Crossing the Line in Court!
A French judge has revealed that representatives of the Trump administration allegedly attempted to intimidate her during the embezzlement proceedings against Marine Le Pen. The allegation carries serious weight because it is not about political commentary, but about direct influence on an ongoing judicial process. This is where diplomacy ends and interference begins. When foreign government representatives exert pressure on judges, law becomes a bargaining chip. This is not about sympathy for or opposition to a defendant, but about the independence of the judiciary. That the name Donald Trump appears in this context deepens the gravity. What becomes visible here is a concept of power that does not recognize national borders when they stand in the way. Courts are not a stage for political favors. They are the place where influence must end. Anyone who tries to shift that boundary attacks the rule of law itself. This is not a diplomatic misstep. It is an assault on the separation of power and law.
The Offended Peace Prize Winner
Donald Trump once again complains about not having received the Nobel Peace Prize. He says he should have gotten one for every war. No one should fool themselves into thinking Norway has no influence, the prize is based there, so that is where decisions are made. The whole thing is a joke, he says, the Nobel Prize has lost its prestige. This is not how a president speaks about peace, but how someone speaks who demands recognition. Peace appears here not as responsibility, but as an award. Anyone who demands prizes reveals that this is not about resolving conflicts, but about personal affirmation. The Nobel Prize becomes the yardstick of one’s own perception. What remains is grievance as political terror.
Five Years for a Journey into the Unknown
In the summer of 2024, Charles Zimmerman set out from North Carolina on his own yacht to Russia to meet a woman from Kazan whom he had met online. During a customs inspection in the port of Sochi, authorities discovered a rifle on board, after which Zimmerman was arrested. He explained that he had carried the weapon for self-defense and had not known that its import was prohibited. The court did not accept this explanation, found him guilty, and sentenced him to five years in a penal colony under general regime.
A US citizen has been sentenced in Russia to five years in prison after weapons were found on his yacht. Charles Wayne Zimmerman had traveled for months through the Mediterranean with his private boat before docking in the port of Sochi in June. During the border check, he declared neither firearms nor ammunition. The discovery occurred only during a search by the domestic intelligence service. In court, Zimmerman denied nothing. He stated that he believed weapons for self-defense could always remain on board. He also said he had not familiarized himself with Russian law. The reason for his journey, he said, was private, a woman from Kazan he had met online. The court did not consider this a mitigating factor. The sentence was upheld on appeal and is final. The case does not stand alone. Russian authorities have for years relied on formal charges to detain Western citizens. The aim is to build bargaining leverage. Other cases show how quickly travel can turn into imprisonment. Legal ignorance offers no protection. In Russia, it often ends in a labor camp.
The Book of Claims
Donald Trump held up a book he said he did not want to read from. Inside, he claimed, were the achievements of his administration, page after page, entry after entry. He said he could stand there for a week reading without reaching the end. What was meant to serve as proof remains a storybook. Not a single example, not one concrete effect was named. Volume replaced substance. Quantity took the place of explanation. Anyone who objects is supposed to get lost in the stack. Anyone who asks questions receives speeches instead of answers. This is not how success is shown, but how it is dreamed up. The public is occupied with information overload, not with truth. It is a form of self-assurance, not accountability. And that is precisely the problem: where everything is said to have been said, nothing can be verified. All that remains is the question: “Where are the Epstein files?”
The Perpetrators’ Peace Council
Alexander Lukashenko has signed the agreement to join Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” and speaks of becoming a founding member. This is the same Lukashenko who turned Belarus into a forward post of Russian power and made his country available as a staging ground for the attack on Ukraine. Now he sits at a table that is supposed to mean peace. Mohammed bin Zayed, the leader of the United Arab Emirates, has also agreed to join. His state is considered a central financier and arms supplier of the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan. This militia bears responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths, countless injuries, and millions displaced. United Nations aid organizations speak of one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes of recent history. In this circle, peace is not negotiated, but relabeled. Responsibility is shifted, violence is obscured, suffering is administered. Anyone who takes a seat here receives not a task, but absolution. This is what Trump’s peace council looks like.
Arrested for Watching
William Vermie is a combat veteran of the US Army and a recipient of the Purple Heart. He says he observed and filmed an ICE operation in Minneapolis when officers began pushing bystanders off the sidewalk. Vermie reports that he was told to move, that he did move, but not fast enough. Shortly afterward, he was arrested. He was held in custody for several hours. During this time, he repeatedly requested to speak with a lawyer. That access was denied. Instead, he was given water and a bandage. His attorney also publicly stated that ICE blocked his contact with his own client, arguing that Vermie had not requested him by name. Vermie, however, had no opportunity to contact his family or a lawyer. The charge is not violence, not resistance, but observation. A decorated veteran is arrested for looking. And that is exactly what makes this incident so explosive.
