First off, I'd like to wish everyone a happy Leif Erikson Day! (well... kind of.)

Getting back to more modern times, Donald Trump is increasingly pushing legal boundaries, in multiple directions. That's barely even news anymore, since it has been happening with such frequency throughout his second term, but some of his moves in particular of late have been drawing the ire of even his own Republicans, which does make it a little more newsworthy. Plus the fact that some folks are even calling his biggest move over the weekend treasonous, which does up the ante a little too.

Trump suddenly announced -- in a complete panic over his party's chances in the midterm elections, of course -- that he had made a deal with Vladimir Putin to buy a bunch of diesel fuel from Russia. As usual for his social media pronouncements, there were scant details, so nobody really knows exactly how this is even going to happen. Trump gave the amounts Russia will be providing the U.S. in tons instead of barrels, but when you do the math it is no more than a drop in the ocean -- an amount so small it isn't likely to have much (if any) effect on the price people are paying at the pump any time soon. Like much of Trump's grand sweeping announcements, it is far more performative than substantial. But the Treasury Department went ahead and lifted sanctions on Russian diesel for the next few months, which will allow Russia to rake in money to pay for their war of occupation in Ukraine.

A little history is necessary here. After Russia invaded Ukraine and started his war of conquest, in 2022 Congress passed a law banning all Russian oil imports. Until Russia withdrew from Ukraine, it would be illegal for this country to buy oil from them, period. Then, just three short weeks ago, Trump signed the "Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act" which gave him the power to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on top purchasers of Russian oil or refined fuels. This was passed in Graham's memory, since he had been so instrumental in pushing the measure in Congress. The bill passed (according to Senator Thom Tillis) with 86 votes -- which is pretty impressively bipartisan, these days.

Tillis, a Republican senator whom Trump essentially pushed out of office, isn't even on the ballot in North Carolina -- so he's free to speak out against Trump (which he has been doing with increasing frequency). Appearing on Meet The Press yesterday, Tillis indicated that Trump was probably breaking the earlier law banning oil imports from Russia. When directly questioned about whether Trump was breaking the law, Tillis responded: "I believe that he may be." He then continued:

Giving Vladimir Putin any sense that we're going to put our foot on the brakes versus put our foot on the accelerator to ending this war and ensuring peace in Europe, we've got to go back. And I do believe there's a legitimate case for saying the president's not following the law.

He's not the only Republican denouncing Trump's move, either:

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican running in a notably competitive race in the Philadelphia suburbs, wrote that he would force the Republican-controlled House to block "any and all purchases of Russian oil."

"It will be called the 'Ronald Reagan Peace Through Strength Act,'" he wrote on X in response to Trump. "It will be forced to the Floor via discharge and it will pass overwhelmingly."

Putin "will never be our friend," said Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican. "So the president is doing everything he can to get diesel prices down. But you know what's going to bring diesel prices down? An end to the war in Iran."

And Rep. Michael McCaul, a retiring Texas Republican, said he was "concerned the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil will only fund the Kremlin's war machine -- emboldening more violence and destruction, as we have seen in recent days."

Trump then continued his streak of stabbing Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in the back. This is "blaming the victim" writ large, since the entire war was Putin's fault, not Zelenskyy's, but Trump has been openly hostile to Zelenskyy while having nary a bad thing to say about Putin. First Trump warned Zelenskyy to stop bombing Russia's oil infrastructure (after trying unsuccessfully to shift the blame for high gas and diesel prices in America from his own ill-conceived war of choice with Iran). Then he said Ukraine should really get a new leader. Then -- out of thin air, apparently -- Trump sent a social media message out stating:

Effective immediately, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine. Both parties have agreed. Do not break it!

Neither Russia nor Ukraine had apparently heard anything about any such ceasefire. Russia refused to comment, and Ukraine basically said: "Excuse me now... what?" But then they did state that they could agree to such a thing if Russia also agreed to it.

Last month, Trump tried a similar fantasy-based gambit, suddenly announcing a ceasefire without either side having agreed to any such thing. And then both countries went right ahead and ignored Trump's nonsense and kept attacking each other. Hours after the Trump social media post, Russia bombed energy facilities inside Ukraine.

