injunction against me when I had not been summoned and was not under his jurisdiction -- so there was no way I could be in contempt of court.

Still, I wound up spending five months in jail and was released only after I explained to Carol from a jail telephone how to enter the editing/publishing page of the blog and remove the posts Judge Neilson had deemed to be defamatory, a decision he made with no discovery, no jury trial, not even a legitimate hearing. In short, he did not follow the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, and there was no evidence to support his finding. Rob Riley did not even file an affidavit stating that my reporting was false.

I did get a touch of notoriety out of the whole dismal experience. The story received widespread national coverage -- with excellent reports from Lindsay Beyerstein at Raw Story and Scott Horton at Harper's, plus top-notch Q-and-A interviews from Joan Brunwasser at OpEd News.

Was my arrest significant? Yes, it was -- and not just to Carol and me. Here is how we summarized some of the historical and societal issues in play:

I was the only U.S. journalist to be incarcerated in 2013 (from Oct. 23, 2013, to March 26, 2014) -- the only journalist arrested in the western hemisphere that year. I'm the only U.S. journalist to be arrested since 2006 -- more than a decade -- and my incarceration is the third longest for a journalist in American history. Ranking ahead of me are San Francisco-based free-lance videographer Joshua Wolf (2006), and true-crime writer Vanessa Leggett (2001).

I am the only American journalist to be arrested in the 2000s for a case that had no criminal implications. Our research indicates I am the only journalist to be incarcerated because of an unlawful preliminary injunction, which has been an improper prior restraint under more than 200 years of First Amendment law. That means my case might represent the worst abuse of a journalist on American soil.

The case was important enough to attract the attention of The New York Times. Unfortunately, reporter Campbell Robertson butchered his interviews with Carol and me and produced a sloppy, inaccurate article.

One of the more interesting characters to cover the case was California lawyer Ken White, publisher of the Popehat blog. White unfairly bashed me at times and showed signs of right-wing bias. But I do think he knows First Amendment law and made some salient points about the case, especially if you could get past his snarky manner. White came to some nonsensical conclusions, but in general, I think he furthered public knowledge of the relevant issues. And I especially enjoyed it when he called an attorney from Rob Riley's law firm "blindingly ignorant" or "cynically dishonest."

Also, the case received coverage at several international news outlets, and my favorite was at a Russian news forum called RU Posters. It was interesting to read Russians commenting that my case proved the vaunted U.S. First Amendment maybe wasn't so great after all. In my view, the First Amendment is great, but the way crooked judges apply it can be awful.

I apologize for the detour into my own tale of legal woe, but a key theme of this post is that our justice system reeks, and it seemed an appropriate time to update readers with personal insights on just how bad our courts can be.

A couple of final personal points:

(1) There are quite a few similarities between what Carol and I experienced in Alabama and the brutality and dysfunction we now see from the Trump administration, especially in regards to detention of immigrants, often without due process of law. In essence, Alabama was ahead of the curve when it comes to crappy conservative governance.

(2) Alabama is not the only place where law-enforcement officials trample the law. After losing our house in Birmingham, we moved to Missouri where I grew up and wound up being subjected to an eviction from our apartment that was unlawful on at least 8-10 grounds. A sheriff named Jim Arnott orchestrated that fiasco, which ended with an apparent deputy (although we've never been able to find out his name and actual affiliation) assaulting Carol, slamming her to the ground and yanking on her arms so violently and awkwardly that it caused a comminuted fracture of her left arm. One medical professional termed it a dislocation of the elbow, and it required $80,000 of trauma surgery, over eight hours, for repair.

Sheriff Arnott, a devout Republican, has joined Donald Trump's ICE brigade to help rid the Midwest of immigrants. I've seen up close that Arnott cares not one whit about the law, so I wonder how many immigrants he has detained without due process, which is required by the U.S. Constitution. The issue of due process for detainees has been raised in published reports. So far, I've been unable to find a response from Arnott stating his agency is complying with due-process requirements. My guess is that the number of immigrants being detained in a constitutional manner would be close to zero.

Let's return to Julie Brown's take on the stunning arrest of the former Prince Andrew, which surely is the biggest worldwide legal story of the moment. Brown shows that the Andrew arrest has much deeper historical meaning than many Americans probably realize. She writes:

This is the most significant story involving British royalty since King Edward VIII abdicated his throne in 1936 — and the first arrest of a royal since King Charles I, who was detained in 1647 during the English Civil War. That’s four centuries ago.

Andrew, whose 66th birthday [was yesterday] was taken into custody about 8 a.m. local time, 3 a.m. EST.

As for his ties to Epstein, Andrew probably is best known for his alleged sexcapades with Epstein's sex-trafficking victims -- most notably with the late Virginia Giuffre. Andrew's arrest, however, seems to be based more on alleged financial wrongdoing than anything involving sex. Brown writes:

His arrest comes just four days after the Daily Mail reported that he passed on sensitive information about the taxpayer-owned Royal Bank of Scotland to Epstein when he was representing the UK as a trade envoy.

Documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the Epstein Files Transparency Act revealed that Andrew leaked details he learned from meeting with bank executives in the wake of a $45-billion bailout.

Andrew also allegedly passed on other sensitive information he learned to a banker friend, according to the Telegraph.

Andrew’s association with Epstein has captured the attention of the British media for years. But in recent weeks, the scandal evolved into possible financial wrongdoing, first involving Lord Mandelson, the British ambassador to the United States, who resigned. The backlash has also put pressure on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. A member of the Scottish Labour party asked Starmer to resign over Mendelson’s appointment, but thus far, he appears to have survived the scandal.

Interestingly, Andrew’s arrest is not concerning the 2011 sexual assault allegations that were brought against him by Virginia Giuffre — but it was recent stories in the British media about him passing on financial information to what the British press called “his pedo mate.” (Epstein, who also appears to be Donald Trump's "pedo mate.")

It’s astonishing how much accountability seems to be possible once you cross the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, neither the U.S. Justice Department nor the Treasury Department seems to have made an effort to “follow the money” involving some of Epstein’s friends and associates.

Remember, Sen. Ron Wyden — who has been investigating Epstein’s finances for years — has hit a wall because President Trump’s Treasury Department hasn’t cooperated with his probe.

GOP leaders also seem to have their heads in the sand.

In the wake of Andrew's arrest, Brown says, it is time for a serious investigation of obvious red flags that largely have been ignored:

Why didn’t the DOJ investigate Epstein and his associates’ suspected money laundering? Isn’t it clear that banks were ignoring all the flags that pointed to him?

This story is bigger than politics; it is a global scandal with implications beyond the 21-page PowerPoint presentation the FBI put together on the case in July.

And now, we have the arrest of a former member of the Royal family.

While Andrew has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, their  relationship has dogged the Royal family for a decade, since Giuffre first went public with allegations that she was trafficked to the Prince when she was 17.

Giuffre is a central figure in the Andrew-Epstein story because her allegations opened the door for other victims to come forward. Sadly, Giuffre will not be here if any form of justice ever is meted out. She died by suicide in April 2025. Writes Brown: 

Giuffre, who died in April, first told her story to Daily Mail reporter Sharon Churcher in 2011.

Ms Giuffre wrote in her recent memoir, Nobody’s Girl, that on the day she met Andrew in 2001, Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, told her “just like Cinderella, I was going to meet a handsome prince.”

A photograph that was taken at the time — of Giuffre and the prince — one that Andrew claimed might have been doctored — has come to symbolize the scandal in Britain.

Andrew had been friends with Epstein since 1999 and continued even after Epstein was charged with solicitation of a minor in 2007. In 2010, he was photographed walking with Epstein in New York.

In 2019, Andrew gave a widely criticized interview with the BBC’s Newsnight, denying Giuffre’s allegations.

