Yesterday, there was a curious aspect to the coverage of the video of a woman attacking a young man for wearing a MAGA hat. Ignored by many mainstream outlets, conservative news sites described the woman as a “Karen” who got “karma.” The video below was viewed as a funny payback as the woman fell while chasing the man from the New York subway car. However, the incident is not karma but a crime. This is political violence perpetrated on the New York subway, and yet no one in New York seems to be calling for the arrest of this person.
If you watch the video, the woman starts by harassing the young man in the subway car. She is shown yelling, “If you f—-ing voted for Trump, you’re a racist!… He’s a racist!”
One can dismiss the verbal attacks as an exercise of free speech. However, she then grabs and comes into contact with the young man (around the 45 second mark) as she chases him from the car:
I get the sense of karma as the woman does a face plant on the subway platform while trying to continue her attack on the fleeing individual. However, this should be neither funny nor acceptable. It is political violence, and the woman appears to believe that she has a license in New York City to assault anyone wearing a MAGA hat.
This is where what I call “rage rhetoric” turns into political violence. As I wrote in my book, “The indispensable Right,” that is the curious aspect of rage:
“What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths.‘
“Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. The difference between rage and reason is often one’s own views. If one agrees with underlying grievance, rage is viewed as passion or justified fury at injustice. If one disagrees with those views, it takes on a more threatening and unhinged quality. We seem to spend much of our time today raging at each other. Despite the amplification of views on both sides, there is also an increasing intolerance for opposing views. Those views are treated as simply harmful and offensive—and, therefore, intolerable. Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”
There should be zero tolerance for political violence like this on New York subways. Answer me this: if this was a man chasing and assaulting a woman from a subway car for wearing a Harris-Walz hat, would there be the same relative silence in terms of an investigation and criminal charges?
When this person moved from verbal assaults to actual physical assaults, it became a crime, not karma.
The problem is that New York only has an assault law, not a battery law. You can pursue battery as a civil tort in New York, but few Trump supporters would have faith in receiving a fair hearing before a New York jury on such a case.
The New York assault law allows for third degrees of assault charges. However, even the lowest charge of assault in the third degree requires that the individual intentionally or recklessly causes physical injury to another person.
§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when: 1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or 2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or 3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
This could be established by the fact that she appears to grab and possibly strike the victim. However, the law is vague, and prosecutors could claim that the touching was insufficient to bring a viable case.
There is also criminal harassment under Penal § 240.26:
§ 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: 1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or 2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or 3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person, and which serve no legitimate purpose. … Harassment in the second degree is a violation.
I have always had qualms about some of this language in terms of vagueness and free speech, particularly subsection 3. However, subsection 1 clearly applies to physical assaults for the purpose of harassment.
The point is that police have the ability to charge this type of political violence. Yet, there is nothing but crickets from Democratic New York politicians and prosecutors. A video shows a citizen being struck and chased from the subway for wearing a MAGA hat and it is either ignored or treated as another humorous event on the New York subway system.
When did political violence become just a cost of riding the subway for conservatives or libertarians? The lack of outrage shows how this age of rage has dulled our senses to such extreme conduct. This is about conduct not speech. When this person went from raving to assault, she crossed over into the criminal code. The problem is that such protections are only meaningful if New York prosecutors and police are prepared to enforce them.
I hope that the NYPD will take this seriously and announce a search for this culprit. Otherwise, the enforcement of the criminal code becomes little more than a matter of fleeting karma.
A high-ranking figure from the notorious Venezuelan street gang, Tren de Aragua, has been apprehended in connection with the alleged murders of two women in Illinois. Ricardo Gonzales, aged 32, was captured in Cobb County, Georgia, during a coordinated effort by the U.S. Marshals Service Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force, the Chicago Police Department, and ICE. “This defendant’s crimes against American women are horrific, and he is exactly the type of Alien Enemy the Trump administration is fighting to remove from this country in order to make America safe again,” stated Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Gonzales has a troubled past, including a mugshot from a speeding and driving without a license arrest in Cobb County back in 2000. He was wanted for allegedly kidnapping and murdering two women, and for attempted murder. Authorities allege that on January 28, Gonzales kidnapped three women, took them to an alley in Chicago, and shot them in the head, leaving two dead.
Currently, Gonzales is held in the Cobb County Jail, awaiting extradition to Chicago. As the net closed around him, five more individuals were arrested and taken to ICE detention centers. Salvadoran police are also involved, working with the U.S. to deport gang members back to their home countries.
The Cobb County Sheriff’s Office and the Chicago Police Department have not yet commented on the situation. “This case is a reflection of the tireless work the U.S. Marshal Service and partnering agencies put in to make sure justice has its day in court,” expressed USMS Acting Director Mark Pittella. The arrest is part of ongoing efforts to keep communities safe and maintain public security.
This arrest coincided with the resumption of U.S. deportation flights to Venezuela, following a deal between President Trump and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This agreement ended a standoff where Maduro initially refused to accept deportees from the U.S. A flight carrying 199 illegal Venezuelan aliens, including gang members, headed to Honduras as part of this arrangement.
The deportation flights have been a significant move to ensure that Venezuela fulfills its obligation to accept its citizens. “Venezuela is obligated to accept its repatriated citizens from the U.S.,” stated Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Approximately 350 migrants have been deported back to Venezuela recently.
Efforts to maintain national security and the integrity of U.S. borders continue to be a focal point. With strong leadership, the administration aims to protect the American people from threats posed by illegal alien criminals. The partnership between various law enforcement agencies showcases the commitment to justice and safety.
The situation highlights the need for strict immigration controls and the importance of international cooperation. The Trump administration’s policies reflect a commitment to national security and the rule of law. By removing dangerous individuals, the administration seeks to ensure peace and safety for all citizens.
The collaboration between the U.S. and other nations, like El Salvador, demonstrates the global effort to combat gang violence. These international agreements are crucial in addressing the root causes of crime and ensuring public safety. The administration’s dedication to these principles remains steadfast.
As more deportation flights occur, the message is clear: the U.S. will not be a haven for criminals. Through decisive action, the administration is working to restore law and order. The partnership with other countries strengthens this resolve.
Ensuring justice and safety is a priority for the Trump administration. By working with international partners, the U.S. is committed to a safer world. The ongoing efforts highlight the importance of strong leadership and decisive action.
This case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced in maintaining national security. Through cooperation and determination, these challenges can be met. The administration’s policies continue to focus on protecting American lives.
With the continued efforts of law enforcement and international partners, the future looks promising. The dedication to justice and security remains unwavering. The actions taken reflect a commitment to the values that keep America strong.
The path forward requires vigilance and cooperation. By working together, the U.S. and its partners can ensure a safer and more secure world. The commitment to these principles is the cornerstone of the administration’s policies.
The arrest and deportation efforts are a testament to the power of collaboration. By joining forces, law enforcement can effectively combat crime. The administration’s dedication to these efforts remains firm.
As the fight against crime continues, the focus remains on protecting citizens. Through strong leadership and international cooperation, safety can be achieved. The resolve to maintain security is clear and unwavering.
Brittany Mays is a dedicated mother and passionate conservative news and opinion writer. With a sharp eye for current events and a commitment to traditional values, Brittany delivers thoughtful commentary on the issues shaping today’s world. Balancing her role as a parent with her love for writing, she strives to inspire others with her insights on faith, family, and freedom.
Colt McAbee, a former sheriff’s deputy, is working to piece his life back together after his Jan. 6 conviction was overturned. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out his criminal case, and the U.S. district court dismissed it as moot. It’s a relief for McAbee, but the label of “insurrectionist” still hangs heavy, mostly from the left.
McAbee shared his frustrations, telling Blaze News, “At the end of the day, it’s just words on paper.” He feels that no matter the court’s decision, opinions are hard to change. While he points out the damage done by the left, he believes they unfairly label him and others as domestic terrorists.
After his release from federal prison on a chilly January day, thanks to a pardon from President Trump, McAbee was greeted by his wife and mother-in-law shouting “FREEDOM.” It’s a moment of joy amidst the ongoing challenges. Finding a job and financial stability for his family remains a struggle for McAbee.
His case drew significant attention, with accusations that he intended to commit violence against police in Washington, D.C. The government painted him as a rogue officer, but McAbee maintains his innocence. Blaze News documented his journey, and his former lawyer, William Shipley, called the case a “manifest injustice.”
Despite the legal victory, McAbee’s battle isn’t over. He’s still fighting for his rights in Tennessee and trying to move past the shadow of his conviction. The path forward is uncertain, but McAbee is determined to reclaim his life.
McAbee’s story resonates with those who feel targeted by a biased system. Many see him as a symbol of resilience against what they perceive as an overreaching government. His experience highlights the broader narrative of distrust in institutions by conservative circles.
The pardon from President Trump was a pivotal moment for many Jan. 6 defendants. It’s seen as a corrective measure against what some believe were politically motivated prosecutions. McAbee’s release is part of a larger debate on justice and accountability.
The ongoing discourse about Jan. 6 continues to divide opinions across the nation. For McAbee, the personal toll is a reminder of the human impact behind the headlines. His journey underscores the challenges faced by those caught in the political crossfire.
McAbee’s case is a microcosm of a larger cultural conflict. It reflects the tension between differing views on law and order. His fight for redemption is watched closely by those who share his perspective.
The left’s narrative of insurrection is contested by many on the right. They argue that the events of Jan. 6 are mischaracterized to serve political ends. McAbee’s story is a part of this broader contestation.
His situation is a testament to the complexities of modern political discourse. It’s a world where labels and judgments can overshadow truth and justice. For McAbee, the struggle is not just legal, but ideological.
In the aftermath of Jan. 6, the country remains deeply divided. McAbee’s experience is a reminder of the personal stories behind political events. His fight for dignity is emblematic of a much larger debate.
The ongoing impact of Jan. 6 on individual lives is profound. McAbee’s story is one of many that illustrate the lasting effects. It’s a narrative of resilience in the face of adversity.
For McAbee, rebuilding his life is a priority, but it’s not easy. The stigma of his conviction lingers, affecting both personal and professional prospects. Yet, his determination to persevere is unwavering.
His journey is a reflection of the challenges faced by many in similar circumstances. It’s a struggle for identity and acceptance in a polarized society. McAbee’s story is a reminder of the human cost of political conflict.
The broader implications of McAbee’s case continue to reverberate. It’s a symbol of the ongoing battle over narrative and truth. For those who support him, it’s a fight against perceived injustice.
As McAbee looks to the future, his focus is on healing and progress. It’s a path fraught with challenges, but one he is committed to pursuing. His story is a testament to the power of resilience and hope.
In the end, McAbee’s journey is about more than just one man. It’s a reflection of a nation’s struggle with its identity and values. His case is a chapter in the ongoing story of America’s political landscape.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Jan-6th pales in comparison to widespread violence by the democrat sycophants, Multiple riots, Vandalizing Birthing Center, Burning Tesla dealerships, swatting conservatives, Etc., etc.
Elon Musk Rips into Democrats as Their Violence Escalates Across the Country: “There’s Some Mental Illness Going on Here Because This Doesn’t Make Any Sense” (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – March 19, 2025
Elon Musk joined Sean Hannity on FOX News last night after his company rescued two astronauts stranded on the space station by Joe Biden for nine months. Only Elon Musk could make this happen. Elon explained to Sean Hannity why he joined with President Trump to clean up Washington DC. So far Musk’s DOGE operatives have saved the country over $100 billion in waste and fraud in government. But rather than celebrating Musk, the left and Democrats were out burning Teslas and torching dealerships. Elon calls this a mental disease and he’s right. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
Southwest Key Programs, once known for running the largest network of shelters for unaccompanied migrant kids, has come under the spotlight for taking $3 billion in taxpayer money during the Biden administration. This nonprofit operated more than two dozen facilities spread across Texas, Arizona, and California. Inquiries were made to the DOJ for clarity on the dismissal of the lawsuit against Southwest Key.
Between fiscal years 2021 and 2024, the organization received billions to provide shelter services to children crossing the border alone, without parents or guardians. During this period, the nonprofit bumped up the salaries of several top executives significantly. Tax filings reveal that the vice president, Veronica Delgado-Savage, saw her salary rise by nearly 10%, from $297,792 in 2021 to $326,086 in 2023.
The chief information officer, Andy Harper, experienced a 198% pay increase, going from $214,356 to $637,806.
Geraldo Rivera, who moved up from senior vice president to chief program officer, received a 78% salary boost, climbing from $312,791 to $555,998.
Meanwhile, human resources chief Jose Arroyo-Davila’s pay shot up by 114%, from $308,694 to $661,298.
CEO Anselmo Villarreal’s paycheck soared by 139%, from $491,642 to $1,174,551 over those years.
The New York Post reported that 12 other senior staffers also enjoyed raises ranging from 10% to 112%. It’s important to note that these significant pay hikes took place during the initial two years of Biden’s presidency.
At the same time, Southwest Key was mired in allegations that some of its employees had sexually abused children in their care between 2015 and 2023. The nonprofit faced a lawsuit from the Biden administration’s Department of Justice in 2024 over these troubling allegations. The DOJ claimed that staff members had subjected unaccompanied minors to unlawful sexual harassment and abuse.
Southwest Key did not provide a comment to the Post when asked. Last week, the Trump administration took decisive action, cutting off the nonprofit from receiving any more children and relocating those already in their shelters. The Health and Human Services and Justice Departments labeled it a move to end sexual abuse and harassment.
Interestingly, the Trump administration also withdrew the federal lawsuit against Southwest Key. As a consequence, Southwest Key had to furlough its employees. Last week, the organization expressed satisfaction that the lawsuit was dropped and firmly denied any claims of child sexual abuse in their shelters.
They emphasized that no settlement or payment was required. However, due to a sudden freeze in federal funding and a stop placement order from the Office of Refugee Resettlement, they had to make the tough call to furlough around 5,000 employees. This decision impacted staff and programs across the country.
A representative for Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told the Post, “It is disgusting that vulnerable children suffered sexual abuse under Southwest Key’s watch.” Senator Grassley has reached out to the DOJ for more information on why the lawsuit was dismissed. He looks forward to having a follow-up conversation soon.
Stories like these highlight the importance of accountability and oversight, especially when taxpayer money is involved. The public deserves to know how funds are being used and to ensure that vulnerable children are protected. Such situations remind us of the need for vigilance and transparency in the use of federal resources.
These revelations about Southwest Key pose serious questions about the integrity of nonprofit organizations receiving government contracts. The significant raises for executives during a time of alleged misconduct raise eyebrows and demand deeper investigation. Ensuring that organizations entrusted with the care of children are held to the highest standards is crucial.
The case of Southwest Key brings to light the challenges in balancing the need for humanitarian aid with strict oversight. With billions in taxpayer dollars at stake, maintaining public trust is essential. As the story unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing need for transparency and accountability in government-funded programs.
Southwest Key’s situation underscores the vital role that watchdogs play in our society. It’s critical to safeguard the interests of children and taxpayers alike. The public expects and deserves nothing less than the highest ethical standards in all dealings involving public funds.
Brittany Mays is a dedicated mother and passionate conservative news and opinion writer. With a sharp eye for current events and a commitment to traditional values, Brittany delivers thoughtful commentary on the issues shaping today’s world. Balancing her role as a parent with her love for writing, she strives to inspire others with her insights on faith, family, and freedom.
A Texas man identified as Seth “Andrea” Gregori has been apprehended for allegedly orchestrating a “mass casualty event” targeting law enforcement officers. According to a police source, Gregori was in the process of “transitioning” genders, which has become a focal point of the case. Even though his driver’s license lists him as male, the Nueces County jail records reportedly registered Gregori as “female.” This revelation has fed into the speculation surrounding his gender identity, especially as different names are being used by law enforcement agencies in their communications regarding the suspect.
Described by some as a ‘would-be terrorist’, Gregori was allegedly attempting to carry out an attack on the Corpus Christi Police Department (CCPD). The FBI’s Houston office revealed that Gregori’s plans were reminiscent of the horrific 2016 Dallas police ambush where Micah Xavier Johnson executed a brutal attack, killing five officers and injuring nine, motivated by racial tensions between black communities and white police officers.
Amid the media spotlight, Gregori’s gender identity has been inconsistently reported. A local news outlet referred to Gregori using female pronouns, whereas others have used his birth name. Pictures released by the CCPD show Gregori with long hair, which only served to intensify the debate regarding his transition. The Daily Caller’s line of questioning underscores a desire to cut through obfuscation often seen in mainstream media’s treatment of similar subjects.
The case, already fraught with tension, took an even more sinister turn with a tip-off received by a joint FBI task force in early February, revealing Gregori’s alleged affinity towards certain police officers and documenting his recent purchase of an AR-style rifle. Citing an affidavit, a report stated that Gregori had the rifle in his backpack at the time of arrest.
Questions arise over why Gregori was targeting “white cops,” as per KENS5 News, who would leave “Black and Mexican cops” unharmed. Given this backdrop, mainstream media’s varied coverage perhaps obscures the real motivations behind Gregori’s intentions, avoiding a deeper conversation on why divisions in discussions about law enforcement and race persist.
#BREAKING FBI Corpus Christi and local partners have thwarted another mass casualty attack!#FBI Corpus and @CorpusChristiPD arrested Seth aka Andrea Gregori today on state charges filed by @NuecesCoDA after he planned an attack on police similar to the 2016 Dallas ambush. #CCTXpic.twitter.com/0JtCCJFRIu
In a separate episode in 2018, Gregori, aged only 14, was listed as missing alongside Jonathan Gregori but was later found. Now aged 21, Seth “Andrea” Gregori is involved yet again with law enforcement, with a pre-file case listed under the name “Andrea Lozano Gregori.” This person, who through this horrifying episode has been thrust into the national conversation, also had prior misdemeanor charges including fleeing from the police in 2023 and criminal trespassing in 2024.
The FBI has arrested Seth "Andrea" Gregori for allegedly making plans for a mass killing of Corpus Christi officers in Texas.
The FBI says "Andrea" allegedly planned to carry out a mass shooting similar to the 2016 Dallas mass killing of police officers by a black nationalist… https://t.co/6IsHd6sgBgpic.twitter.com/qJSVH2r2vC
This raises valid questions about Gregori’s history and how many chances were given before the ultimate plan for a deadly assault was discovered. In this era of progressive narratives often found in liberal media, one must ask if an overemphasis on gender identity clouds the real threats to public safety and the pressing concerns this case raises.
Democrats can’t win without cheating. It’s as essential to their strategy as dead voters in Chicago or suitcases of ballots in Georgia.
The 2020 election wasn’t just a heist; it was a smash-and-grab in broad daylight. And if Democrats could cheat the election, they certainly weren’t going to leave their fundraising to chance. Enter ACT Blue—the money laundering service dressed up as a donation platform. It’s been the piggy bank of the Left for years, and now, the hammer is finally coming down.
This report was back in 2023, though the crimes of ACT Blue will eventually be determined to have happened from inception of the group.
James O’Keefe and others exposed ACT Blue’s shady dealings long ago. From phantom donors to improbable donation patterns, ACT Blue has been the digital equivalent of an offshore account in the Cayman Islands, but for Democrats who don’t want to get their hands too dirty—at least not publicly. Yet, despite mountains of evidence, the media yawned, Republicans twiddled their thumbs, and the system chugged along, laundering money like a Vegas casino on a Saturday night.
Now, as the Democratic Party lurches from one disaster to the next—from the Biden cognitive decline saga to the desperate anointment of Kamala Harris as their last-minute presidential stand-in—ACT Blue is taking on water faster than their fraudulent donation reports can plug the holes.
When Seven Executives Vanish in Three Weeks, It’s Not a Coincidence
The New York Times recently reported that ACT Blue is in “turmoil.” Not a little corporate reshuffling, not a strategic realignment—full-blown panic mode. Seven top executives have mysteriously exited stage left in the past three weeks, some of whom had been with the organization for over a decade. And what did these longtime insiders say about their sudden departures? Absolutely nothing. That kind of silence isn’t just suspicious; it’s screaming “Don’t ask us unless you have a subpoena.”
Meanwhile, the last remaining lawyer in ACT Blue’s general counsel’s office was locked out of his email and placed on leave after sending internal messages reminding everyone that “we have Whistleblower Policies for a reason.” Translation: the ship is going down, and someone tried to send up a distress flare. The response? Smash the flare gun and throw the guy overboard.
Even the unions representing ACT Blue employees are alarmed. Two separate unions are demanding the hiring of an independent investigator to dig into what’s really happening. When even the activist class is panicking, you know something serious is brewing.
Where Did $16 Billion Go? Asking for a Friend (or an Attorney General)
In the past 20 years, more than $16 billion has passed through ACT Blue’s platform. That’s enough money to buy every Democrat in Washington a beachfront home (and maybe some for their grandkids, too). But as money laundering experts have pointed out, the numbers don’t add up. A recent analysis of over 200 million Federal Election Commission records uncovered donation patterns so bizarre that even a third-world dictator would blush.
Hundreds of donations of exactly $2.50 from the same individual.
Elderly individuals or first-time donors suddenly making dozens of contributions in rapid succession.
Donations far greater than the donor could reasonably afford.
Registered voters suddenly contributing to candidates of the opposing party—because nothing says grassroots enthusiasm like financially supporting the person you allegedly hate.
These are not glitches or anomalies; they’re part of a pattern of systemic fraud that should have been obvious from the start. And now that the operation is unraveling, Republicans are (finally) asking state attorneys general to investigate. Not that we should hold our breath—after all, we’ve seen this movie before. But with the heat ACT Blue is feeling, even their usual allies in the justice system might have to pretend to care.
ACT Blue Becomes ACT Black and Blue
The implosion of ACT Blue comes at a time when the Democratic Party can least afford another scandal. They’re already limping into the 2024 election with a candidate so unpopular that they had to swap him out for Kamala Harris—a woman whose own presidential campaign was so bad that she dropped out before her home state even got to vote. Yet, somehow, we’re supposed to believe that she’s setting fundraising records? Please.
ACT Blue’s money machine kept the illusion alive for years, feeding a media narrative that Democrats had enthusiastic grassroots support. In reality, they were just laundering cash and cooking the books like a failing restaurant owner trying to hide the missing inventory.
Now, with executives jumping ship, whistleblowers sounding the alarm, and investigators circling like sharks, ACT Blue is learning the hard way that fraud, like Biden’s presidency, has an expiration date. And as their empire crumbles, one has to wonder: Is this the beginning of the end for the Left’s most effective scam, or just another scandal they’ll survive because the media refuses to report on it?
It’s official, folks—being a violent criminal in a Democrat-run city is a pretty sweet gig. You can terrorize innocent people, get shot while trying to stab someone, and the mayor will roll out the red carpet with thoughts and prayers for YOU. Welcome to Woketown, where the law-abiding are an afterthought, and the bad guys get sympathy cards. Why? Because there can never be any positive spin on guns being used to protect people!
Over the weekend, an off-duty Boston police officer became an absolute hero when he stopped a knife-wielding maniac inside a Chick-fil-A. The suspect had already chased two terrified individuals into the restaurant, attempting to stab them. The officer ordered him to drop the weapon, and when the lunatic refused, the officer did what any rational person would do—he eliminated the threat.
But instead of praising this officer for saving lives, Boston’s woke Mayor Michelle Wu and her leftist cronies leaped to comfort the criminal’s family. Because in today’s twisted reality, criminals deserve compassion, and law enforcement deserves suspicion. Sickening.
Boston’s Mayor: Champion of Criminals
Let’s talk about Michelle Wu, the queen of misplaced priorities. This is the same mayor who proposed giving illegal immigrants and even 11-year-olds the right to vote in city budgeting decisions. Because, of course, nothing says “competent governance” like letting pre-teens and people who aren’t even citizens have a say in how tax dollars are spent.
And now? She’s mourning the loss of a knife-wielding attacker, while barely acknowledging the heroism of the officer who prevented what could have been a mass stabbing inside a fast-food restaurant. Instead of standing with the people who keep Boston safe, Wu bends over backward to humanize violent criminals while law enforcement gets nothing but scrutiny.
Here’s what Wu had to say after the shooting:
“My condolences and all of our thoughts are with the family of the individual whose life has been lost.”
Unbelievable. Not a word about the officer. Not a word about the victims who were almost stabbed to death. Nope—just heartfelt sympathies for the would-be killer.
Meanwhile, Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden joined in on the nonsense, offering “thoughts and prayers” to the attacker’s family while suggesting there’s a bigger “chaotic situation” to investigate. The only “chaos” here is the left’s absolute unwillingness to stand behind the brave men and women in law enforcement.
Soft-on-Crime Lunacy is Destroying Our Cities
This isn’t just a Boston problem—it’s a national crisis in every leftist-controlled city. The same soft-on-crime policies that Wu champions are turning American cities into lawless wastelands. Just take a look:
New York City: Career criminals with dozens of prior arrests walk free within hours, only to commit more crimes.
San Francisco: A shoplifter’s paradise where stores are shutting down because law enforcement is basically optional.
Chicago: Violent criminals get slaps on the wrist while law-abiding citizens are treated like the real problem.
Wu’s leadership is just another version of this insanity. Instead of backing the blue, she’s part of the growing chorus of woke politicians who treat law enforcement like the enemy.
And who suffers the most from this madness? Regular Americans. The people just trying to live their lives, go to work, and enjoy a meal at Chick-fil-A without being chased by some knife-wielding lunatic.
The Officer Did His Job—And He Deserves Praise
Let’s be clear: This off-duty officer did EXACTLY what he was trained to do. He saw a threat, identified himself, issued a command, and when the criminal refused to comply, he neutralized the danger. That’s what policing is supposed to look like.
But in Wu’s Boston? Officers are villains while the criminals get eulogies.
Here’s an idea, Mayor Wu: Instead of sympathizing with violent criminals, how about standing up for the people who actually keep your city from descending into anarchy? How about praising the brave police officer who saved lives? How about making it clear that if you attack innocent people, there will be consequences?
But no, that would require actual leadership—something the left abandoned a long time ago.
Final Thoughts
This incident is just another reminder of what happens when woke leadership infects a city. Criminals are emboldened, law enforcement is demonized, and the average citizen is left wondering, “Whose side is my own government on?”
This officer is a hero, full stop. But in Wu’s Boston, heroism takes a backseat to woke compassion for the worst of society. And that’s exactly why Boston—and every city following this insane model—is spiraling into chaos.
Nothing has upset Democrats nor upended the bureaucratic establishment quite like the recent unleashing of the Elon Musk led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). With the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in the hands of Republicans, the only realm of power Democrats maintained was the so-called “fourth” branch American government.
The BBC explains what DOGE’s role is within the Trump Administration:
Doge is not an official government department, which would have had to be established by an act of Congress.
Instead, it came into being through one of Trump’s presidential executive orders, and operates as an advisory body with at least four employees dedicated to each)o government agency.
Part of Doge’s mission, says the order, relates to IT upgrades aimed at boosting efficiency. It must finish its work by July 2026.
Image: Fortune
President Trump and Elon Musk have been reevaluating the size and role of the federal government in American Society. To date in fiscal year 2025, the U.S. government has spent $2.44 trillion with federal outlays totaling $7 trillion, or 23.3% of the GDP. By “following the money” DOGE has been able to audit several federal agencies and has found billions in wasteful spending.
To know how effective something is, just look at who is opposing it. Since its inception, DOGE has been the bane of big-government spending Democrats who have questioned its legality, while filed several states have filed lawsuits to block the organization from carrying out its mandate.
Obama Owned DOGE First!
Image: X
Before it was reconstituted as DOGE, the agency was established in 2014 as the United States Digital Service (USDS) during the Obama Administration. Because USDS was already fully funded and operational, Trump then was able to implement 5 USC 3161, allowing him temporary hiring authority.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that renames the little-known but highly respected United States Digital Service office as the United States DOGE Service, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, an effort helmed by tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk.
In contrast to the initial announcement of DOGE, focused on federal spending, the workforce and technology infrastructure from “outside the government,” Trump’s Jan. 20 order outlines a temporary organization within the larger USDS office that will be led by a to-be-named administrator.
The order also moves the USDS from the Office of Management and Budget to the Executive Office of the President and directs each federal agency to create a “DOGE Team” that may include a team leader, engineer, human resources specialist and attorney to help facilitate Trump’s “DOGE agenda.”
There were not any Democrats protesting outside of government buildings when Obama and Biden echoed the same ideas of cutting government spending in June 2011:
The White House is taking aim at Democratic critics of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), highlighting that the new agency’s work was once championed by prominent Democrats.
Democrats have ramped up their attacks on DOGE and its leader, billionaire Elon Musk, over the past week, arguing that Trump’s project is a violation of the Constitution and filing several lawsuits in an effort to bring the new department’s momentum to a halt.
But Leavitt pointed out that many of DOGE’s priorities used to be the same across the aisle, especially for the two most well-known Democratic leaders.
Supporting DOGE
It is said “Imitation is the ultimate form of flattery”; or, “if something right is being done its going to be immolated.” Numerous states have begun implementing their own state-level versions of DOGE to look for and begin eliminating government waste.
Currently US District Judge John Bates has ruled that DOGE is an ‘agency’ and has granted the Musk-led agency access to the Departments of Labor, HHS, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In another lawsuit, Judge Tanya Chutkan will decide if DOGE gains access to data of seven more agencies. The Judge said that she was skeptical of plaintiffs arguments, and appears to be leaning towards granting access to Musk’s team.
Trump did warn that he was going “win, and keep winning!”
ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT’S “DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY”
EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 20, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) “Agency” has the meaning given to it in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except that such term does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof.
(b) “Agency Head” means the highest-ranking official of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, or Director, unless otherwise specified in this order.
Sec. 3. DOGE Structure. (a) Reorganization and Renaming of the United States Digital Service. The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President.
(b) Establishment of a Temporary Organization. There shall be a USDS Administrator established in the Executive Office of the President who shall report to the White House Chief of Staff. There is further established within USDS, in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, a temporary organization known as “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization”. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall be headed by the USDS Administrator and shall be dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall terminate on July 4, 2026. The termination of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall not be interpreted to imply the termination, attenuation, or amendment of any other authority or provision of this order.
(c) DOGE Teams. In consultation with USDS, each Agency Head shall establish within their respective Agencies a DOGE Team of at least four employees, which may include Special Government Employees, hired or assigned within thirty days of the date of this Order. Agency Heads shall select the DOGE Team members in consultation with the USDS Administrator. Each DOGE Team will typically include one DOGE Team Lead, one engineer, one human resources specialist, and one attorney. Agency Heads shall ensure that DOGE Team Leads coordinate their work with USDS and advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President ‘s DOGE Agenda.
Sec. 4. Modernizing Federal Technology and Software to Maximize Efficiency and Productivity. (a) The USDS Administrator shall commence a Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems. Among other things, the USDS Administrator shall work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.
(b) Agency Heads shall take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems. USDS shall adhere to rigorous data protection standards.
(c) This Executive Order displaces all prior executive orders and regulations, insofar as they are subject to direct presidential amendment, that might serve as a barrier to providing USDS access to agency records and systems as described above.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
It is astounding that this issue remains largely underreported by the mainstream media. The recent investigation spearheaded by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and her subcommittee, lovingly dubbed DOGE, has unveiled a staggering $2.7 trillion in improper payments made by the US government since 2003. This number is both shocking and sobering, yet the liberal media has largely chosen not to highlight these findings which paint a concerning picture of government waste and ineptitude.
Earlier this week, Real America’s Voice’s Brian Glenn directly addressed White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt regarding the massive fraud unveiled by DOGE. Glenn put on record that this substantial mismanagement involved Medicare and Medicaid payments going overseas and payments being issued to ineligible recipients. Yet, his query echoes in rooms occupied by those more concerned with pushing political agendas than confronting harsh truths.
Brian Glenn questioned: “I want to go back to DOGE for just a second. Earlier the subcommittee headed by Chairman Marjorie Taylor Greene, her and her staff discovered $2.7 trillion in improper payments to Medicare, Medicaid, overseas, to people who should not have gotten it, some in this room might have missed that press conference. Can you elaborate on what the President is thinking at this point?”
In response, Leavitt underscored the systematic fraud, waste, and abuse that have occurred, mentioning: “Well, again, that’s another example, there is a very long list of the fraud, waste, and abuse that DOGE is identifying on a daily basis. Elon Musk also talked yesterday about Social Security payments that are going out the door for people who are no longer with us, unfortunately.”
$2.7 TRILLION of YOUR money.
Down the drain.
💸💸💸
Tomorrow, the @DOGECommittee will EXPOSE the waste, fraud, and abuse of improper payments doled out by the federal government.
She pointed out the millions of dollars potentially lost to fraudulent contracts, saying, “I would say that is certainly fraud. There is also a lot of contracts they’ve identified that, just as a hypothetical example, are a million bucks been only $500,000 went out the door, so where’s the rest of that cash? And so, that’s the thing — those are the things that DOGE is working on every single day.”
Leavitt also reminded the public of President Trump’s campaign promise to tackle such inefficiencies, adding, “I would just are mind everybody in this room, this is what President Trump campaigned on doing. He’s delivering on a promise that 77 million people elected him to do.”
This crucial issue remains sidelined by a liberal media that prefers to focus on narratives that support their biases and sensationalist stories, rather than the staggering bureaucratic failures exposed by a duly elected subcommittee.
Below is my column on Fox.com on the bizarre controversy surrounding New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and his suggestion that he was housing an illegal migrant in his home. It is a new version of Murphy’s Law on how virtue signaling can turn into a virtual nightmare for Democrats over immigration.
Here is the column:
For years, engineers have cited Murphy’s Law that “anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” The law is attributed to aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy Jr. from the 1940s. However, this week, the law seems re-written by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, who is under fire after suggesting that he may be sheltering an undocumented woman above his garage.
Murphy was being interviewed by the liberal group Blue Wave New Jersey and thrilled his Democratic base by indicating that he had given sanctuary to an undocumented person in his home. It was a curious moment when, after promising sanctuary, Murphy not only appeared to out his guest but then taunted ICE to come and try to take her. After seemingly staking out the immigrant like a sacrificial goat in a lion hunt, Murphy’s virtue signaling summoned the authorities. And now, the Iceman Cometh.
Trump’s border czar Tom Homan vowed to “look into” the Governor’s house guest.
The interview illustrated how some strive to prove their progressive bona fides at the cost of those they claim to be protecting. It is akin to the good people of Martha’s Vineyard singing to undocumented persons just before shipping them off to a distant military base.
Of course, Murphy appeared to struggle with calling her an undocumented migrant, let alone an illegal alien. Instead. she was described by the governor as a person “whose immigration status is not yet at the point that they are trying to get it to.”
Murphy explained how
“Tammy and I were talking about – I don’t want to get into too much detail, but there is someone in our broader universe whose immigration status is not yet at the point that they are trying to get it to. And we said, you know what? Let’s have her live at our house above our garage.”
You could almost hear the cooing from the crowd. Murphy then added the taunt to the tell: “And good luck to the feds coming in to try to get her.” Of course, the most important “details” for the woman are her status and location.
The most important detail for Murphy was to suggest that he and Tammy have a real live undocumented person housed above their cars. Not a poster or pamphlet on undocumented entry, but a real undocumented person. Of course, what can be lost in such moments is not just the person’s identity but her humanity. She did not seem like a real person at all . . . more like some prop or novelty item to brag about. What was so striking about the interview is that ICE is not generally rounding up undocumented persons. Rather they have focused on aliens who have committed criminal acts. While Murphy and others have issued chest-pounding declarations to defy the federal government, the public is overwhelmingly in support of the effort. Murphy previously declared that he would “fight to the death” against Trump’s agenda.
A recent poll by The New York Times and Ipsos found that an astronomical 88 percent of citizens supported “deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have criminal records.”
Within days of the Trump Administration coming into office, thousands of such targets were located and arrested. For other immigrants, there is still a comfort in numbers. With millions allowed into the country under President Biden, most are keeping a low profile in the knowledge that they are not the priority for ICE.
However, when a governor openly taunts the government and advocates the use of private homes as sanctuaries, he forces the hand of the government. It is even more problematic if this is the governor’s public residence or under the protection of state officers. Murphy may be using such state resources to violate federal law.
It was not clear what the status of Murphy’s guest was. The governor’s breathless account of his own courageous stand suggested that she would be subject to deportation, if discovered.
Under Section 1324 of Title 8 of the United States Code, it is unlawful when anyone “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”
That is when Murphy’s law kicked in with a vengeance. After his boast about “hav[ing] her live at our house above our garage,”a close associate later suggested that it was all a type of liberal projection. It is now claimed that he never actually made the offer to the person, but “mentioned to someone else that they could move in if they want, so I think that’s where some of the misunderstanding was.” The source also added that “The person wasn’t undocumented. The person was a legal resident of the United States of America.”
Ok, let’s get this straight. Murphy did an interview with a liberal group on how he agreed to “have her live at our house above our garage” but could not share any other details to be safe. Nevertheless, Murphy warned about the reception if “the feds com[e] in to try to get her.” Yet, his associate is now claiming that there is no harbored illegal to get. Not only was she never in the garage, but she is perfectly legal and is not subject to deportation. It was like Murphy bragging that he has Chris Christie living above his garage. It is hardly the stuff of Harriett Tubman and the Underground Railroad.
The bizarre controversy, however, has greater importance in what Murphy was struggling to convey. He and other governors are pledging to bar any cooperation with the federal government in the deportation of unlawful immigrants. The latest example was Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, who pledged to continue to defy federal enforcement even at the loss of substantial state aid. As with Murphy’s faux resident refugee, the declarations in states from Illinois to New Jersey to Massachusetts will force the hand of the federal government. While the federal government cannot “commandeer” state officials in the enforcement of federal law, it also does not have to subsidize those officials in frustrating enforcement efforts. The Trump Administration is expected to move to block funds for sanctuary states and cities. So, in addition to billions being spent on housing and benefits, these states will lose billions in federal aid.
What is most striking is that it never mattered if the Murphy claim was true or not. For many, it was another “I am Spartacus Moment” from a New Jersey Democratic politician that fell comically flat. Gov. Murphy’s law should be a cautionary tale for all of his Democratic colleagues in state houses. Virtue signaling can summon costs not just for themselves but for their states.
The United States will “hopefully” start moving migrants to a detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within 30 days, The Washington Post reported on Friday, citing House border czar Tom Homan.
The facility was first announced by President Donald Trump on Wednesday.
“Hopefully within 30 days we’ll start moving people there,” Homan told the newspaper.
Homan said he planned to travel to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in the coming weeks to oversee the fast-tracked construction of the facility. Although Trump said the facility would hold as many as 30,000 migrants, Homan said they would probably start with a small number, according to The Washington Post.
The U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay already houses a migrant facility – separate from the high-security U.S. prison for foreign terrorism suspects – that has been used on occasion for decades, including to hold Haitians and Cubans picked up at sea.
Over the weekend, a tragic incident unfolded in Indiana where a J6 protester, previously pardoned by President Trump, was fatally shot by a police officer. FOX 32 Chicago reported at 4:15 p.m. local time on Sunday that 42-year-old Matthew W. Huttle from Hobart, Indiana, was stopped by a deputy sheriff from Jasper County during a traffic stop near the Pulaski County line. Authorities alleged that the officer attempted to make an arrest, but Huttle resisted the process. This resistance led to a confrontation, resulting in the deputy discharging his firearm and fatally injuring Huttle.
The Jasper County Sheriff’s Office issued a statement explaining the event: “An altercation took place between the suspect and the officer, which resulted in the officer firing his weapon and fatally wounding the suspect.” This tragic event involves immense grief for the family and friends of Huttle, and underlines the crucial need for transparency and accountability within law enforcement agencies.
Huttle’s involvement in the January 6 protests led to his persecution by what many see as a biased judicial process, orchestrated under the Biden administration. Labeling these protesters as political prisoners, Huttle was detained in Boise, Idaho, on November 28, 2022, for his participation in the protest. His actions on that day included recording his entry into the Capitol’s Senate Wing and moving through several hallways, which led to federal authorities charging him with several misdemeanor offenses.
The unfolding narrative, as reported by the Northwest Indiana Times, mentioned Huttle was sentenced to half a year in federal prison. However, he was released on July 17. Just last week, Huttle was among the J6 protesters granted a pardon by President Trump, underscoring the commitment of Trump to stand against what many believe to be a corrupt and politically motivated judiciary.
Jasper County Sheriff Patrick Williamson addressed the unfortunate incident by requesting a thorough investigation from the Indiana State Police to ensure full transparency. The officer involved has been placed on paid administrative leave, which aligns with their established protocol in such circumstances. “Our condolences go out to the family of the deceased as any loss of life is traumatic to those that were close to Mr. Huttle,” he stated, promising to release the officer’s identity pending approval from the State Police Detectives.
Adding to the complexities of the situation, Richard “Bigo” Barnett, another J6 protester from Arkansas who was sentenced to a lengthy prison term for reportedly minor offenses, expressed his concerns and suspicions about the incident.
I want to know every damn detail. Right now I would be pretty touchy if someone tried to arrest me and put me through hell again and they better have a valid reason. I live in a right to carry state. Indiana is also a right to carry state. 2A https://t.co/BZbpYmbHYH
Barnett stated: “I want to know every d*mn detail,” highlighting the fear and anxiety among J6 protesters about being targeted again. Barnett emphasized the importance of justified law enforcement interactions, noting his own states and Indiana’s right to carry laws, advocating for Second Amendment rights and questioning the motives behind such arrests.
New fires have broken out in the San Diego area of California, and these blazes feel symbolic of what’s happening to the Democratic Party.
We already witnessed the aftermath of fires in Los Angeles, which exposed the core nature of Leftism: incompetence. And what does incompetence cost? California homeowners are still on the hook for their mortgages, trapped in a cruel twist of irony—many of them uninsured due to, yes, the incompetence of California’s leaders.
Before outrage takes hold, consider this: they still own the land. Typically, the land is the most valuable part of a property, at least monetarily speaking. But no amount of land value can replace the memories those people lost in the flames. Who needs memories, though, when you can bask in the glow of virtue-signaling? And speaking of glowing embers of mismanagement, let’s turn to the issue of illegal immigration.
The landscape of illegal immigration has shifted dramatically, and the message from President Trump is unmistakable: America’s borders are no longer open for exploitation.
This shift carries lessons not only for those attempting to break U.S. immigration laws but also for the Leftists who have spent years undermining border security. Having cheated Trump out of his rightful second term, Democrats now face the consequences: a Trump unrestrained, with a clear mandate and the wind at his back.
Democrats pushed too far, allowing an invasion that has devastated communities across the country. Even stalwart Democrats like New York City Mayor Eric Adams have been forced to confront the consequences. Adams’ admission—that he was told to “be a good Democrat” and allow illegals to overrun New York—reveals the cynicism of the Left’s policies. His pushback nearly cost him his political career in what appeared to be a coordinated coup. Meanwhile, Trump stands ready to act decisively, knowing that the American people, fed up with the chaos, are now firmly behind him.
Trump’s Plan: Swift and Purposeful Action
When it comes to illegal immigration, Trump doesn’t make threats—he makes plans. His administration has already taken decisive steps to tackle the crisis head-on:
Military Deployment to the Border: Skeptics once mocked Trump for suggesting the military would be involved in border security. Now, 10,000 troops, including 500 Marines, are being deployed to reinforce the southern border. This is no symbolic gesture; it’s a national emergency, and Trump has declared it as such. As one official put it, “Don’t be surprised if you see Marines being dropped off by helicopters.”
Deportation on Demand: The policy is simple: “Deported Same Day.” The Biden administration spent billions facilitating illegal immigration. In stark contrast, Trump is redirecting those resources to expedite deportations. U.S. Transportation Command is preparing military aircraft to assist in migrant deportation flights, underscoring the seriousness of the effort.
Investigating Obstruction: The Trump Justice Department is launching investigations into state and local officials obstructing deportations and preparing to challenge sanctuary laws in court. For Trump, lawlessness—whether at the border or in sanctuary cities—is not an option. Any official standing in the way of lawful deportation orders will face scrutiny and accountability.
Rebranding Border Policy: Under Trump’s leadership, illegal entry has been rebranded. Those who attempt to cross the border illegally can expect to be sent home immediately. Trump Airlines, as the joke goes, is now offering one-way tickets back to reality.
Exposing Leftist Hypocrisy
One of the most startling revelations in Trump’s crackdown is the Biden administration’s use of taxpayer dollars to fly illegals into the country. This brazen misuse of resources has been exposed and halted. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has fired its entire advisory committee, citing the need to refocus on protecting American interests.
Lessons for the Left
The humanitarian argument for open borders has worn thin. While some illegals genuinely seek to escape poverty and violence, the same issues plague America’s minority communities, particularly Black neighborhoods. As Trump understands, we don’t need to go to other countries looking for problems to solve when we have enough of our own.
The Left’s policies have disproportionately harmed the very people they claim to champion. Minority communities have borne the brunt of unchecked illegal immigration, facing increased competition for jobs, strained public services, and rising crime. The message is clear: America’s resources must first be directed to solving its own problems.
The Bigger Picture
Trump’s return to power represents more than just a change in immigration policy; it’s a reckoning. The Democrats’ attempt to undermine Trump has backfired spectacularly, leaving them exposed as architects of chaos. Trump’s decisive actions on immigration signal a return to order, accountability, and national sovereignty.
For those willing to break U.S. laws to enter the country, the lesson is simple: America will no longer tolerate lawlessness. For the Left, the lesson cuts deeper. By pushing their radical agenda to the breaking point, they’ve unleashed the Wrath of Trump—a leader determined to restore America’s greatness by any means necessary.
On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a potentially blockbuster religion clause case in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond. However, there is a catch. While the lawyers representing St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School may need every vote they can get in this heavily contested area; they may have to prevail without Justice Amy Coney Barrett who recused herself for an unstated reason.
The case could bring clarity to an area long mired in 5-4 decisions. The question presented is “whether a state violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious.”
The basis for the recusal is a mystery. Barrett was on the faculty at Notre Dame University and has close ties to the institution. Notre Dame Law Professor Nicole Garnett has been involved in the case and the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic is on the brief for St. Isidore.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is a Roman Catholic institution focused on digital learning.
The lower court ruled that such funding of a religious school is unconstitutional. Before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoma Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, prevailed in arguing that the charter school board violated state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. He insisted that the board should not have chartered the school because “St. Isidore’s educational philosophy is to establish and operate the school as a Catholic school.” He also opposed review by the Supreme Court, warning that the school intends to “serve the evangelizing mission of the church.”
The case could produce one of the most consequential decisions on the separation of Church and State in decades. Given her past interest and writing in the area, it would be ironic for Barrett to miss this ruling.
It is reminiscent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recusal in the Harvard affirmative action case due to her close ties to that institution. However, for Jackson, it was immaterial since she was allowed to vote in the sister case involving the University of North Carolina.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – It seems Biden has pardoned almost every criminal in Washington, DC, but missed one of the biggest of all, Hillary. She must be feeling left out and hung out to dry. Will she ever answer for her crimes? Benghazi, 30,000 missing emails, and the Russia collusion hoax come to mind.
LOATHSOME: Biden Regime Reportedly Considering Preemptive Pardons for Several of Trump’s Enemies Including Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and Anthony Fauci
By Cullen Linebarge – The Gateway Pundit – Dec 4, 2024
The lawless Biden regime is not satisfied with the White House occupant’s pardon of his ne’er do well son Hunter and is looking to give even more of the political class’s worst characters a complete pass on their crimes. Politico on Wednesday dropped an explosive report that Biden’s handlers are strongly considering issuing preemptive several current and former government officials who they believe will be in the incoming Trump administration’s crosshairs. The outlet notes that the Regime has become even more panicked since Trump announced he was picking MAGA hero Kash Patel to drain the Deep State swamp and ensure those who persecuted Trump do not escape punishment. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the pardoning of the January 6th defendants by President Donald Trump. The scope of the pardon appears broader than some had hoped. What is clear is that any such relief should not extend to violent actors, particularly those who attacked police officers. However, the Justice Department itself may have made the strongest case for presidential pardons.
Here is the column:
On January 20, 2025, the “shock and awe” campaign of the Justice Department came to an end as President Donald Trump pardoned 1,500 January 6th defendants.
Four years ago, the Justice Department set out to send a chilling message to the nation. In an interview with CBS News a year later, Justice Department official Michael Sherwin indicated that they wanted to send a message with the harsh treatment of defendants. Sherwin explained that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe … it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ … We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”
The awe is gone but the shock remains at the Justice Department. If Sherwin and his colleagues hoped to “Trump proof” the nation, they failed in spectacular fashion. While there was ample basis for criminal charges, the excessive treatment of some of the January 6th defendants undermined the credibility of their prosecutions for many.
That is no easy feat.
Most of us denounced the January 6th riot as a desecration of our constitutional process. Those who engaged in the rioting, and most importantly the violence, needed to be punished. However, what followed left many increasingly uneasy. The Justice Department rounded up hundreds and, even though most were charged with relatively minor crimes of unlawful entry or trespass, the Justice Department opposed the release of many from jail and sought absurdly long sentences in some cases. It also sought restrictions on defendants that raised troubling first amendment concerns.
In my recent book, “Indispensable Right,” I discuss these cases and their troubling elements.
A good example is the handling of the most well-known case of the so-called QAnon Shaman. Bare-chested, wearing an animal headdress, horns, and red-white-and-blue face paint, Jake Angeli Chansley became the iconic image of the riot.
Seeking to make examples of these defendants, the Justice Department took special measures in hammering Chansley. He was held in solitary confinement and denied bail.
Chansley was treated more harshly because of his visibility. It was his costume, not his conduct, that seemed to drive the sentencing. In the hearing, Judge Royce Lamberth noted, “He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.”
Lamberth hit Chansley with a heavy 41-month sentence for “obstructing a federal proceeding.”
However, long withheld footage, showed recently that Chansley (like hundreds of people that day) simply walked into the Capitol past police officers and was then escorted by officers through the Capitol. At one point, two officers not only appear to guide him to the floor but actually try to open locked doors for him. Chansley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his four-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.
Does that make Chansley’s actions acceptable, let alone commendable? Of course not. He deserved to be arrested and punished. However, what many saw was a troubled individual being made an example for others.
In my book, I discuss how, in history, “rage rhetoric” was allowed to become “state rage.” This is one such case.
Trump ran on the promise to pardon these defendants and secured not just the White House but the popular vote. It was not just the public that rejected the narrative of January 6th as an “insurrection.”
In the recent Supreme Court decision in Fischer v. U.S. to reject hundreds of charges in January 6th cases for the obstruction of legal proceedings, the Court left most cases as simply a mass trespass and unlawful entry.
The shock may be gone for these defendants, but it may only be beginning for the Justice Department and the FBI.
When the campaign of Hillary Clinton secretly funded the infamous Steele Dossier to launch the Russian conspiracy investigation, it was the Justice Department that was not just the willing but eager partner.
The “insurance policy” described by former FBI official Peter Strzok was redeemed in investigations that derailed much of Trump’s first term.
Later, it was the Justice Department again that pursued a no-holds-barred effort to convict Trump before the election.
The Justice Department is the hardest of silos in Washington to reform. Unlike most departments, it is largely homogenous, with thousands of lawyers who share professional and cultural ties. It is a department composed of people who are by their very definition, litigious.
Trump insisted on selecting an Attorney General, nominee Pam Bondi, who has no past ties or identification with the department. For the Justice Department, it must feel like the Visigoths arriving at the gates of Rome . . . only to be let in by the citizens.
According to polling, the public ultimately found the “barbarians” less threatening than those who have insisted that Rome would fall. That must certainly be shocking for many in Washington, but the record of the Justice Department showed how the awe can become awful when officials feel the license of state rage.
The release of the first part of Jack Smith’s report at midnight was the special counsel’s version of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision: we had seen it before. Putting aside the public filings where Smith fought to get this information out before the election, there was little new in the report. What the report did not contain is an explanation of how Smith destroyed his own cases against Trump. However, one notable element was Smith’s reliance on a dubious concurrence by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the subject of a prior column on what would be an interpretation that was too clever by half.
Much of the report was vintage Smith in dismissing countervailing precedent and insisting that he could “obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.” He may be right about obtaining a conviction before a D.C. jury and a highly motivated judge against Trump. However, he would not have been able to sustain any conviction — and this report makes that abundantly clear.
Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Trump said “fight” ten times in his January 6th speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence.
However, Smith tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.
As I wrote previously after the decision, “It is doubtful that [Smith] will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision.” In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the Trump indictment. However, I wrote that it “is not Smith’s style” to yield to precedent and that he would likely “take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence.”
Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records.
Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence.
However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense:
“That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.”
Once again, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence.
Right on cue, Smith revealed that he was going to do precisely what I feared in taking a position supported by a single justice. In his report, Smith wrote:
“Mr. Trump’s and his co-conspirators’ obstruction involved replacing valid elector certificates from the contested states with false ones they had manufactured-the Office anticipated the possibility of such a result in Fischer and confirmed that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even under a narrow interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).”
Just saying that a proceeding involves “certain records” is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state.
Those challenges under the same loose theory could have been viewed as attempting to negate or destroy certifications from the states. It would have likely, in my view, result in another reversal. However, Smith is always about securing convictions more than sustaining appeals. That is why he filed the second case in D.C., where he was given the best possible judge for the prosecution, a judge viewed by many as predisposed against Trump.
In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan had said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her for trial by Smith.
So Smith was going to proceed on the theory of a single justice with the help of a favorable jury and a motivated judge. Little has changed with Smith since his unanimous reversal in the McDonnell case, which seems much of the reason that he was appointed.
Below is my column at Fox.com on the sentencing of President-Elect Donald Trump. The conviction should be overturned on appeal. However, the most lasting judgment will be against the New York court system itself in allowing this travesty of justice to occur.
Here is the column:
With the sentencing of Donald Trump Friday, the final verdict on the New York criminal trial of the president-elect is in. The verdict is not the one that led to no jail or probation for the incoming president. Acting Justice Juan Merchan has brought down the gavel on the New York legal system as a whole.
Once considered the premier legal system in the country, figures like New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Justices Arthur F. Engoron and Juan Merchan have caused the system to be weaponized for political purposes. Trump will walk away from this trial and into the White House in less than two weeks, but the New York system will walk into infamy after this day.
The case has long been denounced by objective legal observers, including intense Trump critics, as a legal absurdity. Even CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig denounced the case as legally flawed and unprecedented while Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., simply called it total “b—s–t.”
It is a case based on a non-crime. Bragg took a long-dead misdemeanor and zapped it back into life with a novel and unfounded theory. By using federal violations that were never charged, let alone tried, Bragg turned a misdemeanor into dozens of felonies and essentially tried Trump for federal offenses.
Merchan not only allowed those charges to be brought to trial but then added layers of reversible errors in the effort to bag Trump at any cost. For that, he was lionized by the liberal media and many New Yorkers. However, Trump still managed to pull in 3.6 million New York votes, or 42.7%, in the 2024 election. After all of the lawfare and every advantage (including a heavily biased media and a larger war chest), Vice President Kamala Harris lost hundreds of thousands of votes in 2024 in comparison to Joe Biden just four years earlier.
Many polls showed that the public saw the Manhattan criminal case for what it was: raw lawfare targeting a leading political opponent. The election itself felt like the largest verdict in history as citizens rejected the political, legal, and media establishments in one of our nation’s most historic elections.
The New York court system will now have a chance to redeem itself, but few are holding their breath. The appellate court has still not ruled on an appeal of Attorney General Lettia James’s equally absurd civil lawsuit against Trump. Despite judges expressing skepticism over Engoron’s use of a law to impose a grotesque $455 million in fines and interest, we are still waiting for a decision.
Most are waiting for this criminal case to escape the vortex of the New York court system. With this appeal, this peddler’s wagon of reversible errors will finally pull up in front of the Supreme Court itself.
With its ruling on Thursday night, the setting for a decision could not be better for Trump. The Supreme Court has again demonstrated that it has shown restraint and independence in these cases. In response to the ruling, Trump struck the perfect note Thursday night and declined to criticize the Court, stating that “This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion.”
The ultimate penalty on Friday morning from Judge Merchan reflects the lack of seriousness in the case. It was more inflated than the Goodyear blimp, pumped up by hot rage and rhetoric. The sentence was the pinprick that showed the massive void within this case.
The verdict is in. The New York legal system has rendered it against itself.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue may have raked in millions through fraudulent donations, according to the testimonies of elderly Americans who said federal election records do not reflect their giving.
Eighteen registered Democrats in Connecticut, all over the age of 70, appear to have donated $1.9 million to Democratic causes, including ActBlue, through hundreds of thousands of small donations from 2016 to 2024, according to a review of Federal Election Commission filings by Dominic Rapini, CEO of technology company Queralt Inc. and a former Connecticut Republican candidate for office.
Curious about the donation patterns, Rapini tracked down some of the Connecticut residents and asked them if they really did make thousands of small donations, sometimes multiple in a day, through ActBlue. Several of the supposed donors told Rapini they did not make any of the reported donations, nor did they know anything about how their names were being used, Rapini told The Daily Signal.
An 88-year-old retired Yale University professor, for example, supposedly made 7,539 donations for a total of $213,163, according to FEC records. After Rapini informed him about the significant donations in his name, he signed an affidavit saying, “I believe this does not reflect my donation frequency or dollars I have donated.”
According to Rapini, who has analyzed numbers for three decades in the tech industry, this is a possible case of alleged identity theft and money laundering. A contribution made by one person in the name of another is illegal.
“When I examine the donation patterns tied to these alleged ‘smurfs,’ the irregularities jump off the page, revealing behavior that defies both human logic and common sense,” he told The Daily Signal. “To safeguard trust in our election process, we must confront these anomalies head-on.”
Rep. Brian Steil, R-Wis., chairman of the House Administration Committee, told The Daily Signal he’s aware of similar reports from across the country.
“In response, last fall, I shared the findings of our investigation with several state attorneys general,” Steil said in an emailed statement. “The committee and I remain fully available to collaborate with any state law enforcement officials who wish to access the information we have gathered on this critical issue.”
An elderly acupuncturist and registered Democrat appears to have made 17 donations in 2022 through ActBlue totaling $317. In an email to Rapini, she promised she hasn’t made political contributions since 2016.
“I can promise you I have NOT made donations myself to the [Democratic National Committee] or Democratic local party since 2016 … ,” she said. “Anything past that are fake and/or manipulated donations.”
A 91-year-old woman appears to have made 2,591 donations totaling $41,000, according to FEC filings. She signed an affidavit with Rapini denying making the reported donations.
Another 75-year-old woman looks to have made 4,270 small donations adding up to $32,323. She too signed an affidavit with Rapini denying making the donations in this frequency or quantity.
ActBlue is currently under congressional investigation for alleged laundering of foreign money laundering.
ActBlue came under fire on Oct. 29 because of its donor-verification policies. In a letter that day to ActBlue, Steil said foreign actors from Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and China could use the platform to launder illicit money for use in U.S. political campaigns.
The Democratic fundraising platform admitted in 2023 to Steil that it didn’t require contributors to use a card verification value, or CVV, to donate on its website with a credit card. Those security codes are meant to ensure that the person making a purchase physically possesses the credit card.
ActBlue responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment about the affidavits by referring The Daily Signal to a post on its blog, which says, “Because of how reporting works for intermediaries, contributions made on platforms like ours often show up more than once in public FEC records, because both ActBlue and the receiving campaign or committee must report the contributions.
“FEC rules require ActBlue to itemize every contribution made through its platform, regardless of amount,” the post says.
“Additionally, FEC reports often lump multiple donors with the same name together,” the post continues. “This can make it difficult to easily identify which contributions should be associated with each individual donor, especially donors with common names.”
Rapini said whether the suspicious donation patterns come from “sloppy data systems at the FEC” or “nefarious actors laundering money through unsuspecting elderly donors,” an investigation is needed.
“Transparency and accountability are nonnegotiable when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy,” he said.
An Emmy-winning investigative journalist, Catherine Herridge, has released a bombshell interview with a CIA whistleblower, revealing that the Biden administration has covered up officers’ injuries from direct energy weapons used by foreign adversaries. The whistleblower bravely came forward to shed light on the truth, despite facing threats and intimidation from the CIA.
During the interview, Herridge asks the former intelligence officer if they were attacked, to which they answer with a resounding “yes.” The follow-up question, whether it was an energy weapon, is also met with confirmation. These shocking revelations are further proof of the Biden administration’s continued efforts to cover up the truth and prevent accountability.
The whistleblower shared that the intelligence community has actively thwarted Congress’ attempts to uncover the truth, displaying a clear government cover-up. They elaborated, “It’s a cover-up, and it’s terrifying. It should be terrifying for all Americans.” The gravity of this situation cannot be understated, and it is crucial that the American people demand transparency and accountability from their government.
When asked about the potential for change under a Trump/Vance administration, the whistleblower expressed hope but with hesitation. They stated, “I really hope so,” followed by a call for those involved in the earlier report to be held accountable and not be allowed to intervene in this matter.
However, the CIA whistleblower’s bravery and determination to expose the truth are commendable, considering the risks they face in doing so. Their primary goal is to prevent more people from falling victim to these heinous attacks and urge Trump to take action if elected.
As the interview comes to a close, Herridge asks if the whistleblower has a final message for the American people. They respond, “I implore the American people to demand transparency and accountability from their government. We cannot let these attacks go unnoticed any longer.” Their powerful message serves as a call to action for all citizens to demand the truth and hold their government accountable.
BREAKING: A CIA whistleblower has come forward and revealed to Catherine Herridge that the agency covered up the source of an energy attack to gaslight its own agents
She is calling on President Trump to expose everything, "You know, the phrase cleaning up the swamp is thrown… pic.twitter.com/5QV494rTNN
This shocking interview has garnered widespread attention, shedding light on the government’s attempts to cover up the use of direct energy weapons by foreign adversaries on American officers. The implications of these revelations are enormous, and the American people need answers and accountability. Will a Trump/Vance administration bring about the change needed? Only time will tell.
This is all still very new so we may have to update you as new information comes out. Be sure to check back for those updates.
This is obviously very on-par for the Biden regime. Thank goodness the American people voted those bad apples out. I can only imagine what will unfold after the transfer of power takes place. You can almost bet, there will be more people to come forward.
Crime scene tape stretches around Abundant Life Christian School as police continue to investigate the shooting committed by 15-year-old student Natalie Rupnow on Dec. 17, in Madison, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Just days before Christian students’ scheduled vacation to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, a lonely and radicalized high school student opened fire inside Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, killing two people and wounding six more. Police say 15-year-old Natalie Rupnow, who went by the name “Samantha,” opened fire with a 9mm handgun during study hall before turning the gun on herself. Now, an apparent manifesto shows the child’s turbulent home life, isolation, adoption of neo-Nazi views, idolization of school shooters, and her wish to further “evolution” drove her to the brink.
Two Remain in Critical Condition
Rupnow attended Abundant Life, a Christian school founded in 1978, with approximately 400 students from kindergarten through high school, serving 200 families across 56 churches in Dane County. She opened fire in a room of students of mixed ages, killing one teenage student and one teacher. Six people were injured: one teacher and five students. Two of the victims were released from SSM Health St. Mary’s Hospital on Monday. Two victims remain in critical condition.
A second grade teacher called 911 to report the shooting at 10:57 a.m. (The local police chief originally reported erroneously that a second grade student made the call.) Police officers responded to the scene immediately, with 17 ambulances and numerous fire trucks. Law enforcement officers found Rupnow bleeding profusely from an apparently self-inflicted gunshot at 11:05 a.m. Rupnow was pronounced dead from suicide in the ambulance en route to a local hospital. The school notified parents at 11:29 a.m.
Rebekah Smith, the mother of a fellow student, told The New York Times that she believed Rupnow had enrolled as a new student in the Christian school at the beginning of the year, in hopes it would help her turn her life around.
The school does not have a metal detector or dedicated, on-campus security personnel, but has security protocols and participated in a government program to harden soft targets against mass shootings. The school kept all doors locked, conducted lockdown and evacuation drills, and broadcast an announcement telling students, “Lockdown. This is not a drill.” Pastor Kellen Lewis, whose four children attend the school, said its safety measures “probably helped save some lives” and “gave my kids that very important sense of agency—that no matter what was going on, they knew what to do.”
Parents and community leaders continue searching for what drove the teenager to murder her fellow students, with many drawing a parallel between Rupnow’s shooting and last March’s mass shooting at Nashville’s Covenant School by Audrey “Aidan” Hale. The 28-year-old Hale, who identified as transgender, killed six people: three children in the third grade class and three adults.
“I don’t know whether [the shooter] was transgender or not,” said Shon Barnes, police chief in the famously liberal city of Madison, on Monday. “I don’t think that whatever happened today has anything to do with how she or he or they may have wanted to identify. And I wish people would kind of leave their own personal biases out of this.”
“At this time, identifying a motive is our top priority. But at this time, it appears that the motive was a combination of factors,” Barnes added Tuesday. Police have begun scouring social media profiles identified with Rupnow, saying she appears to have idolized school shooters and adopted the neo-Nazi views espoused by the Columbine shooters.
A purported manifesto may offer insight into the mixture of toxic traits that sent the 15-year-old over the edge.
Purported Manifesto Shows Divorce, Hatred of Humanity, Racism, and Support for ‘the Revolution’
One link on Rupnow’s social media accounts linked to a document purported to be her manifesto. A reporter for Reduxx said, after speaking with Rupnow’s boyfriend, she verified the authenticity of a six-page manifesto titled “War Against Humanity.” In it, Rupnow expresses her admiration for the Columbine High School shooters, as well as racial collectivist terrorist Patrick Crusius, and Brazilian school shooter Guilherme Taucci.
