Propaganda failed at times for even the master purveyors of deceit

As the airwaves are flooded with government propaganda about the homicide of Renee Nicole Good at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, we are reminded that sometimes propaganda backfired on even the master purveyors of deceit. 

Hessy Levinsons Taft, who as an infant appeared on the cover of a Nazi magazine in Germany promoting her as the ideal Aryan baby, a distinction complicated by the fact that she was Jewish and had been exploited as part of a dangerous hoax, died on Jan. 1 at her home in San Francisco. She was 91.

Her death was confirmed by her family, reported The New York Times.

Terrifying at first, the story eventually became a source of pride for Mrs. Taft and her parents for the way it neatly illustrated the absurd pseudoscience underlying Adolf Hitler’s racial ideology.

“I feel a sense of revenge,” she said much later. “Good revenge.”

The episode began in 1934, when Hessy was 6 months old and her parents, Latvian opera singers living in Berlin, hired the well-known photographer Hans Ballin to take her portrait.

After framing the photo, her parents displayed it on their piano. One day, the woman who cleaned their home noticed it and told Hessy’s mother that she had seen her daughter on the cover of a magazine.

“My mother thought surely she must be mistaken, that there are many babies that look alike, and just told her, ‘Well, that couldn’t be the case,’” Mrs. Taft said in an interview with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1990.

The woman insisted that it was the same baby. “Just give me some money,” she said, “and I’ll get you the magazine.”

Soon she returned with a copy of Sonne ins Haus, or Sun in the Home, one of several pro-Nazi magazines that were allowed to circulate in the country after Hitler had shut down thousands of other publications. And there, on the cover, was the portrait from the piano.

Hessy’s mother flipped through the pages.

“On the inside of the magazine were pictures of the army with men wearing swastikas,” Mrs. Taft told the Holocaust museum. “My parents were horrified.”

Her mother went to Mr. Ballin’s studio and showed him the magazine. “What is this?” she said. “How did this happen?”

He told her that the Nazis had invited him to submit photos for a contest to find a baby representing the epitome of the Aryan race, and Hessy was among those he included in his submission. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of public enlightenment and propaganda, chose the winner.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino joins Nancy Grace on Crime Stories

Watch my interview on Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

ICE: When is 'officer involved shooting' justifiable homicide?

A federal immigration operation in Minneapolis turned deadly this week when a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good during a confrontation involving her vehicle, reported The Associated Press.

Cellphone video captured the shooting, which federal officials claimed was an act of self-defense but that the city’s mayor described as “reckless” and unnecessary. Video shows an ICE officer approaching Good’s SUV stopped in the road as the vehicle begins to move forward. Another ICE officer standing in front of it draws his gun and fires at close range as he jumps out of the way.

Here's what to know about regulations on using deadly force in these situations:

When can officers fire at a moving vehicle?

There is no universal training standard for law enforcement. But most police departments and federal guidance bar shooting at a moving vehicle unless the driver poses an imminent threat of deadly force beyond the car itself.

Why are shootings at vehicles restricted?

Experts say firing at a moving car is one of the riskiest forms of lethal force, increasing the chance of stray gunfire or a loss of vehicle control that can endanger bystanders.

Are officers expected to move out of the way?

Yes. Justice Department policy says deadly force is allowed only when no reasonable alternative exists, including stepping out of the vehicle’s path.

Can officers use deadly force just to stop or arrest someone?

No. Policies generally state officers cannot use deadly force solely to arrest someone or to disable a fleeing vehicle if the person does not pose an immediate threat.

Do federal immigration agents follow different rules?

Not fundamentally. ICE and other federal officers operate under similar Justice Department guidance limiting gunfire at vehicles, although federal agents have added legal protections when acting within their official duties.

What is ICE's policy?

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, allows deadly force only when an officer reasonably believes someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

Who investigates these shootings?

Federal agencies conduct internal reviews, and state and local authorities may also pursue criminal investigations. Federal agents are not immune from prosecution if they act outside their authority. The FBI is leading the investigation into the Minneapolis shooting.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino joins Law & Crime Network to discuss located runaway teen

I joined Angenette Levy on Law & Crime Network  to discuss South Carolina runaway teen.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Now Is Not the Time To Test the Limits of Free Speech

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
January 6, 2026

Israeli billionaire Shlomo Kramer recently suggested on CNBC's "Money Movers" that governments must restrict freedom of speech in the age of Artificial Intelligence."