Giuffre later sued Andrew, and the case was settled with a payment, said to be about $10 million. Andrew did not admit liability as part of the settlement.

As details of the Epstein story slowly surfaced, Andrew saw the trappings of fame and favor slide away:

As more revelations came to light over the past few years, Andrew was stripped of his military titles, then last year, his royal titles were officially removed by King Charles.

Prosecutors for the Southern District of New York wanted to interview Andrew about Epstein in 2020 as part of their broader probe into Epstein’s associates, but he declined to cooperate. 

Late last year, members of the House Oversight Committee wrote to Andrew (whose name was changed to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor) requesting a transcript of an interview about Epstein. However, the lawmakers had no power to force him to comply.

Andrew is the third person linked to Epstein to be arrested. One of his co-conspirators, French modeling scout Jean-Luc Brunel, was arrested in December 2020 on charges of rape of minors and sex trafficking. He died by suicide in a Paris jail while awaiting trial. Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021. 

Last week, Norway’s former Prime Minister, Thorbjorn Jagland, was arrested on corruption charges in connection with information Norwegian authorities found in the Epstein files pertaining to his relationship with the disgraced financier and sex trafficker.

Never in a million years did I think when I resurrected the Epstein story in 2018 it would lead to this.

United Nations declares the Epstein files might include allegations that amount to 'crimes against humanity,' raising questions about holding U.S. elites accountable

International Criminal Court at The Hague (CNN)

Experts associated with the United Nations say allegations contained in the Epstein files could point to crimes against humanity. How might such a finding play out, and what tribunal likely would be at the heart of an investigation and prosecution? 

Our research indicates the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, Netherlands, probably would play a central role, but the ICC might face serious hurdles in seeking to prosecute citizens of the United States. How could that be? To address that question, we first look at the four types of criminal cases that can come before the ICC: 

(1)  Genocide -- The specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means;

(2) Crimes Against Humanity -- serious violations committed as part of a large-scale attack against any civilian population. The 15 forms of crimes against humanity listed in the Rome Statute include offences such as murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, enslavement – particularly of women and children, sexual slavery, torture, apartheid and deportation;

(3) War Crimes -- Grave breaches of the Geneva conventions in the context of armed conflict and include, for instance, the use of child soldiers; the killing or torture of persons such as civilians or prisoners of war; intentionally directing attacks against hospitals, historic monuments, or buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes;

(4) The Crime of Aggression -- The use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, integrity or independence of another State. This is the central issue in Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Crimes associated with the Epstein files would fall under No. 2, Crimes Against Humanity. There is little doubt the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute such cases. But there is considerable doubt about the ICC's ability to prosecute U.S. citizens. That's because the United States is not a member of the ICC, primarily due to concerns about national sovereignty and the potential for politically motivated prosecutions of its military and political leaders. Also, the U.S. adopted the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) in 2002, and it gives the president power to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".

Does this mean Donald Trump could escape ICC accountability if the court found probable cause to believe he committed crimes against humanity as part of his ties to the Jeffrey Epstein matter? Given that the Epstein files tie Trump to allegations of murder and rape, it's a reasonable question. We don't have a clear-cut answer at the moment, but I'm going to continue to research it. My guess is that Trump and his governmental allies would stand a better than 50-50 chance of skating. As for business leaders and other private citizens, they might be on shakier ground, but the ASPA certainly throws a wrench into the wheels of justice regarding U.S. citizens.

How did the subject of the UN and the Epstein files arise? For that, we turn to a report from The Hill, under the headline "Epstein files allegations may amount to 'crimes against humanity': UN experts." Sophie Brams writes:

A panel of United Nations experts suggested that allegations detailed in the millions of documents released by the Justice Department (DOJ) connected to its probe of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could amount to some of the most serious crimes under international law.

The group of experts, appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said in a statement released Monday that the files signal “the existence of a global criminal enterprise” that engaged in the “systematic and large-scale sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation” of women and girls.

