Migrant accused of threatening Trump was framed: Prosecutors
A Wisconsin inmate is facing charges over allegations he forged threatening letters against President Trump in an effort to frame a potential witness in an upcoming criminal trial and get him deported before he could testify.
Demetric Deshawn Scott was charged on Monday with identity theft, bail jumping and felony intimidation of a witness, according to a court filing.
Prosecutors say Scott is responsible for several letters sent to U.S. officials that included threats to kill the president and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The letters purported to be from Ramón Morales Reyes, whose name and return address were written in blue ink on each letter.
'The letters were all handwritten and, although not exactly the same, all wrote about immigration policy and threatening to kill ICE agents or President Donald Trump. Those letters also appeared to be written by the same person,' prosecutors said in the filing.
Morales Reyes was arrested by ICE agents, and his arrest was publicized online by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which posted his image as well as one of the letters. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also issued a statement describing him as an 'illegal alien' and said he would remain in custody 'pending his removal proceedings.'
'We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans — we have done more for this count[r]y than you white people — you have been deporting my family and I think it is time Donald Trump get what he has coming to him,' one of the letters read, according to prosecutors. 'I will self deport myself back to Mexico but not before I use my 30 yard 6 to shoot your precious president in his head — I will see him at one of his big rall[ie]s'
But, prosecutors say, after Morales Reyes was taken into custody, it soon became clear he could not have written the letters. Morales Reyes required translation assistance during the interview because he 'does not read, write, or fluently speak English.'
Officials also compared a handwriting sample from Morales Reyes to the letter and there was no match.
According to the court filing, investigators asked Morales Reyes, through a translator, who would want to get him 'in trouble.' Morales Reyes said the only person would be Scott, who was facing charges for robbing Morales Reyes.
Investigators later listened to several calls from jail where Scott allegedly described plans to frame Morales Reyes.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Colorado attack suspect to appear in federal court Friday as he faces nearly 120 state charges
The Egyptian man accused of carrying out an antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado, is set to appear in federal court on Friday – a day after he was charged with 28 counts of attempted murder in connection to a firebombing that has sparked widespread fear across the Jewish community. Mohamed Soliman, 45, allegedly used a makeshift flamethrower and Molotov cocktails to set people on fire during a downtown event held in support of Israeli hostages in Gaza. The attack occurred on the eve of Shavuot, a Jewish holiday, and less than two weeks after a separate antisemitic attack in Washington, DC, where two Israeli Embassy staff members were shot dead. In a Public Service Announcement Thursday, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security highlighted 'potential public safety concerns related to ongoing threats to Jewish and Israeli communities.' Soliman faces a federal hate crime charge in connection with the Boulder attack, an affidavit shows. He faces life in prison if convicted of the federal charge, acting United States Attorney for the District of Colorado J. Bishop Grewell said Monday. On Thursday, Soliman appeared in court from a room in the Boulder County Jail before Colorado District Judge Nancy Salomone to face state charges. Wearing an orange zip-up jacket, Soliman nodded in response to the judge's questions. He faces 118 counts, including 28 counts of first-degree attempted murder, according to court documents filed in the Boulder District Court. Soliman also faces counts of felony assault, incendiary device charges, along with one count of animal cruelty, the document shows. CNN has reached out to his attorney for comment. A total of 62 of those counts relate to the victims. If convicted, Soliman could face up to 48 years in prison for each victim, said Michael Dougherty, the district attorney for Colorado's 20th Judicial District. The attack injured at least 15 people – including a Holocaust survivor – as well as a dog. The victims included eight women and seven men between the ages of 25 and 88, according to the FBI, with several suffering severe burns. Three victims remained hospitalized as of Thursday, Dougherty said. He is due in court for a preliminary hearing on his state charges on July 15. During the attack, Soliman reportedly yelled 'Free Palestine,' according to the FBI and later told authorities that 'he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead,' an affidavit said. Authorities are investigating whether Soliman has any underlying mental health issues, a source familiar with the investigation previously told CNN. Investigators are also examining a notebook left behind by Soliman, which includes a manifesto written in English with some lines in Arabic, according to a law enforcement source. Police recovered the notebook after Soliman directed them to its location. Investigators are also reviewing videos Soliman recorded on his phone, featuring him speaking in both English and Arabic, the source said. One such video, which has surfaced on social media, appears to show Soliman speaking in Arabic while driving. CNN has not independently confirmed the video's authenticity. The attack is one of multiple recent incidents that has increased fear among the Jewish community in the US. 'The ongoing Israel-HAMAS conflict may motivate other violent extremists and hate crime perpetrators with similar grievances to conduct violence against Jewish and Israeli communities and their supporters,' the FBI and DHS warned in their public service announcement. 'Foreign terrorist organizations also may try to exploit narratives related to the conflict to inspire attacks in the United States,' the announcement said. The agencies urged the public to remain vigilant and report any threats of violence or suspicious activity to law enforcement. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett and interfaith leaders gathered Wednesday to denounce the attack and call for unity, according to a news release. 'Violence in any form has no place in Colorado, and we know that to move forward we must join together in our common humanity to ensure peace in our communities, take care of one another, and emerge stronger,' Polis said in a statement. CNN's Danya Gainor, Cindy Von Quednow, Evan Perez, Alisha Ebrahimji and Jeremy Harlan contributed to this report.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. lets criminals go, ICE arrests innocent people. They both need to change.