At another point during the interview with Tillis, the host pointed out that reportedly Russia has been "shipping explosives to Iran" and "providing intelligence to Iran on the location of U.S. forces." So Trump will be aiding and abetting a country that is clearly on the other side of Trump's war with Iran and has almost certainly contributed to the deaths of American soldiers. There's a word for such actions, and it is: "treason."

Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced that they would not only be executing the Fort Hood shooter by firing squad, but also that it the execution would be live-streamed to the public. This may not break any actual laws, but it is certainly jarring. Trump is already beating a hasty retreat on this issue, going from saying he had pre-approved the announcement by Pete Hegseth, then saying he didn't know much about it, to now saying that he's going to make a decision real soon now whether Hegseth can do so or not. The idea has outraged many -- including some Republicans -- who point out that: (1) America has condemned public executions in other countries for decades, especially ones carried out by Islamic groups, and: (2) this could turn the Ft. Hood murderer into a worldwide martyr to the jihadist cause and help terrorist groups recruit new members. The Trump administration just does not care about any of that, though.

In today's news, Trump is pushing the boundaries of both the law and tradition with a raid on Representative Ilhan Omar's Washington residence. Federal agents appeared and carried away whatever they wanted, even though there is supposed to be a 60-day window previous to any national election where the Justice Department avoided any such investigative steps involving political candidates, so as not to be seen as politically interfering with an election. But once again, Trump just does not care about such things (it's only a policy, not an actual law).

The investigation into Omar is a naked attempt by Trump to strip her of her American citizenship. It is reportedly related to "immigration paperwork filled out by Omar's now-deceased father when she was a child," or possibly "investigating Omar over allegations -- made by the president without evidence -- that she married her brother to get U.S. citizenship." Either way, it is quite obviously a political hit job, roughly three weeks from when an election takes place.

Trump did get two setbacks in courts recently, the first an order by a judge to immediately cease running taxpayer-funded ads that were nothing short of partisan propaganda used to influence the midterm campaign. The judge ordered all ads to cease yesterday, but apparently two more of them ran this morning -- which shows Trump's general disdain for following judicial orders.

And in a very local D.C. case, a federal judge was reportedly "furious" at the government for openly defying her by cutting down 430 trees this weekend on a golf course that is on National Park Service land. The judge had earlier told the government during hearings on Trump trying to completely redesign the golf course that she did not want even 10 trees removed without notice. She had been resisting issuing a restraining order (that the plaintiffs have been requesting all along), relying on the government to honor her expectations. So the government lawyers filed a notice at 4:55 P.M. on a Friday before a holiday weekend, and then 12 hours later started cutting down hundreds of trees -- giving the plaintiffs and the court no time to respond before it happened. So today the restraining order was issued, and the judge is now not a happy camper:

[U.S. District Court Judge Ana C.] Reyes says she had been reluctant to issue a temporary restraining order in the case. But, she added, "I have no faith that the government isn't going to cut [more trees] down unless there's an order in place not to do so."

Violating her order "by two seconds" would prompt contempt proceedings, the judge said.

"I am thoroughly unamused right now," Reyes said as the hearing began. "I do not know how I could have made it any plainer. I did not want what happened to happen."

At one point, Justice Department attorney Marissa Ann Piropato told Reyes that government lawyers "did our best" to keep the court apprised of any construction work at the course.

"No, you did not do your best," Reyes responded, her voice rising. "You did your absolute worst."

. . .

"I trusted you all not to do precisely what you have done," Reyes said. "On what universe did anyone in your offices think that that was acceptable?"

. . .

"Ignorance is not an excuse here," Reyes responded. "There's no excuse for this."

. . .

"More than just being upset and furious right now, I'm just beyond disappointed in the government," Reyes said. "I have done everything humanly possible to give the government the benefit of the doubt in this case."

Obviously, the Trump administration is due no such deferential treatment. Judges should just assume from now on that the administration's lawyers will always be acting in bad faith, all the time. None of the traditional deference judges routinely give the government is justified any more. On big cases (involving trading with an enemy during wartime) and small, Trump just goes ahead and does what he wants. That's the only assumption anyone should make, as if it shouldn't have already been patently obvious.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant