All posts tagged "oregon"

State police slam Trump’s ICE agents after tear gas hits officers

Oregon state police are shredding President Donald Trump's ICE agents after officers "suffered exposure" from tear gas during a protest outside an ICE facility in Portland earlier this month.

Judge Karin Immergut said she would decide on whether to hold the government in contempt and determine whether the government violated a temporary restraining order when officials refused to pause National Guard soldiers going into Portland, Oregon.

New evidence was presented in court on Wednesday about the federal government firing on local law enforcement with pepper balls and chemical gas.

"Oregon State Police Capt. Cameron Bailey says his sergeant & other officers 'suffered exposure' from tear gas after federal officers sprayed protest - adds there was no warning for law enforcement. Continues plaintiffs' main theme, that federal officers are endangering cops as well as protesters," Talking Points Memo reporter and co-host of the John Marshall podcast Kate Riga wrote on Bluesky.

People at the protest said the scene in early October was alarming.

"Commander Franz Schoening of the Portland Police Bureau describes a protest in early October outside the ICE facility featuring lots of 'older' people - says it was 'startling' to watch federal officers use tear gas on the crowd, that it wasn't 'best practices' or justified," Riga said.

The DOJ attempted to stop the testimony in court, with the judge blocking the objections.

"Pattern emerging - commander keeps describing 'indiscriminate' force used, unprompted, by federal officers against protesters, and DOJ jumps in with an objection to break up flow of testimony. Judge Immergut consistently overruling objections," Riga added.

Trump has alleged that the National Guard is necessary because his "people" told him that Portland was burning to the ground.

‘Absurd’: Noem claim to have arrested ‘antifa’ founder’s girlfriend stirs ridicule

A dramatic claim by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to have arrested “the girlfriend of one of the founders of antifa,” therefore putting the Trump administration in position to “eliminate” the leftwing “network,” was dismissed by both the activist the arrested woman was said to have dated and a leading expert on such leftwing groups.

“I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not now, nor have I ever been, the ‘founder’ of ‘Antifa’ — in Portland [Oregon], the United States, or anywhere else,” said Luis Enrique Marquez, the activist, in a statement on a website promoting a book.

“It’s an absurd claim, no matter how they try to frame it,” Stanislav Vysotsky, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Fraser Valley in British Columbia, told Raw Story.

Nonetheless, Noem’s trumpeting of the arrest of Katherine Vogel, 39, showed the administration’s determination to make headlines as it seeks to paint “antifa” activists as a danger to the American public, and Portland as the supposed base of such groups.

‘Root them out’

Seated alongside President Donald Trump during a White House roundtable last week, Noem said: “One of the individuals we arrested in Portland was the girlfriend of one of the founders of antifa.

“We are hoping that as we go after her, interview her and prosecute her, we will get more and more information about the network and how we can root them out and eliminate them from the existence of American society.”

On Sept. 30, Vogel was the subject of a targeted arrest carried out by Federal Protective Services and U.S. Border Patrol agents, after she was allegedly observed with a group of people spilling red paint on the sidewalk outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.

A federal criminal complaint alleges that “while Vogel was being escorted into the facility for processing, she actively resisted by flailing her body” and struck one of the agents on the jaw with a closed fist.

She told an investigator she did not recall striking the agent.

Vogel was a contractor with the U.S. General Services Administration. As a result of her arrest “she was found unsuitable” and will no longer work for the agency, a spokesperson told Raw Story.

Noem’s description of Vogel as a potential linchpin for a nationwide network supposedly posing a terrorist threat appears to have been sourced to Andy Ngo, a right-wing media figure who Trump said at the roundtable was “a very serious person.”

Ngo was previously represented in a lawsuit for assault against Rose City Antifa, a Portland group, by Harmeet Dhillon, now assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice. Rose City Antifa was dismissed as a defendant. Ngo and Dhillon frequently share each other’s posts on X.

A week before Noem’s White House remarks, Ngo posted that Vogel was “a veteran Rose City Antifa member” and “the previous girlfriend of violent Rose City Antifa member Luis Enrique Marquez.”

Vogel, who was released from custody on Oct. 1, could not be reached for comment.

Marquez, the author of the book Antifascist: A Memoir of the Portland Uprising, refuted Ngo’s claim. The statement on his website said: “I have never been a member of Rose City Antifa or any other Antifa group.”

Marquez also said his relationship with Vogel ended in 2020, adding, “Any insinuation of an ongoing connection between us is false and disingenuous.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to a request to clarify Noem’s reference to Vogel as “the girlfriend of one of the founders of antifa.”