“Humanity is filth,” she wrote. “My parents are scum.” The document notes her parents divorced, although she claims it did not affect her at all.
“I’ve grown to hate people, and society,” she wrote. “[A]ll of you and the world have done is pick on me and tease me.” Rupnow wrote of “getting teased and pushed around” at school, where “I always got picked on.”
“My so-called family never included me because I was too weird for them. … My father will always make me stand out in the worst possible way,” stated the manifesto. “I hate humanity for forcing me into this little hole.”
The manifesto expresses profound isolation, which observers believe she filled with harmful online content. “[M]y parents admit they didn’t want me. … I’m always the one who sat out or sat in another room because they didn’t want to interact with me at any point in time, then I stayed in my room all day long and all night and after and before school as well,” she wrote.
“I planned on shooting myself a while ago, but I thought maybe its [sic] better for evolution” to engage in a mass shooting.
Rupnow engages in racially charged rhetoric, indicating another possible motive for her shooting.
“The human scum is color, and how people are raised,” she wrote. She also used a racial epithet for black people.
“The Revolution should be well,” she said. “I am part of the real thought and the real revolution.”
“We need revolution,” she insisted.
“The wolf hunts its prey. … There is nothing more than filth,” the document concluded.
Police are aware of the manifesto but have not officially said Rupnow authored it. “A document about this shooting is circulating at this time on social media, but we have not verified its authenticity,” said Barnes.
Democrats Promote Gun Control
Democrats seized on the tragedy to promote gun control legislation. “Jill and I are praying for all the victims today,” said President Joe Biden in a statement released Monday, before pivoting promptly to eroding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. “Congress must pass commonsense gun safety laws: Universal background checks. A national red flag law. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” Vice President Kamala Harris promoted a similar litany of gun restrictions Monday evening, including regulations of how law-abiding citizens store firearms at home.
None of those proposals would have apparently affected the Abundant Life Christian School shooting. “I got the weapons by lies and manipulation and my fathers [sic] stupidity,” wrote Rupnow in her alleged manifesto. “There would have been no way to change what has happened.”
A Family in Crisis
Family experts say family breakdown leads to loneliness, which can lead to resentment and online radicalization. “This seems to be a family in crisis, and in a way, it could be really anyone’s family. She wrote about feeling very alone, and it seemed that she spent a lot of time alone and a lot of time on the internet, and she had come to sort of idolize other school shooters,” said Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council. “I hope that the families that are listening to this show and families everywhere will spend the holidays with their kids, really engaging with them and looking honestly at your own family and saying: ‘Is there a child of mine who’s feeling left out, who’s feeling alone? And how much time are they in their room, behind closed doors? And do I need to just go in that room with them and just sit with them and be with them?’”
Rupnow, like other recent school shooters, is female—a trend Kilgannon mourns. “We have a pornified culture, and we also have an incredible glorification of violence in our culture. Both are a function of being in a culture of death rather than a culture of life,” Kilgannon told“Washington Watch,” guest hosted by former congressman Jody Hice, on Tuesday. “The result of that is going to be that it’s not just going to be the boys who will take these aggressive actions, but you’re going to see this behavior adopted by the girls. And that really, for me as a woman, is very, very chilling and very sad.”
As of this writing, the school remains closed. It posted the following notice on its website:
“In response to the devastating tragedy at Abundant Life Christian School (ALCS) on Monday, December 16, United Way of Dane County has established the Abundant Life Christian School Emergency and Recovery Fund. All funds raised will go directly to ALCS to support those impacted by the tragic events. To give, visit www.unitedwaydanecounty.org or text help4ALCS to 40403.”
Barnes said, “We have to come together and do everything we can to support our students to prevent news conferences like these from happening again and again and again.”
‘Christ Came to Us in a Family’
Hice found the alleged manifesto “heartbreaking,” but said her violence should serve as a wake-up call “for those parents who think that a Christian school is all they need.”
Kilgannon agreed that, while attending a Christian school gives children “a huge advantage,” it can “never replace the relationship that we’ll have with our own children and that our children will have with each other if we’re blessed with more than one child. Christ came to us in a family. He could have come as King of the universe, but He chose to come humbly into a family.”
“He adopted us into His family,” noted Hice.
“Of course, I want to offer every parent in this situation love, consolation, and grace—whether it’s the parents of the perpetrator or her victims,” Kilgannon told The Washington Stand exclusively. “We all have questions we need to ask, and answer, as parents. Were there any warning signs missed by the parents and the school? Are there drugs (prescription or not) involved that increased suicidal ideation over time? How is her therapist coping? Are we praying for all these issues? Are we loving our difficult people enough especially in these challenging times? The family is in crisis. At this holy time of year, let’s take whatever time we have and spend it with our loved ones, aspiring to love each other more and more each day.”
Former Rep. Liz Cheney is facing calls from GOP legislators that the FBI investigate her for “potential criminal witness tampering” related to her former role on the Jan. 6 House Select Committee, a report released Tuesday by the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight chairman, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., details.
“Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge,” the report, which was provided to Fox Digital, found.
The Jan. 6 committee was founded in July 2021 to investigate the breach of the U.S. Capitol earlier that year by supporters of Trump ahead of President Biden officially taking office on Jan. 20. The Jan. 6 committee’s investigation was carried out when Democrats held control of the House.
The committee concluded its 18-month investigation last year, when Republicans regained control of the House and sent referrals to the Justice Department recommending Trump be criminally prosecuted for his involvement in the lead-up to supporters breaching the Capitol. The committee was composed of seven Democrats and two Republican lawmakers, Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both of whom are no longer in office.
Loudermilk’s subcommittee was tapped to investigate the J6 committee and its findings in January 2023.
Rep. Liz Cheney during her primary election night party in Jackson, Wyoming, Aug. 16, 2022. (Reuters/David Stubbs)
The House Republicans’ report Tuesday specifically took issue with Cheney’s alleged “direct intervention” with Hutchinson, who was considered the star witness of the investigation, including allegedly encouraging Hutchinson to hire “Select Committee-friendly attorneys to represent her,” as opposed to keeping her original legal representation.
Hutchinson, who worked as an aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, had claimed before the select committee that on Jan. 6, 2021, she was told Trump allegedly became “irate” and attempted to join supporters at the Capitol ahead of them breaching the government building. The incident reportedly unfolded after Trump delivered a speech at the Ellipse, which is a park just south of the White House fence.
Hutchinson alleged she was told Trump attempted to grab the steering wheel of a Secret Service SUV before the driver reportedly told Trump to remove his hand and that they were headed to the White House, not the Capitol. Hutchinson’s account was directly refuted by Anthony Ornato, who served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations under Trump after decades in the Secret Service.
Less than two weeks after firing her original attorney and hiring “the attorneys Representative Cheney suggested – Hutchinson sat for her fourth transcribed interview with the Select Committee under unusual circumstances,” the report found.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk chairs a House Administration Committee Subcommittee on Oversight hearing, July 19, 2023. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images )
“Prior to this interview, nearly every interview the Select Committee conducted included approximately a dozen people – including committee staff members, committee counsel, often a Member of the Select Committee, the interviewee, and the interviewee’s legal representation. Most of the interviews were done in large conference rooms or over zoom, allowing space for all participants. Hutchinson’s fourth transcribed interview, however, was vastly different. It consisted of only four people: Representative Cheney, one attorney from the Select Committee, Hutchinson, and Hutchinson’s new counsel. Additionally, instead of the Select Committee conducting the interview in a conference room or virtually, Representative Cheney used her private hideaway inside of the United States Capitol Building,” the report states.
The House Republican report continued that Hutchinson’s testimony to the Jan. 6 committee was crucial, arguing “it is unlikely the Select Committee could make its assertions about President Trump’s mood, attitude, and alleged culpability in the events of January 6” without her comments.
“Hutchinson is mentioned by name in the Select Committee’s Final Report no fewer than 185 times. Inexplicably, the Select Committee discredited the multitude of legitimate witnesses who, under oath, repeatedly refuted Hutchinson’s testimony. These legitimate witnesses include senior government officials and federal agents.”
Cheney, in comments provided to Fox News Digital on Tuesday afternoon, defended her former committee’s investigation, while arguing Loudermilk’s report “intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence.”
“January 6th showed Donald Trump for who [he] really is – a cruel and vindictive man who allowed violent attacks to continue against our Capitol and law enforcement officers while he watched television and refused for hours to instruct his supporters to stand down and leave,” Cheney said to Fox News Digital.
“The January 6th Committee’s hearings and report featured scores of Republican witnesses, including many of the most senior officials from Trump’s own White House, campaign and Administration. All of this testimony was painstakingly set out in thousands of pages of transcripts, made public along with a highly detailed and meticulously sourced 800 page report. Now, Chairman Loudermilk’s ‘Interim Report’ intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did. Their allegations do not reflect a review of the actual evidence and are a malicious and cowardly assault on the truth. No reputable lawyer, legislator or judge would take this seriously.”
Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, testifies before the House Jan. 6 Committee on June 28, 2022, as Rep. Liz Cheney questions her. (Fox News)
The Democratic former chair of the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, also slammed Loudermilk’s report in a comment to Fox News Digital on Tuesday.
“Representative Loudermilk has failed to discredit the work of the January 6th Select Committee. His so-called ‘report’ is filled with baseless, conclusory allegations rather than facts. That’s because there’s no escaping the reality that Donald Trump bears the responsibility for the deadly January 6th attack no matter how much Mr. Loudermilk would love to rewrite history for his political purposes,” he said.
The president-elect railed in an interview on NBC earlier this month that Cheney, Thompson and others on the J6 committee “deleted and destroyed” evidence related to the investigation and “should go to jail.”
“Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps,” he said in the interview. “They deleted and destroyed all evidence.”
“And Cheney was behind it. And so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee,” he continued. “For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail.”
President-elect Trump meets with Prince William at the Embassy of the United Kingdom’s Residence on Dec. 7, 2024, in Paris. (Oleg Nikishin/Getty Images)
Trump’s claims of the committee allegedly “deleting” evidence was supported by a previous report released by Loudermilk earlier this year claiming the select committee “deleted” records and hired “Hollywood producers” to promote a political narrative while investigating Jan. 6.
The report released Tuesday found that the Jan. 6 committee failed to archive “as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts,” despite a process for committee chairs to properly archive data, including interviews.
Liz Cheney lost support from many Republicans for her role in the House Jan. 6 Select Committee investigation. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
“As part of its investigation, the Subcommittee learned that the Select Committee failed to archive or provide the Subcommittee with any of its video recordings of witness interviews, as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts, more than one terabyte of digital data. Concerningly, of the documents that were archived, the Select Committee delivered more than 100 encrypted, password protected documents and never provided the passwords. It is unclear why the Select Committee chose only those documents to be shielded by password,” the report found.
The Jan. 6 committee, the report found, failed to archive more than “one terabyte of digital data” after Thompson reported archiving more than four terabytes of data in a July 2022 letter. The subcommittee ultimately received less than three terabytes of digital data.
“One terabyte of data is equivalent to 6.5 million document pages such as PDFs or office files, 500 hours of high definition video, or 250,000 photos,” the report noted.
Thompson previously denied the claims of deleting evidence in a July 2023 letter to Loudermilk, detailing that the committee had called on the federal government regarding the “proper archiving of such sensitive material to protect witnesses’ safety, national security, and to safeguard law enforcement operations.”
Thompson provided three “facts” in response to the report Tuesday in comment to Fox Digital.
“Here are the facts: (1) The Select Committee was properly constituted, as every court that heard challenges found. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro would not have gone to prison for contempt of Congress had there been a legitimate issue. Not even the Republican-controlled Supreme Court stayed their sentences, despite Mr. Loudermilk’s entreaties. (2) The Select Committee followed all House Rules, and it did not withhold or destroy any record that was required to be archived. Moreover, every record the Select Committee had was turned over to the Department of Justice, which was in turn provided to the former President’s defense team through the discovery process during his criminal proceedings. Most of those records are publicly available through the Government Publishing Office’s online repository,” he said.
“(3) The Members of the Select Committee and the witnesses who came before us – who were mainly Republicans from the Trump administration – acted honorably and out of patriotic duty to the Constitution. The Select Committee’s Final Report was not based on any single witness’s testimony, and it painted a damning picture of the former President’s dereliction of duty. That work stands on its own.”
Vice President Kamala Harris campaigned with former Rep. Liz Cheney in Malvern, Pennsylvania, Oct. 21, 2024. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
Thompson added that Loudermilk failed to “to find a single valid problem with the Select Committee’s work,” that reflects what he said is an “inescapable conclusion.”
“Donald Trump orchestrated a multi-part conspiracy that attempted to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 Presidential election by summoning a mob to Washington to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history,” he said.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tapped Loudermilk to investigate both the Jan. 6 incident itself and the Jan. 6 House Select Committee’s report on the Capitol breach in January 2023.
“Over the past twenty-four months of this investigation, my subcommittee staff have faced incredible obstacles in pursuit of the truth; missing and deleted documents, hidden evidence, unaccounted for video footage, and uncooperative bureaucrats. At one point, the work of the subcommittee was completely halted due to the removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker, and subsequently faced internal efforts to derail the investigation. However, our team persevered through the delays; and, when Mike Johnson took the gavel as Speaker of the House, he allocated even more resources to our investigation and committed to more transparency for the American people,” Loudermilk wrote in a letter to colleagues accompanying the report.
The shooting at the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, immediately prompted renewed calls for gun control from President Joe Biden and others. As I have previously written, these calls often appear entirely disconnected from the actual crime or the constitutional protections afforded gun owners, including President Biden demanding a ban on assault weapons after a shooting with a handgun.
President Biden’s call for greater background checks and enforcement was a bit incongruous after he pardoned his own son on gun charges. More importantly, the Wisconsin case only highlighted why these standard demands for gun control would not have impacted that case.
This was a juvenile who is believed to have used a 9mm handgun in the attack. Natalie Rupnow, 15, was not supposed to have a gun and would not have gone through background checks. While both Biden and Kamala Harris have raised limiting or banning the popular 9mm, Harris admits that she is one of millions with the weapon and it would not be subject to any of these proposals.
The president once again denounced the availability of what he collectively calls “assault weapons,” a common reference to such popular models as the AR-15. Efforts to ban this model have already failed in the courts on constitutional grounds, though litigation is continuing on that issue.
In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
That is why laws to ban or curtail sales of the AR-15 run into constitutional barriers. Even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a California ban on adults under 21 purchasing semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15.
These calls for greater gun controls remain either factually ambiguous or legally dubious. For example, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe declared after the Wisconsin shooting that it is time to “change the context of gun ownership.” While admitting that he did not know all of the facts, McCabe said:
We’re [going] nowhere because it keeps happening. We know it’s going to happen again. It’s happening today. It’s going to happen again in the near future. I can guarantee you that and every time it happens, we do just about nothing. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things we can’t do. We could do things. We could — we could support and enact legislation that changes the — the — the context of gun ownership in this country and emphasizes gun safety and responsibility with the firearms that you own and keeping them out of the hands of children and doing — and really vigorous, consistent background checks across the country. We could stop selling people — stop — you — eliminate the ability to purchase guns without a background check.
It is unclear what “changing the context” means, particularly when the context is first and foremost constitutional.
Likewise, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) called for his House colleagues to “stand up to gun manufacturers” but stopped short of explaining what that would actually mean:
Thoughts and prayers without action means more school shootings, more dead kids.
More ACTION is needed by our elected officials.
And more BACKBONE to stand up to gun manufacturers.
This is uniquely a United States problem that doesn't have to happen.
Pocan has previously called for “common sense” laws without tackling the more difficult question of how to produce the sweeping changes given the narrow scope of constitutional limits for an individual right.
Wisconsin has robust gun control laws that did not prevent this shooting because Rupnow was not subject to the background checks and other regulations. She was not supposed to have the weapon and 9mm is not one of the guns that Democrats are calling to ban.
None of this means that people of good faith should not work on new initiatives and measures to combat gun violence. However, politicians like President Biden have misled the public for years about the narrow range of constitutional options for gun control legislation. The suggestion is that “this did not have to happen” despite the fact that none of these proposals would have stopped this from happening.
In a tragedy of this magnitude, our leaders have a duty, first and foremost, of honesty in speaking with the public.
Wisconsin’s capital city is in shock after a 15-year-old girl pulled out a 9mm pistol Monday morning and shot up her study hall, killing a teacher and a fellow student at the Christian school she attended before turning the weapon on herself and ending her life, Madison Police confirmed.