You're seeing the polarization in countries that allow for the First Amendment and protect it, which is great. And I know it's difficult to hear, but it's time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it," he said.

Kramer was speaking, generally, of countries that protect freedom of speech and expression in their constitutions and not just America's First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, along with nine other amendments to the U.S. Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those 45 words lay the groundwork for some of our most cherished and fundamental rights — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to assemble.

In 1919, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes established the clear-and-present-danger test: "whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent." This is the opinion where Holmes declared the now-famous example of unprotected speech — falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater.

So, clearly not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not simply say that if words are involved, you cannot be held responsible for their consequences.

The First Amendment restricts government censorship, not rules set by private companies or employers. That means private platforms, employers, or TV networks can set their own rules about what employees or users can say, as long as those rules are made free from government interference or pressure.

Recently, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily taken off the air after the government threatened to retaliate against ABC, his employer. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr criticized one of Kimmel's monologues about the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.

Carr specifically called on ABC affiliates to inform ABC that they would not carry Kimmel's show and pointed out the power that the FCC has over the broadcasting licenses of the affiliates.

Kimmel's show was pulled. The public was outraged. A private company has the right to control the speech of its employees without triggering the First Amendment. If the government coerces a private company to control speech, the First Amendment is violated.

What exactly is Kramer proposing to control — hate speech, disinformation or unflattering thoughts about government leaders?

Can the government punish hate speech?

The U.S. Supreme Court has said "no." In 2017, in a decision striking down a federal law banning disparaging trademarks, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the government had no business "preventing speech expressing ideas that offend."

Can the government prohibit speech that causes distress?

The Supreme Court again said "no." Courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Illinois in 1977, though it would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors who lived there.

The First Amendment does not protect incitement of violence, but even there, the Supreme Court defined the prohibition very narrowly, requiring a likelihood of imminent violence.

Limiting online speech is a slippery slope. Striking a balance between removing harmful content and protecting legitimate expression is difficult at the very least. Maybe, more importantly, in our current political climate, the regulation of any speech could be used to silence dissent and suppress the marginalized.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

'Undeniable truths': Trump's push for state-sponsored death not as supported as he would have you believe

Matthew T. Mangino
Law & Crime News
January 5, 2026

Gov. Josh Shapiro has quietly issued a reprieve to a Pennsylvania inmate on death row.

This was the first reprieve of Shapiro's tenure and, although inconsistent with the actions of a number of other state executives, should not come as a surprise. Soon after he took office, Shapiro called on the legislature to repeal the death penalty. He said that his time as attorney general "revealed two undeniable truths about our capital sentencing system: that it is inherently fallible and that its consequences are irreversible."

In his reprieve, he wrote that although those sentenced to death "have committed the most terrible crimes and deserve to spend the rest of their lives behind bars," the commonwealth "should not be in the business of executing people."

Shapiro's position stands out in comparison to politicians who use the death penalty as a prop to promote or tout their "tough on crime" bona fides.

There were 47 executions in the United States last year — the most since 2010, the year I chose to examine all the executions across the country in my book, "The Executioner's Toll, 2010."

Maybe Donald Trump's executive order on the first day of his current term has had an impact on state-sponsored death. The order established that "It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the laws that authorize capital punishment are respected and faithfully implemented, and to counteract the politicians and judges who subvert the law by obstructing and preventing the execution of capital sentences."

At least one Trump adherent took the machinery of death and ran with it. Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis has presided over a record-breaking surge in capital punishment — 19 executions last year.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to expand the application of the death penalty. Not to mention, the Court denied every request to stay an execution in 2025.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bans, as cruel and unusual punishment, the execution of people who are intellectually disabled. The Court is poised to whittle away at its prior ruling.

Florida's Supreme Court recently upheld a 2023 state law allowing nonunanimous juries to sentence people to death. Florida law permits capital punishment with a jury recommendation of 8-4 in favor of death, the lowest standard in the nation.