Vysotsky, who has extensively interviewed antifascist activists, said that notion was difficult to square with reality, given that the movement dates back to the early 20th century.

“If we’re talking about the girlfriend of the founder of antifa, then we’re talking about someone who would have to be 120 years old or 130 years old,” Vysotsky told Raw Story.

While antifascism emerged in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, in response to the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, Vysotsky said the modern antifascist movement in North America can generally be dated to the mid- to late-1980s.

Rose City Antifa, the Portland-based group referenced by Ngo, was founded in 2007. Vysotsky said that to the best of his knowledge, Marquez was not a founder.

“He came on the scene in 2016 or 2017,” Vysotsky said. “He happens to be someone who is prominent and outspoken on social media. It’s an absurd claim, no matter how they try to frame it.”

A DHS spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, said Vogel’s activist connections were the subject of “an ongoing investigation,” adding: “We will release more information when we can.”

‘A militarist, anarchist enterprise’

In a Sept. 26 X post, DHS described Rose City Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.” The post followed an executive order issued by Trump days earlier, which described “Antifa” as “a militarist, anarchist enterprise.”

But Vysotsky said Noem’s vow to “root out” and “eliminate” an “antifa” network was likely to go nowhere because there is no formal membership organization or international network.

“It’s an orientation, because it’s a set of beliefs by people opposed to fascism,” Vysotsky said.

“What they mean when they say ‘fascism’ is a movement based on a belief in an inherent inequality between people that is enforced by violence. What antifa stands for is equality between people, and what drives antifascism is a desire to create a more just and equal world.”

The idea that the Trump administration will be able to use Vogel’s arrest to identify a leadership cadre and, as Noem put it, “eliminate” an “antifa” network “from the existence of American society” is “an almost absurd claim,” Vysotsky said.

“Antifa activism, as it exists, is highly decentralized,” Vysotsky said, adding that antifascist activity ranges from individuals engaged in intelligence gathering and educational work “to small, local affinity groups that are organized in a direct, democratic manner.

“There’s no leadership,” he said.

The Sept. 26 DHS post accused Rose City Antifa of doxing ICE agents.

On Sept. 19 a website called Rose City Counter-Info did post two profiles that showed the names and images — and in one case, information about the employment history of a spouse — of two individuals purported to be ICE agents active in the Portland area. The DHS post included a photo of a flyer soliciting information about ICE agents that appears to include Rose City Antifa's email address, although it is partially redacted.

A statement published on Rose City Antifa's behalf denies that the group has doxed ICE agents or had anything to do with the flyer. The statement references a Bluesky post two months earlier that acknowledges the flyers but indicates Rose City Antifa was not responsible for putting them out.

The DHS X post referencing Rose City Antifa came a day after Trump issued a national security memorandum, NSPM-7, which argued that domestic terrorists organized under the banner of “anti-fascism” are engaged in “sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation.”

The memo claims campaigns “escalate to organized doxing, where the private or identifying information of their targets (such as home addresses, phone numbers, or other personal information) is exposed to the public with the explicit intent of encouraging others to harass, intimidate, or violently assault them).”

The memo specifically references activists targeting ICE agents.

“For the Trump administration to argue that antifa activists are terrorists, they’re going to have to greatly expand what acts constitute terrorism,” Vysotsky said.

They’re already doing that, he argued, by “talking about doxing as a form of terrorism.”

‘Exceptionally broad’

Vysotsky said rhetoric from the Trump administration linking antifascism to terrorism appears to be calculated to distract attention from ICE activities and violence by far-right actors.

“This serves as a distraction to focus Trump supporters away from the negative images of families being separated,” Vysotsky said. “It’s also a way to distract away from political violence, which has overwhelmingly been right-wing political violence.”

Antifascists, with journalists and observers, confront white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va in 2017. Picture: Anthony Crider

Vysotsky and Marquez said they saw the campaign against “antifa” as signaling a crackdown on all who oppose Trump’s policies — not just the far left.

“It’s exceptionally broad, because when they talk about antifa, they’re creating this image that ranges from the bogeyman of black-clad protesters to mainstream politicians like Adam Schiff [the Democratic senator from California] to the Ford Foundation, which is a major philanthropic organization,” Vysotsky said.

NSPM-7 charges that an “‘anti-fascist’ lie has become a rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights and fundamental American liberties.”