Natalie Rupnow injured six others, including two students with life-threatening wounds and a teacher and three other students who suffered non-life-threatening injuries in the attack on Madison’s Abundant Life Christian School, according to police.
While Madison Police Chief Shon Barnes wasn’t commenting on motive Monday evening, an unidentified law enforcement source told the Associated Press that the shooter “had been dealing with problems and expressed some of those in writings,” CNN reported. There were reports that Rupnow, who police say liked to go by “Samantha,” had penned a manifesto, although Barnes said police had yet to verify the authenticity of the document. “The good news,” the chief said, is that Madison police have shared the information with its partners at the FBI.
There’s no doubt the suspected killer was disturbed, as evidenced by her violent outburst at the K-12 private school with a mission “to develop students who are committed disciples of Jesus Christ through an excellent, comprehensive, Biblically-integrated educational program.”
She planned the attack in advance, a “law enforcement official familiar with the investigation” told CNN.
‘I Don’t Think That’s Important’
There was speculation Monday that the shooter was transgender, although other sources disputed the claim. Some said she had an “online obsession with school shooters.”
Barnes insisted that he doesn’t care whether Rupnow was transgender, as some reports indicated. It’s not important, he said, when asked by a leftist reporter about “misinformation” online. The Madison journalist effectively wagged her finger at parental rights group for claiming the shooter was transgender, “which is a reaction that we see across the country linked with mass shootings to claim that trans people are dangerous.”
Barnes, a far-left police chief in one of the most LGBTQ agenda-pushing cities in America, said he wished people would “leave their own personal biases out of this.”
“I don’t know whether Natalie was transgender or not and quite frankly I don’t think that’s even important. I don’t think that’s important at all,” the chief told reporters at an evening press conference. “I don’t think that whatever happened today has anything to do with how she or he or they may have wanted to identify …”
Barnes subsequently acknowledged that Rupnow’s gender identity “is something that may come out later.”
While investigators continue to search for answers, the transgender question could prove to be very important. Just ask the families at Nashville’s Covenant School.
‘It is Vitally Important’
In March 2023, a 28-year-old woman who identified as a transgender man stormed into the private Christian elementary school and murdered three third-graders and three staff members before Metro Nashville Police officers fatally shot the killer.
Michael Patrick Leahy, CEO and editor-in-chief of Star News Digital Media, has been seeking the release of the Covenant killer’s manifesto for a year and a half. He’s a plaintiff in a lawsuit demanding the police department turn over the shooter’s voluminous writings. Leahy’s flagship publication, the Tennessee Star, has obtained and published dozens of pages of the writings, screeds that offer a glimpse into the twisted mind of a mass shooter.
“We clearly have a huge mental health problem with young people in America today,” Leahy told The Federalist Monday night in a phone interview. “It is very clear that the killer in Nashville suffered severe mental health problems and had in fact been treated for psychiatric difficulties for 22 years. Now, the reports indicate that a 15-year-old girl is responsible for the heinous murders today at a Christian school in Madison, Wis. She purportedly left behind a manifesto, according to some sources.”
“It is vitally important that these documents left behind by young mass murderers be released to the public so that we can understand the deep problems of mental illness that drove them to these actions, so that we can prevent such terrible crimes in the future,” Leahy added.
As the Tennessee Star has reported, the FBI hastily acts to thwart the release of such documents. In the Covenant killer case, the federal agency sent a memo to the Nashville PD “strongly” discouraging the disclosure of so-called “legacy tokens” left behind by mass shooters. The memo was sent just two days after Star News Digital Media filed a federal lawsuit against the FBI demanding the agency release the trans killer’s writings. As former national political editor at the Star News Network, I, too, am a plaintiff in that lawsuit, plodding in federal court for the better part of two years.
The memo explains that mass shooters “often leave behind items [memory tokens] to claim credit for the attack and/or articulate the motivation behind it.” The 90 pages the Tennessee Star published include a wealth of insight from a severely mentally ill 28-year-old woman who identified as a male named Aidan.
As the Star reported, the FBI recommended withholding such items from the public, citing concerns about “conspiracy theories,” copycat attacks, and advancing “the false narrative that the majority of attackers are mentally ill.”
“The FBI also raised the ‘existing precedent’ for the destruction of ‘legacy tokens,’ noting ‘the decision to destroy the ‘Basement Tapes’ produced by the offenders of the Columbine High School attack,’” the publication reported.
Leahy notes the memo also argues that releasing manifestos and other legacy tokens could have negative impacts on “certain vulnerable communities.” The Biden administration has joined LGBT activists in painting the trans population as under the constant threat of violence.
Madison’s police chief on Monday repeatedly thanked the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for their quick response and assistance at the Christian school.
“In this instance it appears to me the FBI may have done the same thing in Madison that they did in Nashville in 2023, that is swoop in and take control of information and refuse to release it,” Leahy said.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
At least two people were killed, and six others were injured in a school shooting in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, with police saying the suspected shooter was found dead at the scene. During an update Monday afternoon, Madison Police Chief Shon Barnes said a teacher and a teen student were killed. Barnes added that two students are also in critical condition, with life-threatening injuries.
A handgun was used by the shooter and the shooting was confined to one space, Barnes said. A motive for the shooting has yet to be determined.
Emergency vehicles are parked outside the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where multiple injuries were reported following a shooting on Monday, Dec. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Scott Bauer)
“Every child, every person in that building is a victim and will be a victim forever. We need to figure out and try to piece together what exactly happened,” Barnes said.
Barnes added that the shooter’s family was cooperating with police.
He said he did not believe that the school, which serves 200 students according to the school’s website, had a resource officer.
Police say that they train for active shooter situations “almost quarterly,” and that they had most recently conducted the training roughly two weeks ago.
At roughly 10:57 am local time, police responded to reports of an active shooter at the Abundant Life Christian School. They identified a “juvenile” deceased at the scene who they believe was responsible for the shooting. They are encouraging local residents to avoid the area.
Emergency vehicles are staged outside the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wis., where multiple injuries were reported following a shooting, Monday, Dec. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)
Barnes said officers did not fire their weapons when responding to the scene.
“This is something you prepare for, but that you hope you never have to do,” a police spokesman told reporters. “Today is a sad, sad day.”
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers ordered the flags of the United States and the state of Wisconsin to half-staff across the state immediately until sunset on Sun., Dec. 22, 2024
“There are no words to describe the devastation and heartbreak we feel today after the school shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison this morning,” Evers said in a statement.
“As a father, a grandfather, and as governor, it is unthinkable that a kid or an educator might wake up and go to school one morning and never come home. This should never happen, and I will never accept this as a foregone reality or stop working to change it.”
My full statement on the school shooting at Abundant Life Christian School today in Madison.
I'm directing flags across the state to be immediately lowered to half-staff as we honor those whose lives were senselessly taken in this tragedy. pic.twitter.com/HYIjVYcqaF
Police said this remains an active and ongoing investigation and more information will be released as it is available.
“We currently need people to avoid the area,” police added.
Students have been fully evacuated from the school, and police have conducted multiple clears of the building. Barnes said they were conducting a third check using bomb-sniffing dogs “just in case.”
Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wis., where multiple injuries and deaths were reported following a shooting, Monday, Dec. 16, 2024. (Google Maps)
Police say they set up a unification center for students and parents immediately following the shooting.
The school also acknowledged the shooting in a post on Facebook, requesting prayers from the community.
“Prayers Requested! Today, we had an active shooter incident at ALCS. We are in the midst of following up. We will share information as we are able. Please pray for our Challenger Family,” the school wrote.
Emergency vehicles are parked outside the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where multiple injuries were reported following a shooting on Monday, Dec. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Scott Bauer)
A former student of the school, Aaron Nienaber, told Fox News Digital that he attended high school at Abundant Life Christian from 2000 to 2004 and was shocked and saddened to see this happen at a place he cherished.
“It’s very sad to see this happening at a place where I have so many fond memories with the students and faculty and especially playing on the sports teams. This is not something that anyone would have ever seen coming at this small tight-knit school and community,” Nienaber said.
The FBI’s Milwaukee bureau says it has deployed agents to the scene to assist in investigating.
The White House has also confirmed that President Biden has been briefed on the shooting.
Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.
In the aftermath of the contentious Supreme Court arguments in United States v. Skrmetti over state bans on puberty blockers and gender-altering surgeries, the United Kingdom reaffirmed that it finds the risks far outweigh the benefits of such treatments for minors under the currently available scientific evidence. The move by the liberal Labour Party stands in sharp contrast with the portrayal of the Biden Administration and the treatment of the subject by the liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was widely criticized for analogizing puberty-blocking drugs to taking aspirin. It appears that doctors in the UK are not ready to tell minors to just “take two puberty blockers and call me in the morning.”
UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting said last week, “Children’s health care must always be evidence-led. The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people.”
The decision follows the release of the Cass Review, which was raised by the conservative justices as contradicting the factual representations of the Biden Administration, even leading Justice Samuel Alito to suggest that Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and the government might not have fulfilled their duty of candor to the tribunal. He noted that the Cass study found scant evidence that the benefits of transgender treatment are greater than the risks. He then delivered the haymaker: “I wonder if you would like to stand by the statement in your position or if you think it would now be appropriate to modify that and withdraw your statement.”
🔥🔥🔥Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito presses Elizabeth Prelogar on the experimental nature of "gender-affirming care."
Streeting cited significant doubts about the benefits of puberty blockers while noting the “significant risks” to children.
The government will allow puberty blockers to be administered to children in clinical trials. It is not clear if the Supreme Court will take “judicial notice” of the new decision, but it can.
In fairness to Sotomayor, she was trying to argue that all treatments have risks in making her aspirin analogy. Yet, the comment was taken as trivializing the alleged harm and trauma raised by many in this debate. These studies clearly show greater risks than those associated with aspirin. However, what the Biden Administration was arguing (and the liberal justices were seemingly supporting) is that states would be barred by the Court from reaching the same conclusion as the UK and other countries. Indeed, Streeting echoed what the states argued to the Supreme Court that the government must “act with caution and care when it comes to this vulnerable group of young people, and follow the expert advice.”
Almost twenty years ago, the country was outraged by allegations of an African-American stripper that she was hired and then gang raped by white Duke Lacrosse players. The story followed an all-too-familiar pattern. The media, professors, and pundits immediately treated the allegations as true and declared the crime as a manifestation of our racist society. Many demanded immediate suspensions of all of the students as the racial and class conflicts were emphasized in the media. As I wrote previously, Duke University joined the mob against its own students and discarded any semblance of due process or fairness. Now, the accuser Crystal Mangum has admitted that she made the whole thing up in an interview on the independent media outlet “Let’s Talk with Kat.” The problem is that little was likely learned in higher education from the experience.
The students found themselves in a nightmare as the media flash mob formed to call for their punishment. They were arrested and subject to the unethical and unprofessional treatment of former Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong. Nifong pandered to the press and the community in public speeches despite criticism from some of us that he was fueling the rage against the students despite serious questions over this account. He declared publicly:
“The information that I have does lead me to conclude that a rape did occur. The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so.”
From the outset, there were obvious problems with the account, including a lack of supporting forensic evidence that would ordinarily be found at the scene.
Nifong was later disbarred for his misconduct, including withholding exculpatory evidence. Even after the allegation was shown to be a hoax, former North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper took the easy way out and declined to charge Mangum despite her ruining the lives of these students. She was later arrested and convicted of murdering her boyfriend.
Now, Mangum is admitting, “I testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn’t, and that was wrong, and I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people who believed in me…[I] made up a story that wasn’t true because I wanted validation from people and not from God.”
It is heartening to see Mangum come to grips with what she did and ask for forgiveness. However, there remains a lack of such remorse from many in the press and higher education who helped lead this mob against these students. Years later, many continued to resist efforts to afford due process protections to those accused in higher education.
The media followed its usual pattern of dispensing with countervailing facts to fuel the racial elements or play up the class differences. Nancy Grace declared, “I’m so glad they didn’t miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!”
Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, who praised Nifong’s handling of the case, said publicly that “I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.”
Feminist and journalist Amanda Marcotte writes for publications such as Salon and Slate. She captured the blind rage even after ethics charges were raised against Nifong, stating:
“I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f**king god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Marcotte later deleted the statement and criticized Nifong.
The greatest unfairness to these students came not from such extreme voices but mainstream media, which showed little interest or comfort in exploring contradictions and gaps in the account.
As is often the case, the hoax was later revealed and there was a collective shrug from most in the media as we await the next cathartic case or controversy.
Although Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined the FBI did not deploy undercover agents at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, he did reveal the agency had 26 confidential human sources from various field offices in Washington, D.C., that day.
Horowitz’s assessment was disclosed in a report released Thursday on the FBI’s handling of confidential human sources and intelligence gathering in the lead-up to Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump. Horowitz wrote that three of the 26 confidential human sources were tasked by FBI field offices before Jan. 6 “to report on domestic terrorism subjects who were possibly attending the event.”
He wrote one was tasked “to report on the activities of a predicated domestic terrorism subject who was separately planning to travel to D.C.” for the election certification vote; another was “to potentially report” on two domestic terrorism subjects from another FBI field office who were planning to travel to D.C. that day; and a third who informed their handling agent they intended to travel to D.C. on their own initiative and who then was tasked “to potentially report” on two domestic terrorism subjects identified by other FBI field offices who were planning to travel to D.C. that day.
He added none of the three was authorized “to enter the Capitol or a restricted area, or to otherwise break the law on Jan. 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on Jan. 6.”
Of the 26, Horowitz wrote four entered the Capitol during the riot, an additional 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol — a security perimeter established in preparation for the certification vote — and nine neither entered a restricted area nor entered the Capitol or otherwise engaged in illegal activity.
“None of the CHSs who entered the Capitol, or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date,” Horowitz wrote. “The WFO [FBI Washington Field Office] did not know that a total of 26 CHSs would be in D.C. for the events of January 6 because only 4 field offices had informed the WFO or FBI Headquarters that CHSs under the relevant field office’s jurisdiction — 5 CHSs in total — would be traveling to D.C. on January 6.”
Horowitz determined many of the CHSs provided information relevant to the certification vote before Jan. 6 “and that a few CHSs also provided information about the riot as it occurred.”
“In addition, FBI field offices collected CHS reporting relevant to the January 6 Electoral Certification from CHSs who did not travel to D.C. for the event,” Horowitz wrote.
The report revealed among the information CHSs provided to their handling agents was that “extremist members of the Oath Keepers or other groups may become involved in unplanned violent activity on January 6”; that the number of Oath Keepers headed to D.C. “is 200+ strong”; travel plans being discussed by the Proud Boys; an individual purporting to be the leader of a group that had “500 people willing to storm the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. on January 6th”; and concerns for the safety of members of Congress on Jan. 6.
Horowitz’s report referred to the Oath Keepers as “a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias.” It said the Proud Boys “describes itself as a ‘pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.'”
Below is my column in the New York Post on the news reports that outgoing Rep. Susan Wild (D. Pa.) was the person who violated the rules (and oath) of the House Ethics Committee and leaked information to the media this month. The information concerned the investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.). Wild embodies the collapsing ethical foundation of the Democratic Party as members struggle to justify the Biden pardon.
Here is the slightly expanded column:
“You must be wary of those seeking to use their influence and their expertise to wrongful ends.” Those words were spoken at the George Washington Law School commencement ceremony two years ago by the recently defeated Rep. Susan Wild (D., Pa.).
This week, the words took on a new meaning after Wild was accused of leaking information from the House Ethics Committee. Wild embodies a party that is in an ethical and political free fall this month. If news reports are accurate, Wild appears to have given our students a curious ethical lesson in how not to be a lawyer or legislator.
Wild was fighting to release the report of the investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.). When Gaetz decided to withdraw from Congress, the report was not released. That is when details from the committee were leaked to the media, and the press reported that “two sources said Wild ultimately acknowledged to the panel that she had leaked information.”
Keep in mind that this is the House Ethics Committee, and she is a member. She is also a member of Congress who took an oath as part of the panel’s rules that “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information received in the course of my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with its rules.”
Wild herself has not publicly confirmed or denied the alleged leaking of the information. If the reports are true, Wild knowingly violated an oath that she took not to release information from the Ethics Committee because she was unhappy with losing votes on the release of information.
Her office seems to have shrugged off media inquiries. As in the past controversy, Wild has avoided public comment on the report that she was the leaker.
This controversy speaks to more than one unethical former representative. This month, we have seen Democrats line up to support one of the most unethical and abusive uses of presidential pardon power in history. President Biden not only pardoned his son but pardoned him for any crimes over a decade, including some that many felt implicated President Biden himself.
