Breaking: Trump Cleared in Georgia, Murkowski Defends Veterans, Coast Guard Bans Hate Symbols, and Controversy Over Deportation Flights

By Gina Hill | Alaska Headline Living | November 2025

🚨 Breaking Georgia Prosecutor Drops Case Against President Trump, Citing Insufficient Legal Basis

ATLANTA – In a formal filing submitted Nov. 26, 2025, the state of Georgia moved to dismiss the criminal case against President Donald J. Trump and his co‑defendants, effectively ending the prosecution tied to the 2020 election. The motion was filed by Peter J. Skandalakis, acting as District Attorney Pro Tempore through the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia (PAC‑GA). (Primary Source PDF)

⚖️ Reason for Dismissal

In the filing, Skandalakis concluded that there was insufficient basis for prosecution under existing Georgia law. The statutes at issue include:

• Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16‑14‑1 et seq. This law makes it illegal for any person to participate in or operate an enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity, including fraud, bribery, or other predicate offenses.
• Georgia election‑related statutes: Laws governing unlawful interference with elections, falsification of election documents, or coercion of election officials.

The motion states that after reviewing the evidence and prior judicial rulings, pursuing the case would not meet the legal threshold required under these statutes to sustain prosecution. Skandalakis emphasized that continuing would not serve the interests of justice and requested the court enter a “dead docket” to formally close the case.

📄 Case Background

• The case was originally filed in August 2023 and charged Trump and 18 co‑defendants with conspiring to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results.
• Some counts were previously dismissed by Georgia courts as legally insufficient.
• The original district attorney, Fani Willis, was disqualified over a conflict of interest, and the case was reassigned to PAC‑GA.

🔹 What This Means

• With the motion for nolle prosequi filed, the charges against Trump and his co‑defendants are formally ended at the state level.
• Unless a new indictment is filed under Georgia law, which would require a separate legal basis, the case cannot move forward.

Source: Primary Filing — Fulton County Superior Court, 23SC188947

---

Murkowski Hits Back, Calls Treason Accusations Against Veteran Service Members ‘Reckless’

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski spoke out on X (formerly Twitter) defending Senator Mark Kelly, a former U.S. Navy aviator and NASA astronaut, against recent treason and sedition allegations. In her post, Murkowski described accusations that Kelly and other lawmakers committed wrongdoing for pointing out that servicemembers can refuse illegal orders as “reckless” and “flat-out wrong.” She added that federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and FBI have more pressing priorities than pursuing what she called a “frivolous investigation.”
Source: Lisa Murkowski X Post

---

No Confusion: Coast Guard Reinforces Nationwide Ban on Hate Symbols, Warns of Military Discipline for Violations

The U.S. Coast Guard issues a formal policy and lawful order reaffirming its strict prohibition on divisive or hate symbols across all workplaces, facilities, and assets. The order, aimed at maintaining unit cohesion, morale, and mission effectiveness, explicitly bans symbols including swastikas, nooses, Confederate imagery, and any imagery associated with hate-based groups.

The memo clarifies that these symbols remain strictly outlawed, countering earlier reports suggesting the service might be softening its stance. The prohibition applies to all visible locations, including barracks, vehicles, uniforms, and other areas accessible to the public. Exceptions are limited to educational or historical displays and state-issued flags or license plates.

Commanders, officers-in-charge, and supervisors are directed to immediately remove any divisive or hate symbols they discover. Any violations, or attempts to display prohibited imagery, are punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically Article 92, which covers violations of lawful orders. The Coast Guard also requires personnel to report potential extremist activity and notify their chain of command and the Anti-Harassment Program Office promptly.

Source: U.S. Coast Guard News

---

🚨 Deportation Flights Drama: Court Battles Surge in J.G.G. v. Trump

When the administration of Donald J. Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act in March 2025, declaring that suspected members of a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA), constituted a wartime enemy, it triggered a wave of legal challenges. ACLU of DC+2Supreme Court+2

On March 15, five Venezuelan detainees filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the AEA had been misused to deport noncitizens without due process and that normal immigration statutes, not this wartime measure, govern removal procedures. Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse+2American Civil Liberties Union+2 At the same time, the administration began carrying out mass deportations. Within hours the court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the government from removing the named plaintiffs or others similarly situated. Legal Information Institute+2SCOTUSblog+2

The TRO explicitly ordered any flights carrying covered individuals to be turned around, yet the government sent at least two planeloads of detainees out of the country anyway, transporting roughly 137 Venezuelans under the AEA to a Salvadoran prison facility. Wikipedia+2ACLU of DC+2 By that evening, the detainees were subject to removal despite the court order, setting off alarms over a possible defiance of judicial authority. American Civil Liberties Union+2ACLU of DC+2

In the days that followed, the government fought the court’s injunction, first at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and then at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). SCOTUSblog+2Legal Information Institute+2 On April 7, the Supreme Court granted the administration’s request to vacate the District Court’s order, ruling that under the AEA, detainees must challenge their removal through habeas petitions in the district where they are held, not via a broad nationwide injunction. Supreme Court+2Legal Information Institute+2 That decision cleared the way, technically, for the removals to stand.

But that was not the end of the story. In response to the administration’s actions, the lower court initiated a criminal contempt investigation under the watch of James E. Boasberg, the District Court judge who originally issued the TRO. The judge asserted there is “probable cause” that top officials knowingly defied a valid court order by allowing the flights to proceed. The Washington Post+2Politico+2

At stake, according to the plaintiffs, (represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward) is not just the fate of more than 100 Venezuelans, but the integrity of the rule of law. They argue the administration used a centuries-old wartime law to bypass immigration safeguards, deprived individuals of hearings or meaningful review, and carried out deportations even after a federal court tried to halt them. American Civil Liberties Union+2ACLU of DC+2

As of now, the case remains active. The administration’s legal strategy and the ongoing contempt proceedings could reshape understandings of executive power, due process, and the legal limits of historic laws like the AEA.

Why it matters: This isn’t just about immigration. It’s about whether the Executive Branch can use obscure, centuries‑old wartime statutes to bypass constitutional protections … and what happens if a court order is ignored. In a turbulent era of sweeping immigration crackdowns, this case may set a precedent for how far the government can go when it claims “national security.”