Core tenets of antifascism, the memorandum claims, “include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

Marquez said that “by targeting innocent people and fabricating threats that do not exist,” the Trump administration is “attempting to build a mythical enemy in order to expand control over our lives.”

This story was updated on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025 at 1:57 p.m. to reflect that Rose City Antifa has denied doxing ICE agents and responsibility for the flyer soliciting tips on agents.

One GOP senator could shed light on Epstein's finances. Why won't he do it?

Early in 2024, during the Biden administration, Sen. Mike Crapo, (R-ID), had a chance to provide the world with financial information about disgraced sex trafficker and financier Jeffrey Epstein.

It only recently became known that Crapo was asked to join the senior Democrat on the U.S. Senate Finance Committee in a subpoena for the Epstein material held by the Treasury Department. For some reason he refused.

For years, and particularly before it became standard practice to refuse to work on virtually anything with anyone in the other party, Crapo and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), now the ranking member of the Crapo-led Finance Committee, have annually teamed up to pass legislation to provide funding to rural schools. They did so again in June in an increasingly rare example of bipartisan legislating.

But bipartisanship clearly doesn’t extend to information the government, particularly the treasury department, has on Jeffrey Epstein. Crapo, it seems clear, has been stonewalling any effort to force release of material that members of his staff reviewed more than 18 months ago.

One of many mysteries about Epstein, who was in prison in 2019 awaiting trial at the time of his death, was how the guy amassed a fortune estimated at $550 million, as well as several lavish estates and a private island.

Where all that money came from and for what purpose are central questions in understanding Epstein’s crimes. Wyden has been on the case for months. When he asked Crapo to help him, Crapo refused.

After the New York Times recently reported that JP Morgan Chase, “arguably the world’s most prestigious bank,” had long treated Epstein as a “treasured client,” while essentially ignoring mounting questions about the vast sums of money flowing into and out of his accounts, Wyden insisted the bank provide information. The Oregon senator demanded an explanation as to why the bank continued to cover up Epstein’s “suspicious transactions for six years after firing him as a client.”

Earlier Wyden introduced legislation that would compel Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett to turn over his department’s Epstein record, while Crapo voted against a separate effort to compel release of Epstein documents.

But before Wyden introduced his Epstein legislation a curious thing happened, way back in February 2024, while Joe Biden was still president. As the Oregon Capital Chronicle reported earlier this month:

“For several hours on Valentine’s Day in 2024, staff from Oregon U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden’s office and the Senate Finance Committee sat in a room in the U.S. Treasury Department reviewing, thousands of suspicious financial transactions made by deceased and disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The transactions totaled more than $1 billion and included payments to women from eastern European countries where many of Epstein’s alleged victims are from. Along with Wyden’s team, staff from the offices of Republican Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee reviewed the documents, according to Wyden. Spokespersons for Crapo and Blackburn did not respond to requests for comment from the Capital Chronicle.

The Senate staffers we allowed to look at document and take notes but not allowed to make copies.

“And because you can’t take that stuff out of the room,” Wyden said, “I asked, particularly, if the Republicans would be willing to join me in a subpoena that would get the rest of the information that was crucial, and they wouldn’t do that. And that was during the Biden years.”

In a Sept. 2, 2025, letter to Bessent, the Treasury secretary, Wyden elaborated on one document his staff and Crapo’s reviewed in 2024.

“One of the documents,” Wyden wrote, “indicates that between 2003 and 2019, there were more than 4,725 wire transfers totaling $1.08 billion involving Jeffrey Epstein and his associates … These documents also contain details of hundreds of millions in payments to Epstein from Wall Street financiers, including $170 million Leon Black paid Epstein for purported tax and estate planning advice.”

Leon Black is a billionaire private equity investor. In 2023 Black reached a $62.5 million settlement with the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands that, as the Times reported, released Black “from any potential claims arising out of the territory’s three-year investigation into the sex trafficking operation” of Epstein. Black contends he did nothing wrong, but he sure did pay a lot of money to avoid further investigation of ties to Epstein.

“Furthermore,” Wyden wrote to Bessent, “records show that Epstein used correspondent accounts at multiple Russian banks, to process hundreds of millions of payments related to potential sex trafficking. Several of these Russian banks are now under U.S. sanctions and many of the women and girls Epstein targeted came from Russia, Belarus, Turkey and Turkmenistan. These records outline specific names of women and girls, correspondent bank account numbers in Russia used to process the payments, as well as details on Epstein associates who had signatory authority over Epstein’s accounts and signed off on payments related to sex trafficking.”