The President issued the pardon after repeatedly lying to the public when he was a candidate that he would never do so. In the previous election, Biden lied to the public about not having met Hunter Biden’s clients or having knowledge of his dealings in the influence-peddling scandal.
Biden’s lack of ethics surprised no one. However, even today, the support that he received from Democratic leaders over the pardon has been shocking. Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate majority whip, even called it a “labor of love.” Indeed, much of the corruption in Washington is a labor of love, from nepotism to influence peddling to corrupt pardons. Indeed, faced with overwhelming opposition of the public to the Biden pardon, Democratic members look like the comical choreography of “Prisoners of Love” from the movie The Producers. (“Oh, you can lock us up and lose the key; But hearts in love are always free!”).
The distorted view of ethics in the Democratic Party was vividly on display during an embarrassing moment recently at the White House when Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed that a poll showed “64% of the American people agree with the pardon — 64% of the American people. So, we get a sense of where the American people are on this.” That poll actually showed the majority of Americans opposed the pardon. Yet, it was 64 percent of Democrats who favored a president giving his own son a pardon. It is all about the ends rather than the means in today’s politics of rage.
The 2022 words of Wild were particularly poignant because they were used as part of a false attack made by Wild at my own school. In a speech to the law students on living an ethical life as a lawyer, Wild accused me of testifying falsely in the Trump impeachment that only criminal acts are impeachable after saying the opposite in my testimony in the Clinton impeachment. The only problem is that Wild’s statement was demonstrably and undeniably false. I testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachments that an impeachable offense need not be an actual crime. Ironically, Wild’s own Democratic colleagues and later the House managers in the Senate Trump trial repeatedly cited my testimony on that very point.
None of this matters in the Wild world of Democratic ethics. It is very simple. Whatever Democrats are attempting cannot be “wrongful ends.” More importantly, it is the ends, not the means, that are the measure of ethics. Since they are only fighting for what is right, the ends justify the means from cleansing ballots of Republicans (including Trump) to supporting a massive censorship system to ignoring court decisions to count invalid votes. It is the same sense of ethics that led someone at the Supreme Court to leak a draft of the Dobbs decision. Even though the leak shattered court ethical rules and traditions, the leaker was lionized by many on the left.
For years, the “by any means necessary” wing has dominated the Democratic Party. Ironically, the collapsing of the party’s credibility with the public has left little to show beyond a litany of unethical means used to achieve unrealized ends.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president the authority to pardon offenses against the United States, a power intended to provide fairness and avoid prosecutorial abuses. Alexander Hamilton envisioned this clemency as a tool to “restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.” But in the hands of Joe Biden, the pardon power looks less like a tool for justice and more like a sledgehammer wielded to shield a crumbling empire of corruption.
Biden’s recent pardon of his son Hunter has spotlighted the blatant hypocrisy of the Left’s use of clemency. After years of moral grandstanding, claiming the high road on justice and accountability, Democrats are now orchestrating mass pardons to shield themselves from the fallout of their own malfeasance.
Pardons as Preemptive Damage Control
During Trump’s presidency, Democrats practically dared him to issue preemptive pardons for his family, projecting their own propensity for guilt on the former president. When Trump pardoned Jared Kushner’s father, the media spun it as though he had pardoned Kushner himself. That narrative stuck, fueling the perception of Trump as corrupt, even as his actual record on pardons tells a different story.
Trump, notably, did not pardon his children or any close associates preemptively or otherwise. Why? Because they weren’t guilty of anything. Contrast that with Biden, whose pardons aren’t just reactive—they’re preemptive damage control for an administration rife with misconduct.
Leaks suggest Biden is for a laundry list of allies, including Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, and members of the January 6th Committee. These aren’t minor players; they are key figures in the systemic abuse of power targeting Donald Trump and his supporters. The January 6th Committee alone violated so many laws it could be a semester-long case study at any law school.
Then there’s Fauci. A pardon for Fauci essentially extends to the entire health bureaucracy—NIH, FDA, CDC—that oversaw the disastrous COVID-19 policies. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, suppression of dissent, and the mishandling of public trust—it’s no wonder Biden would want to sweep this under the rug.
A Record-Breaking Abuse of Power
Historically, presidents have used pardons sparingly, often to right specific wrongs. Franklin D. Roosevelt holds the record with 2,819 pardons and 3,796 total acts of clemency, largely for people convicted under Prohibition laws. Barack Obama granted 1,927 acts of clemency, including a controversial commutation for Chelsea Manning.
But Biden’s pardon spree could make FDR’s record look modest. Biden’s administration isn’t dealing with isolated cases of injustice—it’s mopping up the collateral damage from years of systemic corruption.
Consider the scope:
The FBI: With over 37,000 employees, including 10,000 special agents, the agency’s involvement in targeting Trump and MAGA supporters is well-documented.
The CIA and NSA: These agencies, with a combined workforce exceeding 50,000, played their parts in surveillance and misinformation campaigns.
IRS and FISA Courts: From targeting conservative groups to enabling dubious investigations, their roles can’t be ignored.
Biden’s pardons could easily extend to thousands of individuals across these institutions, creating a tsunami of public outrage. This isn’t about restoring tranquility; it’s about cementing a legacy of corruption while protecting a broken system.
Democrats: Masters of Projection
The hypocrisy is staggering. Democrats who lambasted Trump for imagined abuses of power are now actively orchestrating the largest clemency cover-up in history. When Joy Reid and Adam Schiff criticized the idea of preemptive pardons, they framed it as an admission of guilt. Yet here we are, watching Biden prepare to issue blanket pardons to his political allies without a shred of irony.
Biden is now considering preemptive pardons, including one for Adam Schiff.
That makes this clip one of the best ever. 🤣
December, 2020. Joy Reid and Adam Schiff discuss family member and preemptive pardons. 🤪 pic.twitter.com/9oorNUFT79
Hunter Biden’s pardon set the tone: a sweeping, decade-long absolution for crimes ranging from tax evasion to illegal firearm possession. The message? Rules are for the little people.
Trump: A Study in Contrast
Trump’s approach to pardons highlights the glaring differences between the two administrations. While Biden’s pardons shield the guilty, Trumps were measured and purposeful. Trump used his clemency power to address specific injustices, such as Alice Johnson’s over-sentencing or the persecution of Michael Flynn. More importantly, Trump didn’t shield himself or his family. His restraint underscores the integrity of his administration compared to the flagrant abuses we’re witnessing now.
Rebuilding Trust in Justice
Biden’s pardon spree will leave a lasting stain on America’s institutions. But it also presents an opportunity for renewal. When Trump returns to office, he will face the monumental task of rebuilding trust in law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This starts with accountability. Anyone receiving a Biden pardon should be immediately dismissed from public service. A pardon may erase legal culpability, but it doesn’t absolve moral or professional failure. The system must be purged of those who abused their positions for political gain.
Restoring faith in justice won’t be easy, but it’s essential. Americans need to believe that no one—not even the president—is above the law.
The Firestorm to Come
Biden’s mass pardons will ignite a firestorm in the American psyche. The fallout will resonate for decades, exposing the depth of corruption in our government. But it also serves as a rallying cry for reform.
The Left’s strategy of weaponizing clemency to protect their own has backfired. Instead of tranquility, they’ve sown chaos. And as the dust settles, what America will see is the scattered carcasses of Democrats who participated in this farce.
Justice must prevail, not as an act of revenge, but as a restoration of the principles that made this nation great.
Contrary to what corporate media want you to believe, President Donald Trump’s decision to name Kashyap “Kash” Patel as his choice to replace current FBI Director Christopher Wray is a good one — perhaps one of the best he could have made.
When Trump announced over Thanksgiving weekend that Patel was his pick to “bring back Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity to the FBI,” journos lost their minds. Some outlets framed Trump’s choice as frowned upon by the president’s aides and Republican legislators. Others publishedlists of bureaucrats who they claimed could fall prey to “Patel’s crosshairs.”for partisan reasons. Those did not compare to the hordes of corporate media coverage dedicated to tarnishing Patel and quashing his nomination.
Even before the election, the Associated Press painted Patel as a conspiracy theorist while noting how he was “poised to help lead a Trump administration.” Shortly after Trump made it official, MSNBC claimed that “Kash Patel could be Trump’s most dangerous pick yet.” The New York Times took it further by besmirching the pick as “concretely dangerous.”
In the NYT article lead, the author deems Patel “supremely unqualified to direct the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.” He warns that if Patel takes over, his “directorship would probably corrupt and bend the institution for decades, even if he served only a few years.”
“He wants to bend and break the bureau and weaponize it against those he sees as his political enemies and domestic critics,” the article continues, without mentioning how the FBI under Christopher Wray has done exactly that.
These descriptions of Patel suggest Trump pulled a random guy off the street to weaponize the agency on his behalf. In reality, Patel is familiar with both the bureaucracy and intelligence agencies, having worked as a U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor, the U.S. Secretary of Defense’s chief of staff, a U.S. National Security Council official, and principal deputy to the acting Director of National Intelligence. Most importantly, Patel had a front-row seat to the deep state’s ploy, aided heavily by the propaganda press, to overthrow Trump when he served as a senior aide to former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes. Patel and Nunes’ efforts to blow open the Russia collusion hoax made them victims of the DOJ’s spying and targets of a years-long corporate media smear campaign. Patel even sued multiple outlets and reporters, including the NYT, for smearing him as a criminal who acted as a “Ukraine Back Channel” for the Trump White House.
The problem with the NYT article and every other outlet fearmongering about Patel’s nomination is they refuse to acknowledge that the FBI is already corrupt to its core and weaponized beyond belief. Polling indicates that more than half of the nation, 63 percent, want to see the FBI reformed or “shut down” and “rebuilt from scratch.”
Naming another deep-state swamp creature like Wray to run the FBI would guarantee that would never happen. Nominating someone like Patel, who promises to make ridding our constitutional Republic of the people trying to destroy it priority number one, however, puts the Trump administration in a much better position to accomplish those goals.
As Patel noted in his 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference speech, he saw firsthand how the “government gangsters” in the DOJ, DOD, and FBI are “crippling” the nation by weaponizing themselves against Americans. He told The Federalist last year, after corporate media accused him of trying to “target journalists for prosecution,” that a second Trump administration would have no choice but to address the corruption swiftly and effectively.
“We’ve been saying the DOJ and FBI need [to] be fixed. We’ve been saying prosecutors and judges shouldn’t weaponize justice. We’ve been saying you shouldn’t leak information for media to rig political elections and curry favor with the American electorate. We’ve been saying it the whole time and we’ve been saying anyone that breaks the law in doing those things … should be prosecuted, whether it’s government officials, civilians, and the media,” Patel said. “Our position has never changed. We’ve been saying to use and restore the Constitution, to follow and enforce the rule of law, not to violate it. That’s what they do.”
The only reason the propaganda press oppose Patel as Trump’s FBI pick is because he is a threat to their ability to continue colluding with the deep state to advance their partisan agenda. Every new article or TV segment corporate media outlets devote to complaining and criticizing Patel’s nomination proves to the Trump team that he is the perfect man for the job.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
Experts say President Joe Biden’s sweeping pardon of son Hunter looks like the one Gerald Ford gave Richard Nixon in 1974. Ford, sworn in after Nixon resigned amid the Watergate scandal, granted a “full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed.” Ford noted in his remarks that the pardon reflected his presidential responsibilities and personal beliefs.
The president on Monday pardoned his son, sparing the younger Biden a possible prison sentence for federal felony gun and tax convictions and reversing his past promises not to use the powers of the presidency for the benefit of his family. The president’s sweeping pardon covers not just the gun and tax offenses against the younger Biden, but also any other “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.”
Margaret Love, who served from 1990 to 1997 as the U.S. pardon attorney, told Politico that she had “never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently even been charged, with the exception of the Nixon pardon.‘
“Even the broadest Trump pardons were specific as to what was being pardoned.”
Samuel Morison, a lawyer focused on clemency who spent 13 years in the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, said the pardon “is an extraordinary broad grant.”
Solange Reyner is a writer and editor for Newsmax. She has more than 15 years in the journalism industry reporting and covering news, sports and politics.
Yesterday, I was notified by the Justice Department confirming that a recent swatting indictment includes the person or persons responsible for my own swatting a year ago. One of the defendants, Thomasz Szabo, was arrested a couple weeks ago.
The indictment below charges two foreign nationals: Thomasz Szabo, 26, of Romania, and Nemanja Radovanovic, 21, of Serbia.
Szabo and Radovanovic are each charged with one count of conspiracy, 29 counts of threats and false information regarding explosives, and four counts of transmitting threats in interstate and foreign commerce.
Their alleged conspiracy began as early as December 2020. It continued through January 2024, using personal identifying information, including home addresses, to falsely report emergencies to provoke a police response at the victim’s home. According to the Justice Department, they used various monikers to communicate. Szabo used “Jonah,” “Jonah Goldberg,” “Plank,” “Rambler,” “War Lord,” “Shovel,” “Cypher,” “Kollectivist,” “Mortenberg Shekelstorms,” and “NotThuggin2”. Radovanovic used “XBD31,” “XDR,” “Angus,” “Thuggin,” “Thug Hunter,” “NotThuggin,” “DCL,” and “AOD.”
The indictment alleges that their crimes encompassed 40 private victims and 61 official victims, including members of Congress, cabinet-level executive branch officials, and senior federal law enforcement officials. It also included four businesses, four religious institutions, and one victim university.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe is prosecuting the case. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771 (1), the indictment triggers ten rights for me and the other alleged victims, including the right to be heard at a hearing involving any plea, sentencing, or parole proceeding. I was given my own Victim Identification Number (VIN) and Personal Identification Number (PIN) under the CVRA for future communications.
I am grateful to the Justice Department and these cooperating U.S. and foreign offices for their work in finding the alleged culprits who swatted my home between Christmas and New Year’s in 2023.
Whatever the role politics may have played, or our current divisions, swatting constitutes a very serious crime that can result in lethal accidents and trauma for victims. It also pulls law enforcement resources away from real crimes. In my case, five or six officers were needlessly pulled from their other duties to respond to the call.
For some, these stories become irresistible opportunities to vent against the victims or even bizarre attacks on conservative legal theory. The liberal gotcha site, Above the Law, covered my swatting with the usual ad hominem attacks while adding a truly unhinged spin to the story. Senior Editor Joe Patrice (who has defended“predominantly liberal faculties” and not hiring conservative or libertarian law professors) insisted that swatting is somehow the fault of gun owners, Second Amendment advocates, and “edgy” police:
“Swatting is a byproduct of a nation awash in more and more powerful weapons and more and more edgy cops. And that makes these false police reports regrettably a manifestation of our age of failing to confront the disconnect between the text and history of the Second Amendment and the lazy ahistorical interpretation of this Supreme Court.”
Prosecutors notably did not include the conservative justices as co-conspirators with Szabo and Radovanovic.
This indictment is a valuable addition to deterring a crime that has become all too common. The fact that this investigation stretched to Hungary and Romania showed the extraordinary effort needed to make these arrests. The arrests are the result of an investigation that involved a global effort, including the U.S. Secret Service Washington Field Office and Criminal Investigative Division, the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Minneapolis Field Office, the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Secret Service’s Bucharest Resident Office, Miami Field Office, Syracuse Resident Office, Springfield Resident Office, the FBI’s Legat Office in Bucharest and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Washington, the District of South Dakota, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of New York.
As more such cases are prosecuted, it will hopefully shatter the sense of anonymity and impunity of such culprits. Once again, I am very thankful for the effort of all of these agencies in bringing this case.
NEW YORK – The defense has rested its case in Daniel Penny’s New York City manslaughter trial – after the final witness took the stand and revealed that Jordan Neely had an open bench warrant at the time of his death.
Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran and architecture student, grabbed the 30-year-old Neely in the middle of a schizophrenic, drug-fueled outburst on a subway car that witnesses said included death threats and had them fearing for their lives. Although Neely still had a pulse when Penny let go, he later died.
Brian Kemef, who works for the court clerk’s office, revealed that a warrant was issued for Neely on Feb. 23, 2023 – just weeks before his death in May of that year. Fox News Digital has previously reported Neely was a repeat offender whose violent history included other subway assaults.
Daniel Penny walks in the hallway of Manhattan Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 19, 2024. Penny, a Marine veteran, is charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the 2023 death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway train. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital)
Speaking without the jury present, Judge Maxwell Wiley separately flagged that he’d like to schedule a charging conference for Monday.
Penny did not take the stand, and his lawyers told reporters outside the courthouse that he didn’t have to after jurors got to see video of his NYPD interrogation.