Methods of execution were also controversial. Louisiana adopted nitrogen gas as a method of execution and South Carolina adopted — and used — the firing squad in 2025.

What explains the increase in executions?

Probably not public support. Recent polls show about half of Americans favor executions, but the best evidence of what people really think is found in courtrooms, where jurors have increasingly rejected the punishment.

Only 27 states, the federal government and the U.S. military, still allow the death penalty. This year, prosecutors in just 11 of those states sought the death penalty against a total of 51 people, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Jurors chose to send just 23 people to death row. Two-thirds of those death sentences came from only three states — Alabama, California, and Florida. To add some perspective, in 1996 alone 315 people were sentenced to death in the United States.

"The increase in this year's execution numbers was caused by the outlier state of Florida, where the governor set a record number of executions," said Robin Maher, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. ​"The data show that the decisions of Gov. DeSantis and other elected officials are increasingly at odds with the decisions of American juries and the opinions of the American public."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C., New Castle, Pennsylvania.  He is a frequent contributor to Law & Crime News. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can follow him on X @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Law & Crime News CLICK HERE

 

A primer on what Nicholas Maduro faces in U.S. Court

Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela captured in a U.S. military raid, faces criminal charges in Manhattan, where federal prosecutors have targeted him for years, reported Reuters.

Here is a recap of the indictment unsealed on Saturday against Maduro, his wife, his son, and other co-defendants.

WHAT CHARGES DOES MADURO FACE?

The indictment, opens new tab alleged Maduro and other Venezuelan leaders have, for more than 25 years, "abused their positions of public trust and corrupted once-legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into the United States."

The indictment alleged Maduro and his allies “provided law enforcement cover and logistical support” to major drug trafficking groups, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua gang. These criminal organizations sent profits to high-ranking officials who protected them in exchange, the Justice Department said.

Among other specific acts, Maduro is accused of selling Venezuelan diplomatic passports to known drug traffickers and facilitating flights under diplomatic cover to bring drug proceeds back from Mexico to Venezuela.

Maduro was indicted on four counts: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

The case was brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, an office within the Justice Department famous for its fierce independence and aggressive prosecutions.

The same prosecutor's office returned an indictment against Maduro in 2020, with the same four charges. The updated indictment made public on Saturday adds some new details and co-defendants, including Maduro's wife, Cilia Flores.

The first lady is accused of ordering kidnappings and murders, as well as accepting bribes in 2007 to arrange a meeting between drug traffickers and the director of Venezuela’s National Anti-Drug Office.

WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE CRIMINAL CASE?

Maduro is expected to make an initial appearance in court on Monday. A judge will likely advise him of the charges against him and ensure he has a defense lawyer.

It could be several months or even more than a year before Maduro stands trial. Prosecutors could eventually offer a plea deal to avoid a trial.

Maduro's case is expected to be overseen by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein because he was assigned to the 2020 case brought against Maduro.

The 92-year-old jurist who has been skeptical of arguments by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in other high-profile cases. Earlier this year, Hellerstein rejected efforts to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, saying the wartime law had been improperly invoked by the Trump administration.

WHAT DEFENSES WILL MADURO RAISE?

As the case unfolds, Maduro is likely to argue to seek dismissal on the grounds that he is immune, or shielded, from criminal prosecution because he is a foreign head of state.

Judges have in some contexts concluded that foreign officials enjoy immunity from legal claims in U.S. courts.

But Maduro faces an uphill battle with this argument because of a historic precedent: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 that ousted the country's leader, Manuel Noriega.

Like Maduro, Noriega was accused of conspiring to smuggle drugs into the U.S., and was captured in a military raid in his home country.

U.S. courts rejected Noriega's immunity argument, showing deference to the U.S. government's assertion that he was not Panama's legitimate leader. Legal experts have said that precedent will likely undermine Maduro's efforts to get charges dismissed.

Maduro is also likely to invoke a legal doctrine that says criminal charges should be dismissed if prosecutors brought them vindictively or selectively. He might also argue that claims against him are time-barred, meaning they are too old to be pursued in court.

Federal conspiracy charges generally have a five-year statute of limitations, meaning charges must be brought within five years of the alleged crime's completion, with some exceptions.

To read more CLICK HERE