So why hasn’t Mike Crapo joined Ron Wyden in a quest to get this information from the Treasury Department? Why has Crapo put on ice his committee’s oversight jurisdiction over the Treasury Department? Why wouldn’t he pursue Epstein documents while Biden was in office?

I emailed Crapo’s press office, as well as person who handles communication for the Finance Committee. No response. Nothing.

Specifically I asked:

  • Did Crapo’s staff review the Epstein documents?
  • Who specifically was involved in the review?
  • Why has Crapo not joined Wyden in pressing for the release of these materials?

I wanted to know — perhaps his constituents would like to know — why Crapo wasn’t demanding answers about Epstein’s finances. Opinion polls clearly indicate the American public, people in both parties, believe answers are necessary.

There are at least three plausible reasons Crapo refused when he had the chance to get Epstein information to the public.

Perhaps he thinks it’s not important.

Perhaps he thinks there is some privacy question involved, even though Epstein is long dead and his chief accomplice is in jail.

Or perhaps those records Crapo’s staff saw in 2024 get too close to someone Crapo doesn’t want to offend, a big campaign contributor or Wall Street banker or CEO.

Had Crapo agreed to that subpoena last year, we’d likely know a whole lot more about Jeffrey Epstein today.

  • Marc C. Johnson is a former Idaho broadcast journalist and was a top aide to Idaho Gov. Cecil D. Andrus. His most recent books include "Mansfield and Dirksen; Bipartisan Giants of the Senate" and "Tuesday Night Massacre: Four Senate Elections and the Radicalization of the Republican Party."

Mad King Donald reveals what's driving his Portland obsession — and it's just insane

When over the weekend federal Judge Karin Immergut (a Trump appointee) blocked Trump from deploying Oregon’s National Guard to Portland, Trump said she “should be ashamed of herself” because “Portland is burning to the ground.”

Trump promptly ordered the California National Guard to Portland.

Apart from the obvious question of how Trump can so blatantly defy a federal judge, there’s a deeper puzzle here. Where did he get the idea Portland is burning to the ground?

Nine days ago, when Trump first threatened to send troops to Portland, Oregon’s governor, Tina Kotek, told him there was no reason.

“He thinks there are elements here creating an insurrection,” Kotek said after her call with Trump. “I told him there is no insurrection here and that we have this under control.”

Trump responded to Kotek this way:

“I said, ‘Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening? … They are literally attacking and there are fires all over the place … it looks like terrible.”

Why the factual discrepancy between what Governor Kotek told Trump about Portland and what he believed was happening there?

In the suit seeking an injunction to stop Trump from sending troops to Portland, which Judge Immergut granted, the state of Oregon alleged that Trump relied on videoclips from Portland protests over the murder of George Floyd that took place in 2020.

According to the lawsuit,

On September 5, 2025, “Fox News aired a report on Portland ICE protests that included misleading clips from Portland protests in 2020. Shortly thereafter, President Trump appeared to reference events in the same misleading Fox News report when speaking to the press. A reporter asked which city President Trump planned to send troops to next, and he said he was considering targeting Portland because of news coverage the night before. President Trump alleged that ‘paid terrorists’ and ‘paid agitators’ were making the city unlivable, further stating … ‘if we go to Portland, we’re gonna wipe them out. They’re going to be gone and they’re going to be gone fast.’”

During the hearing on Oregon’s lawsuit, Trump’s Justice Department argued that “the record does show a persistent threat,” offering as evidence a Trump post on Truth Social.

“Really?” asked Judge Immergut. “A social media post is going to count as a presidential determination that you can send the National Guard to cities? That’s really what I should be relying on?”

The Justice Department’s attorneys then cited reports from the Portland Police Bureau that protest crowds were “very energized,” numbering “over 50 to 60” people.

But attorneys for Oregon pointed out that the same police documents showed the protests had become much smaller and subdued — 8 to 15 people at any given time, “mostly sitting in lawn chairs and walking around … Energy was low, minimal activity.”

What can we learn from this mess?

First, Trump is now openly defying the order of a federal court.

Second, the most powerful person in the world apparently decided to use potentially lethal force on Americans on the basis of a five-year-old Fox News clip that crossed his television screen.

Third, Trump evidently does not have a process for getting current, verified information before he makes big decisions.

For over a century, every other president has been at the center of a system of information, flowing from people who have expertise in assessing the relevance and truth of that information — people who provide him with recommendations as to how to respond to a crisis, along with alternatives and assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

Trump, by contrast, is making potentially lethal decisions on the basis of whatever happens to be shown on the television he’s watching.

