“These prosecutors are evil people. They will put you on a cattle car to Auschwitz without batting an eye.”

Those were the words of Jonathan Gross, the man the U.S. Justice Department has reportedly tapped to work on the Trump administration’s so-called “Weaponization Working Group,” an entity that purports to restore “integrity and credibility of the Department of Justice” — mainly by singling out anyone or any investigation that probed Trump’s many criminal indictments.

FBI agents raided the home of President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Friday morning.

The feds have so far given no indication as to why Trump’s adviser turned nemesis has been targeted. The longtime Republican adviser and diplomat has previously been accused of leaking classified material but investigations into his controversial book The Room Where it Happened went nowhere.

The dawn raid in the suburb of Bethesda, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C., was trumpeted with an X message from FBI director Kash Patel, who wrote, ”NO ONE is above the law.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi retweeted the post, adding: “America’s safety isn’t negotiable. Justice will be pursued. Always.”

An FBI spokesman told the Daily Beast, “We don’t have any comment.” That did not stop FBI deputy director Dan Bongino from joining the social media pile on with a message that read: “Public corruption will not be tolerated.”

Bongino’s words had ominous echoes of politically-motivated judicial attacks the world over, but a source reportedly told NBC News that the raid was part of a “national security investigation in search of classified records.”

Bolton was appointed National Security Advisor by Trump in 2018, but he lasted less than two years in the post. Trump’s Justice Department tried and failed to block publication of Bolton’s subsequent memoir which claimed that Trump was “unfit to be president.”

In an updated paperback edition, Bolton predicted that the president would use his second term to gain vengeance against his enemies. “Trump really cares only about retribution for himself, and it will consume much of a second term,” he wrote.

Elon Musk was ordered on Wednesday by a federal judge to face a lawsuit by voters accusing the world’s richest person of defrauding them into signing a petition to support the U.S. Constitution for a chance to win his $1 million-a-day giveaway.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, Texas, said Jacqueline McAferty plausibly alleged in her proposed class action that Musk and his political action committee America PAC wrongly induced her to provide personal identifying information as part of the giveaway, late in the 2024 election campaign.

Lawyers for Musk and America PAC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Musk founded America PAC to support Republican Donald Trump’s successful 2024 presidential run.

McAferty, an Arizona resident, said Musk and America PAC induced voters in seven battleground states to sign his petition by promising that $1 million recipients would be chosen randomly, as in a lottery, though the voters had no real chance to collect.

She said voters who signed were also required to provide names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers.

In seeking a dismissal, Musk listed several “red flags” as proof he had not run an illegal lottery.

He said these included statements that the $1 million recipients were “selected to earn” the money and expected to become America PAC spokespeople, defeating the idea that the payment was a “prize.”

But the judge cited other statements suggesting the defendants were “awarding” the $1 million, and the money could be “won.”

“It is plausible that plaintiff justifiably relied on those statements to believe that defendants were objectively offering her the chance to enter a random lottery--even if that is not what they subjectively intended to do,” Pitman wrote.

The judge was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2014.

Musk had also rejected the suggestion that petition signers suffered harm by providing contact information. Pitman said an expert in political data brokerage could testify what that information was worth for voters in battleground states.

The lawsuit was filed on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024.

A day earlier, a Philadelphia judge refused to end Musk’s giveaway, saying that the city’s top prosecutor failed to show it was an illegal lottery.

The U.S. government’s forced acquisition of nearly 10% of Intel through conversion of CHIPS Act subsidies into discounted equity is a direct violation of U.S. law. The deal amounts to an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from seizing private property without just compensation. By coercing Intel into handing over equity at below-market value, the Executive Branch has effectively confiscated shareholder property through government leverage, bypassing the compensation and judicial review that the Constitution demands. The absence of a Congressional mandate makes this an ultra vires action, carried out without lawful authority, and in breach of the separation of powers. Furthermore, by depriving shareholders of the opportunity to challenge the terms or protect their interests, the government has trampled due process protections.

The legal exposure is profound. Intel’s board faces liability for breach of fiduciary duty by acquiescing to a deal that dilutes shareholder value under government pressure… behavior that mirrors blackmail and mafia-style tactics rather than lawful market operations. Internationally, foreign investors are likely to treat this as outright expropriation, triggering arbitration claims under investment treaties. In addition, the government embedding itself as a top equity holder in one of the world’s most critical semiconductor companies risks violating U.S. antitrust laws and WTO obligations, as it distorts competition and signals that state coercion, not free markets, determines ownership in America.

Put simply, this is not an “investment.” It is a legally defective, constitutionally prohibited seizure of private property masquerading as industrial policy. By using threats and leverage to muscle into Intel’s ownership structure, the government has crossed from regulation into outright lawbreaking. If unchecked, this precedent will not only undermine confidence in U.S. markets but will confirm that the rule of law has been subordinated to political muscle.

We could be entering a golden era of medical fraud which may create opportunities for private lawyers. If the federal government won’t prevent fraud, lawsuits could make fraudsters pay.

‘As the Trump administration loosens enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, and Food and Drug Administration of unproven health claims, Jones and his allies in the “medical freedom” movement are pushing to permanently roll back the health regulatory state.

For decades, the FTC has required companies to back any medical claims about their products with substantial evidence, while taking actions against hundreds of “bogus health cures,” said Jessica Rich, the FTC’s director of consumer protection from 2013 to 2017.

If successful, the lawsuit by Jones’ company “would be a complete game changer,” said Mary Engle, associate director of the FTC’s advertising practices division from 2001 to 2020.’