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Cases like Lopez's show that sometimes, federal authorities have a legitimate gripe with the state's progressive policies. Because of a 2017 Supreme Judicial Court decision, there are instances when the state releases dangerous criminals instead of handing them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Advertisement But the Trump administration is also overstating how much Massachusetts' policies, as bad as they can be, are to blame for its mounting arrests of noncriminals. Both sides need to give a little bit: Massachusetts should be willing to help in cases where ICE wants to arrest a convicted criminal like Lopez. The federal government has the right to deport people who are in this country illegally, and the state should help when it comes to violent criminals. Advertisement What the federal government doesn't have the right to do is compel local law enforcement to go after law-abiding, peaceable immigrants — whether they're here illegally or not. And it shouldn't be targeting noncriminals, either — or using local sanctuary policies as a pretext for the recent arrests of people with no criminal records. Over the past month, ICE has arrested 'If sanctuary cities would change their policies and turn these violent criminal aliens over to us into our custody instead of releasing them into the public, we would not have to go out to the communities and do this,' Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said during an ICE The state's policies date to 2017, when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Lunn v. Commonwealth that the Legislature would have to specifically authorize court officers to honor requests from immigration authorities to hold deportable immigrants. So far, the Democratic-led Legislature has not done so, and it passed up different bills that would allow law enforcement to cooperate on detainers for immigrants who are here illegally and have committed heinous crimes. Inaction on Lunn has drawn scrutiny from conservatives and even a member of Healey's Cabinet. For Worcester County Sheriff Lew Evangelidis, for example, law enforcement's inability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities means that some criminal migrants can be released back into the community. 'Right now, there's no ability to notify ICE and hold that person for [ICE] to make a determination whether they wish to take them into custody and then provide them the due process that they get in the federal system,' he told me. Advertisement Meanwhile, Healey's secretary of Public Safety and Security, Terrence Reidy, has In a statement, Healey's office said it does cooperate with ICE to some extent, such as by notifying ICE when a criminal in state custody is scheduled to be released. But that leaves loopholes for cases like Lopez's, which result in ICE having to rearrest a criminal. There were no collateral arrests when ICE tracked down Lopez because they were banned under the Biden administration — but there could be if a similar arrest were made now. Still, the Trump administration is exaggerating the connection between sanctuary policies and collateral arrests. Cases where criminals like Lopez were released in spite of detainers may have fueled some collateral arrests in the past month. But the Department of Homeland Security has failed to give a detailed breakdown so it's hard to know just how many. In a Advertisement Meanwhile, some of ICE's higher profile examples of collateral arrest seem to have nothing to do with Lunn. Like the case of the 18-year-old Milford student, Marcelo Gomes da Silva, who was arrested on his way to volleyball practice in an operation meant for his father. He was But so far there It isn't crazy for the Trump administration to criticize Massachusetts policies that can and have allowed convicted criminal migrants to be released into the community. In fact, most Americans would agree — a recent University of Massachusetts Amherst But that poll also found that most people Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