Federal Power on a Course of Escalation
In Minnesota, federal agencies are not only deploying heavily armed units, but are now also using subpoenas. The Department of Justice has demanded documents from senior officials, including from the office of Governor Tim Walz and several city administrations. Officially, the allegation is that political statements may have obstructed federal actions. At the same time, residents report operations that show no sense of proportionality. A US citizen describes how federal agents broke down his door without a warrant, drew weapons, and led him out of his apartment in his underwear. He was held for hours. No arrest warrant, no explanation, no clear reason. The case landed on our desk. In cities around Minneapolis, the impression is growing that this is not about restoring order, but about demonstrating power. Subpoenas hit politicians, while doors are forced open and people taken away on the streets. Local officials speak of intimidation, not clarification.
Lawyers report that they can hardly keep track of who is being detained and where people are being taken. Transparency is lacking, as is oversight. In some cases, it takes us more than 36 hours just to determine where detained individuals have been held. In individual cases, it takes over a week, because those affected are repeatedly transferred and any trace of traceability is lost. What is sold as enforcement of federal law leaves mainly insecurity on the ground. The conflict has long left the level of jurisdiction. It has become an open confrontation between federal power and democratically elected structures.
A Reichsblatt for Perpetrators – How WELT Normalizes Trump’s “Peace Council”
What this article delivers is not criticism, but camouflage. Under the headline “highly questionable,” it pretends that Trump’s so-called peace council is a diplomatic misstep, a failed initiative that could still be seriously debated. But a look at the composition of this body makes any such reading ridiculous. At this table sit Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko. Perpetrators. Dictators. Those responsible for war. Only Kim Jong Un is missing to complete the picture. And precisely this fact is not named in the text, but avoided. Instead of clearly stating that perpetrators of violence are being legitimized here, the article loses itself in distanced language. It criticizes without naming. It hints without drawing consequences. This is no coincidence. Anyone who describes a peace council dominated by those who wage war, crush opposition, and subjugate entire countries, and does not speak of a constellation of perpetrators, is not engaging in analysis. They are defusing.
The word peace is abused here, and the article participates in that abuse. It presents the process as politically controversial, not morally unambiguous. That is exactly the problem. Because peace is not a label one assigns to oneself, especially not when one drops bombs, shifts borders, and makes people disappear. Anyone who does not expose this contradiction, but instead cushions it linguistically, does not work against authoritarianism, but facilitates it. Journalism would have a clear task here: to name that Trump’s peace council is nothing other than a stage for perpetrators, an instrument of power, an attack on the idea of international law. Instead, it is written as if this were still something to be negotiated. As if it were a matter of perspective. As if one could speak of peace with Putin without speaking of guilt. This is not neutrality, it is a decision.
And at this point, the fundamental question arises of what this paper actually wants to be. A newspaper that enlightens, or a Reichsblatt for perpetrators that simulates journalism while normalizing violence. Anyone who trivializes authoritarian alliances as “questionable” instead of naming them for what they are, abandons journalism.
Late Leniency Today - Tomorrow It May Be Different
“I learned that her father is a big Trump supporter. He was fully for Trump. He loved Trump … I hope he still feels that way. I don’t know. It is a very, very difficult situation … it is so sad. It just happens.”
At the White House, the president suddenly calls the killing of Renee Good a tragedy. He says he felt terrible. He says officers sometimes make mistakes. This is new. Hours after her death, he had said something different. He spoke of violence, of guilt, of bad behavior. Government members called her a terrorist. Now everything sounds more muted. The president says he understands both sides. He says it was a terrible thing. And he adds that he had been told the father of the deceased was a loyal supporter of his. This remark hangs in the air and changes the tone. It changes nothing about the protests. In Minneapolis, people continue to take to the streets. They whistle, shout, film. The president calls them paid agitators. He shows photos of alleged criminals and says ICE only acts against violence. At the same time, arrests of people with no prior convictions are rising sharply. Between words and practice there is a gap. Renee Good remains dead. The justifications change.
Whether our inquiry of January 16, 2026, regarding the evidently unobserved instructions will be answered at all remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is this: the internal memorandum of the US Customs and Border Protection agency sets binding rules for so-called vehicle extractions and leaves no room for interpretation. De-escalation is explicitly named as a central principle, as a prerequisite for safe and lawful operations. Officers are instructed to begin every extraction with clear, understandable verbal commands and to communicate their intentions unambiguously. If vehicles must be stopped, the guidelines provide for blocking them with other patrol vehicles to prevent uncontrolled movement. At the same time, it is unequivocally required to avoid dangerous positioning, particularly standing directly in front of or next to vehicles. These guidelines are not optional. They define the standard against which actual conduct must be measured. See also our investigation on this: Investigations show - how an ignored instruction cost Renee Good her life