Fourth, although Trump has never thought much about the quality of information he receives before making decisions — in his first term he bragged about his infallible “intuition” — we have every reason to believe he’s becoming demented (see here) and his capacity to think more compromised than ever.

Fifth, to the extent anyone is making decisions in the White House, it’s the troika of Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, and JD Vance — who appear to have taken control over much of what Trump hears and sees (including, perhaps, five-year-old Fox News clips?). Their strategy seems to be aimed at making war on Democratic states.

Which brings me to the sixth point: We should be very concerned. A disturbed man and his fanatical advisors are making potentially life-threatening decisions on the basis of what he sees on television.

He’s also defying a federal court. He’s ordering federal troops to forcefully occupy an American city whose mayor and governor don’t want him to. He’s already causing people — some of whom are American citizens — to be arrested and detained without due process.

He’s also bombing vessels in international waters — killing people whom he claims, without evidence, are smuggling drugs into the United States.

Meanwhile, much of the federal government is shuttered. Republicans in Congress are AWOL. Democrats in Congress are trying to use their limited leverage to get health insurance back for some 20 million Americans.

We’re in trouble, friends.

Trump and his enablers want a violent confrontation in Portland to justify their illegal move. I urge you not to fall into their trap. Don’t protest there.

But do peacefully demonstrate on Oct. 18 — in every town and city across America.

  • Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/
  • Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org.

Oregon knows this appalling Trump abuse cannot stand up in court

Donald Trump’s lawless cabal has just declared war on an imaginary dragon they call “antifa.” National security directive NSPM-7 stipulates that anyone who insults Trump, calls him or his enablers “fascist,” or opposes Christo-nationalism is anti-American. Anyone deemed “anti-American” is a proper target of persecution.

To support the directive, Trump’s Department of Justice first removed from its website a National Institute of Justice study on domestic terrorism. The removed study showed that right-wing extremists are responsible for far more politically motivated violence than far-left extremists.

Having removed accurate crime statistics from public view, Trump then issued a national security directive based on false ones.

In it, he ticked off a curated list of violent acts he blamed on the left, deliberately omitting the attempted torching of the Pennsylvania governor’s home; the assassination of Minnesota House Democrat Melissa Hortman and her husband and the attempted assassination of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife; the hammer attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband; the plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer; last week’s Mormon Church attack by a Trump supporter; and all the political violence executed on his behalf since 2015 when he began encouraging MAGA to assault others.

Perfecting his dark art of projection, Trump declared that violence from the left is “designed to silence opposing speech,” then issued a directive to do just that.

Trump’s blatantly unconstitutional directive calls for “A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies.” According to Trump, people will be targeted as domestic terrorists if they hold views that diverge from the far right’s views on “family,” “morality,” “race,” “gender,” “migration,” “Christianity,” or “capitalism.” Even trespassing is now considered a ‘politically motivated terrorist’ act, which is meant to repel reporters from ICE facilities.

Planning to silence political organizations that oppose him, Trump is declaring a “crackdown” on anyone whose speech offends “democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental civil liberties,” as he alone decides. Applying plain English to his directive, Trump should have been imprisoned years ago. Failure to hold him legally accountable is the predicate crime now threatening the union.

Oregon mocks Trump’s false narrative

Pursuing these directives, Trump threatened to invade Portland, Oregon, where green hair and Kombucha kiosks scream “antifa,” to the MAGA faithful at least. Incensed by the spectacle of nose rings and flannel, Trump posted that he had authorized federal troops to protect “War ravaged Portland” with “Full Force, if necessary,” because Oregon’s ICE Facilities are “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

Portlanders pushed back immediately by livestreaming images of farmers markets focused on local produce, artisan goods, and community. Memes of colorfully knitted tree trunks popped up threatening, “We knit at noon.” The City of Portland showcased locals in faded denim overalls “visiting Saturday Markets, feeding geese, sipping espresso, biking, playing in the park, and going to food carts.”

A social media post mocking Donald Trump.

Nonetheless, on Sept. 28, tone deaf and possibly impaired “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth sent a memo to Gov. Tina Kotek authorizing the Oregon National Guard to descend on Portland.

Four hours later, Oregon’s Attorney General sued Trump, Hegseth, et. al in federal court.