“These crimes were committed against a backdrop of supremacist beliefs, racism, corruption, extreme misogyny and the commodification and [dehumanization] of women and girls from different parts of the world," they said.

What are the legal requirements for a finding of crimes against humanity, and how might the content of the Epstein files meet them? The Hill report addresses both questions:

The U.N. panel warned that some accusations contained in the documents released by the DOJ may meet that threshold.

“All the allegations contained in the ‘Epstein Files’ are egregious in nature and require independent, thorough, and impartial investigation, as well as inquiries to determine how such crimes could have taken place for so long,” they said.

“So grave is the scale, nature, systematic character, and transnational reach of these atrocities against women and girls, that a number of them may reasonably meet the legal threshold of crimes against humanity,” the panel added:

To understand how Epstein-related crimes might be prosecuted, and under what standard, it helps to examine some basic definitions: 

Crimes against humanity are defined under international law as when certain acts are committed “as part of widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” These acts — which include rape, sexual slavery, and murder, among other offenses — differ from war crimes in that they do not require armed conflict and can occur in peaceful times, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The U.N. panel warned that some accusations contained in the documents released by the DOJ may meet that threshold.

The panel also addressed concerns that the Trump administration handled the files in a slipshod fashion, raising questions about transparency and unlawful redactions. Here is more from The Hill:

The Trump administration has been criticized for its handling of the investigation into Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, with critics arguing it has not been transparent in the batches of documents released.

Lawmakers who reviewed the unredacted Epstein files at a DOJ office over the past week reported heavy, “unnecessary” redactions in what they saw. Trump officials have maintained the redactions are meant to ensure victims’ identities are kept private.

The U.N. panel echoed concerns about “botched redactions” that exposed victims’ information in previous disclosures — a blunder the Trump administration blamed on “technical or human error” when it announced it had taken down the documents and images.

“The grave errors in the release process underscore the urgent need for victim-centered standard operating procedures for disclosure and redaction, so that no victim suffers further harm,” they wrote.

If the UN panel reaches a finding of crimes against humanity, how might that play out? For insight on that question, we turn to a report at UN.com focusing on the global human-rights issues the Epstein files present:

In a statement on Monday, the independent experts – who serve in their individual capacities under mandates from the UN Human Rights Council and are not UN staff – warned that the alleged acts documented in the files could amount to some of the gravest crimes under international law.

The reported conduct could amount to sexual slavery, reproductive violence, enforced disappearance, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and femicide, according to the experts.

Under international criminal law, crimes against humanity occur when acts such as rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, trafficking, persecution, torture or murder are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.

The experts said the patterns reported in the files may meet this threshold and must be prosecuted in all competent national and international courts.

This suggests an array of tribunals, prosecutors and judges will handle the cases, based on jurisdictional principles outlined under international law. The UN report notes that Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted of sex trafficking and other offenses and sentenced to a 20-year prison sentence. But the report also states, "Questions persist regarding the potential involvement of additional individuals, financial structures and possible transnational dimensions of the alleged criminal enterprise."

In other words, the UN intends to pursue issues that largely have been covered up by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under Donald Trump. 

Trump and his allies have essentially been begging the American public to "move on" from the Epstein files. But the UN appears to have no intention of following suit. From the report:

The experts hailed the courage and resilience of victims in seeking accountability at significant personal cost, stressing that under international human rights law, States are obligated to prevent, investigate and punish violence against women and girls, including acts committed by private actors. . . . 

“The failure to safeguard [victims'] privacy puts them at risk of retaliation and stigma,” the experts warned.

They further underscored that “resignations of implicated individuals alone are not an adequate substitute for criminal accountability,” welcoming steps by some governments to probe current and former officials and private individuals named in the files. They called on other States to do the same.

“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said.

“It is imperative that governments act decisively to hold perpetrators accountable,” the experts said. “No one is too wealthy or too powerful to be above the law.”