Challenging Trump’s patently unlawful plan, Oregon’s complaint for declaratory action somberly notes, “Traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs has deep roots in our history…” It recounts how Oregonian officials gave Trump repeated assurance that state and local law enforcement were well equipped to handle public safety without federal interference, and that federalizing the National Guard therefore lacked legal basis.

Citing the Posse Comitatus Act, Oregon notes the obvious absence of any emergency, uprising or invasion that would warrant Trump’s power grab. Posse Comitatus forbids the use of soldiers for domestic law enforcement except when “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” The primary exception, which arises under the 1792 Insurrection Act, allows a president to use the military “to control civil disorder, armed rebellion or insurrection,” none of which are present in Portland.

Instead, it looks like Trump wants to endanger Portlanders by deliberately inciting a violent response to his overreach.

If the absurd optics of masked, armed soldiers vs. granola hippies weren’t bad enough, the whole plan appears to have been hatched while Trump was watching a misleading segment on Fox News.

Evan Watson of KGW8 in Portland, Oregon, reported that Trump said during an interview he had spoken to Oregon’s governor, and “she was very nice. But I said, ‘Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening? My people tell me different.’ They are literally attacking and there are fires all over the place ... it looks like terrible.”

Yes, Mr. President. We’re sorry to inform you, Sir, that Fox News lies. The Oregonian/OregonLive noted in a timeline that Trump issued his first threat to militarize Portland on Sept. 5, the day after Fox aired a “special report” on Portland that misleadingly mixed in outdated video clips from 2020 showing violence from Black Lives Matter protesters.

Trump later suggested he was backing off from his threat, but it appears troops are still heading to Portland.

Military rule is incompatible with liberty

Oregon’s complaint provides historic context for what our country is now facing:

“Our nation’s founders recognized that military rule — particularly by a remote authority indifferent to local needs—was incompatible with liberty and democracy. Foundational principles of American law therefore limit the President’s authority to involve the military in domestic affairs…”

The suit correctly traces historical resistance to deploying the military domestically to the U.S. Constitution, which reserves general policing powers to the states. It also establishes civilian control over the military and gives Congress, not the President, the power to deploy the militia.

Trump’s finger on the trigger is clearly twitching, so if it’s not Portland, it will soon be another Democratic-led city. Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice told the Washington Post, “In the 250-year history of this country, presidents have deployed troops to quell civil unrest or enforce the law a total of 30 times. This would be President Trump’s third time in nine months.”

Here’s hoping he climbs into his MedBed for the next three years and wakes up refreshed, detoxed from the addictive hatred coursing through his veins. If he ever finds peace, maybe he’ll try a shot of Kombucha and take up knitting.

  • Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

Oregon makes hard drugs illegal again after decriminalization

LOS ANGELES — Three years after becoming the first American state to decriminalize all drugs, Oregon has reversed course, making possession of even small amounts an offense again.

Gov. Tina Kotek on Monday signed a law that will provide for up to six months in prison for anyone caught with hard drugs like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine or ecstasy, starting in September.

The reversal ends a three-year experiment that left police officers handing out $100 fines and cards with details on how users could get treatment for their addictions.

'Threats and harassment' are causing America's West to bleed election officials: report

Since the turmoil of the 2020 election, where numerous county election departments faced recalls, vote challenges and even threats of violence, more than half of Americans in the Western United States are served by new election officials — because so many experienced ones have left.

And those election officials who left — often because of harassment — took with them more than 1,800 years of combined experience, leaving new civil servants with a steep learning curve to support complicated voting processes, often with little federal support, according to a new report from bipartisan political reform group Issue One.

“This exodus of election officials isn't happening in a vacuum and isn't happening out of the blue,” said Michael Beckel, research director for Issue One. “There has been a concerted and coordinated campaign of harassment against many election officials.”

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

Issue One researched 11 Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming — and found that more than 160 chief election officials left their positions after November 2020.

Overall, about 40 percent of election officials in the West are new since the last presidential election, according to the report.

In Arizona, a swing state where some of the most pitched election-related drama occurred following the 2020 election, the shift is even more extreme: 80 percent of counties have installed a new chief local election official during the past three years, the Issue One report states.

And in both Arizona and Nevada, almost all of the states’ voters will have their 2024 elections run by someone different than in 2020.

The “onslaught of threats, harassment, conspiracy theories and increased work loads” have helped lead to this turnover, the report states. Such turnover, meanwhile, is costly to taxpayers because it’s “expensive to search for, hire, and train new staff,” the report continues.

“One of the surprising things was there has been high turnover not only in battleground states like Arizona and Nevada where election officials have been under the microscope and there have been so many high profile cases of threats and harassment,” Beckel said.

ALSO READ: Prison playbook: How Trump could run his campaign – and the nation – from behind bars

While different states have different numbers of election officials — take Michigan and Wisconsin, where there are thousands — the exodus seen in the West is representative of a broader national trend.

“This shows that this is an issue facing communities across the country, that this exodus of election officials isn't isolated to battleground states or battleground counties. It's really affecting the profession as a whole,” Beckel said.

Neal Kelley spent almost 18 years as the registrar of voters in Orange County, Calif., the fifth largest county in the country before retiring in March 2022. He had plans to retire in 2020, but he was asked to stay on another year to help with the recall election involving California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), he said.

“I would say there was a lot more conflict probably in the last few years that I was there than in the previous 15,” Kelley said.

Across the country, election officials such as Arizona election administrator Leslie Hoffman have reported experiencing heckling at public meetings, threatening phone calls and online harassment, The 19th reported.

“It wasn't like that was the catalyst for me leaving, but I certainly wouldn’t have hung around absent my plan to retire,” Kelley said.

Since November 2020, the typical number of years of experience held by election officials in the West fell from about eight years to about one year — and that lack of institutional knowledge has contributed to a lack of talent retention, Issue One reported.

“If anyone told you that, ‘oh, they feel comfortable after a year or two,’ that's baloney because it really takes I would say a good five to seven years to get your sea legs just because of the dynamics of elections and the laws and regulations, all the things that go along with it, plus the political environment,” Kelley said. “You need that knowledge to survive the treacherous environment because it's not just the national politics, but it’s the local, too.”

This election administration brain drain comes as it's becoming increasingly plausible that the two major party presidential candidates of 2020 — Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump — will face each other in a 2024 rematch, even amid Trump's tsunami of legal troubles.

Many of the most extreme examples of threats and harassment of election workers have come from Trump supporters, although the recipients of the threats are Democrats and Republicans alike.

The Department of Justice has prioritized the protection of election workers since Trump's loss in 2020. But Congress can be the answer to the continuing challenges local election officials face by helping provide more funding and protection to public servants who work on election matters, advocates said.

“Half of the ballot that an election official handles is federal … and yet we don't have consistent federal funding,” Kelley said. “This is a problem. You've got president, the Senate, House contests on a ballot, and that you're not getting any reimbursement for, so I think that's something that really needs to be addressed.”

The Issue One report recommends that “in order to curb this exodus, lawmakers and policymakers in Washington, D.C., and across the country must step up to show election officials that they have their backs in the face of threats and harassment. They can do this by strengthening protections and fully funding our critical elections infrastructure to ensure that all voters can safely and securely make their voices heard in our elections.”

Oregon woman gets a month in jail for waterboarding baby and putting him in the freezer

A Portland, Oregon woman has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for abuse of her infant son, which was all allegedly done to "test" the child's father's love for him, reported The Daily Beast on Friday.

"Cops visited the home of Sharday McDonald on Oct. 28, 2021 during a welfare check and discovered the mistreatment she was inflicting on her infant," reported Mark Alfred. "Police said McDonald initially denied trying to drown the baby, but images were recovered of her waterboarding him, holding him 'by his onesie' as she poured water over his face." She also placed him in the freezer, according to the news update.

According to the report, McDonald ultimately told prosecutors "that her actions were a test to see if the boy’s father actually cared about him."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

McDonald pleaded guilty to criminal mistreatment last month. She has also pleaded guilty to identity theft and witness tampering in an unrelated case.

Extreme cases of child neglect and abuse can often have horrifying consequences.

Earlier this year, a Utah "momfluencer" was arrested along with her husband after one of their children escaped from their house, emaciated from malnourishment and covered in wounds, and begged for help from neighbors. And in 2020, a Missouri couple and two of their neighbors were charged after their daughter was killed in a brutal exorcism ritual that reportedly involved beatings with a leather belt and wooden spoon, sexual abuse with foreign objects, and being dunked in an ice-cold pond.

Oregon Republicans barred from running for re-election after boycotting votes

Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade has determined that Republicans who have repeatedly boycotted legislative sessions will not be allowed to run for re-election, reported The Oregonian on Tuesday.

"Griffin-Valade wrote that she views voter-approved Measure 113 as disqualifying Oregon lawmakers who received 10 or more unexcused absences during the 2023 legislative session from running for reelection in 2024," reported Jamie Goldberg. "That was clearly what voters intended ... Ballot language and media coverage all communicated to voters that the punishment for absences would impact lawmakers in their next term, not a later one."

Although Democrats control majorities in the state legislature, Oregon has special rules that require a supermajority of lawmakers be present for a quorum to conduct business. As a consequence, the Republican minority has power to block consideration of bills on everything from abortion to climate action by simply walking out of the Capitol and not attending the voting sessions, and they have done so repeatedly.

Tensions have flared up over this practice; in 2019, then-Gov. Kate Brown threatened to have state police round up and retrieve absent Republican lawmakers, prompting state Sen. Brian Boquist to threaten to shoot troopers who tried to do so.

After years of these stalemates, voters approved Measure 113 in 2022, which states that any lawmaker who has 10 or more unexcused absences will be prohibited from running for re-election. Even after the law was approved, Republicans continued to boycott meetings.

READ MORE: ‘They blew up my life’: Fox News, a hidden camera and threats to an Indiana school administrator.

The absent lawmakers have threatened to sue over Measure 113 if it is enforced, and recruited an attorney who has argued that the exact wording of the measure, saying it bars a re-election campaign "following the election after the member’s current term is completed," technically means they can still run, because re-election takes place during a member's "current" term, not after. Griffin-Valade, however, rejected this argument, saying that it runs contrary to the clear intent of the law.

According to the report, nine total Republican lawmakers would be barred from running under Measure 113, including state Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp, as well as Boquist, who changed his party affiliation to independent in 2021. Six of those lawmakers, including Knopp and Boquist, have only one year left in their term.

'Significant breach of fitness': Oregon city mayor faces heat after equating Pride flags to swastikas

Mayor Matt Diaz of Baker City, Oregon, is facing backlash from citizens after comparing those who support LGBTQ+ pride to Nazis, Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) reports.

The local leader recently shared a Facebook post featuring "an image of four Pride flags positioned to look like a swastika," along with the caption: "When you join four pride flags you become ultra pride."

Per OPB, Diaz's "post came only a few days before Baker City's third annual Pride Walk, an event meant to celebrate the local LGBTQ+ community," which is led "by Baker County Safe Communities Coalition and New Directions Northwest, an addiction treatment nonprofit."

READ MORE: 'Extremely poor judgement': GOP Oregon House minority leader apologizes after her son gives a Nazi salute

According to the report, Pride Walk organizer and New Directions staffer Haley Huekman did not discuss the mayor's post, but emphasized, "Pride is about accepting and celebrating those who are in the LGBTQ+ community. It values tolerance, acceptance and inclusion. For several years the Baker County Safe Communities Coalition has put out 'You Matter' signs around Baker County. This campaign is to remind community members that we all have a place here."

Diaz has since offered an apology "for any misunderstanding," adding, he has "no hate for those who choose a different lifestyle, religion, or sexual preference than my own."

Still, the mayor stood behind his post, saying, "The post in question was meant to illustrate how the DEI or 'woke' ideology is being propagandized and militantly forced on American society and culture using the same psychological tactics used by the Nazi party in the 1930s - 1940s. It was meant to demonstrate how this movement, under the guise of inclusion and affirmation, is attacking the very foundation of America's Judeo-Christian values, a movement that some of our citizens have been thoroughly indoctrinated into."

During a Thursday evening City Council meeting, according to OPB, Diaz requested attendees only focus on discussing the city budget, and "to wait until the next regular council meeting, where he said they could bring up concerns about 'almost anything.'"

READ MORE: 'It wasn’t happenstantial': Oregon GOP lawmakers skip work to avoid abortion law votes

When Diaz requested Thursday's City Council meeting discussions solely focus on the budget, and nothing else until "the next regular council meeting," according to OPB, one attendee, Randy Cox spoke out, saying, "I want the budget to be for everybody. Not some of us. Not some of us for who we go to church with. Not some of us for whatever we believe in. You work for everybody."

Many other residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the mayor, calling for his resignation, OPB reports, while The Baker City Herald published a statement from City Councilor Beverly Calder, saying, "His words cast shadows far beyond our city limits as this discussion will carry on in social media platforms forever," she wrote. "This will impact our efforts to attract new businesses as well as the tourism that our communities depend upon. It's not a small thing, it is a significant breach of fitness regarding public service."

READ MORE: 'Sabotage mission': Oregon GOP senators burned for walk-out over LGBTQ+ and abortion rights

OPB's full report is available at this link.