Neely, who had health issues including schizophrenia and sickle cell trait and was a chronic abuser of synthetic marijuana, died due to exertion from the struggle and not because he’d been choked out, defense lawyers Thomas Kenniff and Steven Raiser argued.
The trial began Friday with a second day of testimony from Dr. Satish Chundru, a Texas forensic pathologist working for Penny’s defense. Contrary to the official autopsy report conducted by Dr. Cynthia Harris of the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office, Chundru testified that he does not believe a chokehold caused Neely’s death.
During a grueling cross-examination, Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Dafna Yoran grilled Dr. Chundru on the connection between sickle cell trait and death in other cases, prompting repeated objections from the defense.
At one point, Judge Maxwell Wiley cut her off and said, “we’re not doing that.” But the questioning continued through more objections before the court went to recess.
Dr. Satish Chundru leaves the courtroom during a recess in Daniel Penny’s New York City manslaughter trial at Manhattan Supreme Court in New York City on Thursday, Nov. 21, 2024. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital)
Before jurors returned, the defense argued that Yoran improperly brought up the term “homicide,” a misstep that happened earlier in the trial as well.
Wiley said he did not want to strike the back-and-forth. When the jury returned, he told them that “homicide” means something different to a medical examiner than it does to a lawyer or a jury and asked them not to weigh the witness’ use of that word when weighing facts of the case.
It was the second time that the word “homicide” came up controversially and prompted the defense to raise an objection. Earlier this week, Wiley ordered the first comment stricken, when Dr. Harris mentioned that “all homicide reports” were reviewed by another doctor in the city medical examiner’s office.
Not all homicides are criminal, and the defense argued that the prosecution’s repeated espousal of the word could confuse the jury. The defense asked the court to note for the record that they have had several conversations, and the DA’s office agreed that bringing up testimony from forensic pathologists regarding death as a “homicide” would be misleading to the jury.
The first time, it came from Dr. Harris. The second, the defense said Yoran said the word as part of her questioning. She denied it. The judge said he would review the transcript later and issue additional jury instructions if necessary.
Jordan Neely is pictured before going to see the Michael Jackson movie, “This is It,” outside the Regal Cinemas on 8th Avenue and 42nd Street in Times Square in New York City in 2009. (Andrew Savulich/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
While Penny’s team has maintained that his actions were justified, that’s not their only line of defense, according to Louis Gelormino, a New York City defense attorney who is closely following the case.
“One of the other defenses is, ‘Well, I didn’t kill him. My actions weren’t the cause of death,'” he told Fox News Digital Friday. “So yes, it doesn’t make a difference if it was justifiable. But if his actions weren’t justifiable, the jury could also say, ‘Hey, [his] actions didn’t kill him. He died because of the other things going on in his body.’ And that’s why that’s relevant.”
Chundru, a former Miami-area medical examiner who now runs a private practice in Texas conducting autopsies in a half-dozen counties, has testified that he did not believe an air choke caused Neely’s unconsciousness and, therefore, did not cause his death.
Rather, he blamed it on “the combined effects of sickle cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint, and the synthetic marijuana.”
Dr. Cynthia Harris arrives for Daniel Penny’s trial at the Manhattan Criminal Court building in New York City on Friday, Nov. 15, 2024. Penny, a Marine veteran, is charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the 2023 death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway train. (Adam Gray for Fox News Digital)
Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner and leading forensic pathologist, disagreed with Chundru’s testimony.
“Dr. Chundru’s testimony may have been very interesting, but it was wrong,” he told Fox News Digital. “He described what can happen in sickle cell disease, not what happens in sickle cell trait, which Neely had. Eight percent of Black people in this country have sickle trait, which is a benign medical condition that rarely causes any symptoms, let alone death.”
At the autopsy, Harris found significant “sickling” on Neely’s organs, she testified, and lawyers on both sides asked for an explanation. She said the condition did not contribute to Neely’s death, and she blamed it solely on asphyxiation from the chokehold.
“Sickle trait red blood cells do sickle after death, when the body’s oxygen supply disappears and can be seen at autopsy – as with Neely or with anyone with sickle trait dying from any condition,” Baden said. “It’s a post-mortem artifact like rigor mortis. Further, death from sickle disease takes days of sickling to occur; it can’t occur in seconds as happened to Neely.”
Screenshot from bystander video showing Jordan Neely being held in a chokehold on the New York City subway. (Luces de Nueva York/Juan Alberto Vazquez via Storyful)
However, he said, even if the chokehold caused Neely’s death, it is not up to the medical examiner to decide whether that was criminal.
“The individual circumstances are important as to whether the death could [or] should have been avoided, and whether the death should be prosecuted, which is entirely up to the prosecutor,” he said.
Penny faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted on the top charge of manslaughter. He also faces a charge of criminally negligent homicide. It was not immediately clear whether he would take the stand in his own defense, although some experts have suggested it is likely that he will because it is a self-defense case.
Law enforcement officers escort illegal alien Brandon Simosa following his robbery arrest Tuesday night. (Screenshot from the New York Post)
Around 2 a.m. Sunday, police said, Brandon Simosa robbed Bragg’s employee, a 38-year-old woman, in her apartment building on 44th Street, the New York Post first reported. Simosa, 25, fled with the woman’s smart phone and bank cards after she discovered him as he “performed a lewd act” in a hallway, WABC-TV/Channel 7 Eyewitness News reported. The man was masturbating, the Post reported.
Bragg is probably best known for his successful, high-profile prosecution of former President Donald Trump, now the president-elect, for falsifying business records before and after the 2016 election.
Simosa illegally crossed the southern border into Eagle Pass, Texas, in October 2023, the Post reported.
Police tracked the stolen phone to find and arrest Simosa on Tuesday night outside a hotel being used as a migrant shelter in Midtown Manhattan. He was using drugs and had stolen items with him when police located him, according to Eyewitness News. Charges against Simosa include sexually motivated robbery, grand larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property, the Post reported.
Cameras caught Simosa smirking Wednesday as authorities led him out of the New York Police Department’s Midtown South Precinct.
BREAKING: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's assistant robbed, attacked by an illegal immigrant with 5 arrests since 2023.
“This utterly unrepentant, smirking young thug is just one of thousands allowed in under the Biden administration’s open border and then encouraged to come to New York City by its blank checks for housing, income, health care, education, and other services Americans don’t get for free,” Simon Hankinson, a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told The Daily Signal.
Over 10 million illegal aliens have crossed the border into the U.S. during the Biden-Harris administration, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, has said that over 223,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in the Big Apple and “sought city services” since the spring of 2022.
“While living off the taxpayer, [illegal aliens] can rob and assault with little fear of timely prosecution, and they are usually let out on cashless bail,” Hankinson said.
Shortly after taking office at the beginning of 2022, Bragg, a Democrat, directed his prosecutors in a memo to seek jail time only in “very serious cases.” After receiving pushback from New Yorkers, Bragg revised his direction, telling prosecutors: “You were hired for your keen judgment, and I want you to use that judgment.”
Heritage Foundation legal fellows Cully Stimson and Zack Smith, authors of the book “Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities,” have accused Bragg of furthering “pro-criminal, anti-victim policies.”
Bragg’s office did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The district attorney in Georgia “who took the death penalty off the table for Laken Riley’s killer—another Tren de Aragua associate from Venezuela—was as woke as Alvin Bragg,” Hankinson said.
Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, was found dead Feb. 22 near a running trail in Athens, Georgia. Authorities said she died of blunt force trauma to the head and suffocation. A Georgia judge on Wednesday found illegal alien Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, guilty on all 10 counts in Riley’s bludgeoning death. Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard sentenced Ibarra, who had waived his right to a jury trial, to life in prison without parole.
Athens-Clarke District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez, a Democrat, appointed a special prosecutor to take on the Riley case but said her office wouldn’t seek the death penalty when prosecuting criminals.
In the Nov. 5 election Republican challenger Kalki Yalamanchili defeated Gonzalez by 60% to 40%, the Post reported.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the effort of Alvin Bragg to suspend the criminal case against President-Elect Donald Trump for almost five years. It would be a terrible choice for the court and for the country.
Here is the column:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed Tuesday to create a new constitutional creature: the layaway president. It was once common for stores to hold expensive items that you really wanted but could not make the payment. So, they were tagged and kept on the shelf until you were ready to redeem your item.
For Bragg, that leaves Donald Trump tagged until 2029.
In a filing before Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, Bragg suggested that the court should stay the pending criminal case and defer any sentencing “until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term.” That would allow a city prosecutor to put a leash on a sitting president for four years. Trump would govern by the grace of this local judge and district attorney. In the meantime, pundits and politicians could portray the president as free on a type of work release program.
The suggestion is appalling to most of the people in the country, including the majority of voters who voted for Trump. Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats ran on this and other cases in the election. The result was arguably the largest jury decision in history.
That being said, I do not believe that the mere election of a president negates jury verdicts on 34 criminal counts. But ample reasons exist to overturn those verdicts or to dismiss this case. For example, after the verdict, the Supreme Court rendered its immunity decision barring the use of certain evidence against a president. Some of the evidence used in the Manhattan case likely fell within one of the protected categories. The prosecutors not only elicited testimony from Trump aides in the White House but then doubled down on the significance of that evidence in their closing arguments. Merchan could declare that the court cannot rule out the impact of such testimony on the final verdict.
Even if Merchan, as expected, does not dismiss the case on the basis for the immunity decision, the trial was rife with reversible error. This was a raw exercise of lawfare, and Merchan did little to ensure fairness toward the defendant. Yet none of those errors can be likely addressed until Merchan reaches final decisions on the motion to dismiss as well as the sentencing question.
While that will mean that Trump could, upon possible sentencing, formally become a convicted felon, the matter can then be finally pried out of the hands of Merchan and taken to higher courts for review. The worst possible option is the one suggested by Bragg, who would adopt the popular persona of Trump’s turnkey.
The President would be seen by many as governing on a type of conditional status from one of the most politically compromised prosecutors in the country. For Bragg and other Trump opponents, that may be far more satisfying than a sentencing now given the unlikelihood of any jail component.
After the years and millions spent on the case, it would be the ultimate buzz kill to have Trump sentenced to some fine or other non-carceral penalty. Many Democrats want to have Trump govern with an asterisk of a “President pending sentencing.” Instead, Trump would govern with the clock ticking toward a sentencing date.
It is a dangerous precedent. Such pending sentences can have a coercive impact on a president in dealing with given officials, including a state governor who might be willing to pardon a president.
Consider the effort of the governor of New York in restoring the lucrative state and local tax, or SALT, deductions. There is no reason to believe that Trump would succumb to such leverage (and he has already indicated that he would consider the change).
However, any decision on policies like SALT would be the subject of speculation of whether a reduction in taxation was made in the hope of a reduction in incarceration.
Critics would suggest that New York is yanking on the leash to achieve policy advantages. This is the same judge and prosecutor who gagged the leading candidate for the presidency in discussing aspects of the case in the months leading up to the election. Now, they would allow him to govern pending their own suspended decisions on his future.
The Trump case was always a thrill kill for Bragg. Under Bragg’s proposal, his supporters would prolong that thrill for four more years. The cost, however, would be devastating for the country.
This country needs a president, not a president on layaway from the Manhattan District Attorney.
EXCLUSIVE: Texas is offering the incoming Trump administration a tract of more than 1,400 acres on which to stage its mass deportation operation when it enters office in January, as the transition team begins to make preparations for the ambitious project.
Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham has written to President-elect Donald Trump offering him the land in Starr County, which the state purchased from a ranch owner in October. The 1,402 acres are in the Rio Grande Valley sector near the border. Her letter to Trump, obtained by Fox News Digital, says her office is “fully prepared to enter into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the United States Border Patrol to allow a facility to be built for the processing, detention, and coordination of the largest deportation of violent criminals in the nation’s history.”
This image shows drone footage from a ranch in Starr County. (Texas General Land Office)
“What I care about is that we have safe communities, and there is no doubt that we are losing too many of our children to these violent criminals that are coming across the border,” Buckingham told Fox News Digital in an interview on Tuesday. “I am 100% on board with the Trump administration’s pledge to get these criminals out of our country, and we are more than happy to offer our resources to facilitate those deportations of these violent criminals.”
The Texas General Land Office purchased the land in October to facilitate the construction of additional border wall, a project that the Biden administration stopped. The area, which was a ranch before Texas bought it, had seen drug smuggling and human trafficking, officials said.
In light of Trump’s election victory this month, Buckingham said she was brainstorming with her team and decided to make the offer to the incoming administration.
“Right now, it’s essentially farmland, so it’s flat, it’s easy to build on. We could very easily put a detention center on there, a holding place as we get these criminals out of our country,” she said. “It’s accessible to international airports as well as a major crossing over the river. And so, we’re just happy to get help, do anything we can to get these violent criminals off of our soil.”
Trump repeatedly promised throughout his 2024 presidential campaign to launch a historic mass deportation operation. In the days since the election, those plans have been put into motion, with officials looking at where they could build additional detention space.
Buckingham said the election proves that Trump’s approach to border security and illegal immigration is the one backed by the American people and that the Biden administration’s approach had been rejected.
“This election was a resounding referendum on the fact that Americans want safe communities. We want people to immigrate legally and legally only and that the administration’s policies over the last four years have failed every American citizen,” she said.
The Trump plan is likely to face opposition in other states, including Arizona, Illinois and Massachusetts, where governors have indicated they will oppose deportation efforts by the Trump administration. But that is unlikely to stop the incoming administration from conducting its operation.
Fox News’ Emma Woodhead contributed to this report.
Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, primarily covering immigration and border security.
Below is my column in The Hill on the collapse of the lawfare campaigns against Trump. The first to go will likely be the two cases by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who became a lame-duck prosecutor at around 2:30 am last Wednesday. We are also waiting for what is likely to be a reduction or even a rejection of the Trump civil case by Attorney General Letitia James. While Democratic prosecutors are likely to continue, if not ramp up, their lawfare efforts, Trump will enter office with a fraction of the existing legal threats that have dogged him for years. For prosecutors, they are left like the ancient mariner:
Day after day, day after day, We stuck, nor breath nor motion; As idle as a painted ship Upon a painted ocean.
Here is the column:
Nearly two years ago, I wrote that Democratic prosecutors’ lawfare campaign against Donald Trump would make the 2024 election the single largest jury decision in history. Now that the verdict is in, the question is whether prosecutors will continue their unrelenting campaign against the president-elect and his companies.
The answer is that it may not matter.
The election reflected a certain gag sensation for a public fed a relentless diet of panic and identity politics for eight years. The 2024 election will come to be viewed as one of the biggest political and cultural shifts in our history. It was the mainstream-media-versus-new media election; the Rogan-versus-Oprah election; the establishment-versus-a-disassociated-electorate election.
It was also a thorough rejection of lawfare. One of the things most frustrating for Trump’s opponents was that every trial or hearing seemed to give Trump a boost in the polls. As cases piled up in Washington, New York, Florida and Georgia, the effort seemed to move more toward political acclamation than isolation. These cases are now legal versions of the Flying Dutchman — ships destined to sail endlessly but never make port.
If there is a single captain of that hapless crew, it is Special Counsel Jack Smith. For more than a year, Smith sought to secure a verdict in one of his two cases in Washington and Florida before the election. His urgency was seemingly shared by Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, but by few other judges or justices.
Around 2 am, Smith became a lame-duck prosecutor. Trump ran on ending his prosecutions and can cite a political mandate for it. Certainly, had he lost, the other side would be claiming a mandate for these prosecutions.
Trump’s new attorney general could remove Smith and order the termination of his continued prosecution. That is less of a problem in Florida, where a federal judge had already tossed out the prosecution of the classified documents case, which some of us saw as the greatest threat against Trump.
In Washington, Chutkan, who proved both motivated and active in pushing forward the election interference case, could complicate matters. Under federal rules, it is up to Chutkan to order any dismissal.
In the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Judge Emmet Sullivan resisted granting the dismissal sought by the Justice Department — a record that I criticized as both unusual and unwarranted.
Chutkan could run the incoming Trump administration around on any dismissal, but in the end, it should succeed in ending Smith’s ill-considered indictment. In reality, Smith was not only losing the Florida case but was likely to be reversed again in Washington due to his refusal to make sufficient changes in his indictment of Trump after the recent immunity decision by the Supreme Court.
Smith could make one last push to damage Trump in the period before the inauguration by pushing for an immunity decision from Chutkan. He would again likely find a supportive ally in Chutkan.
However, in the end, this would do little to change the fact that the Flying Dutchman will soon be without a crew or port of call.
One of the most immediate cases to resume is the prosecution in Manhattan by District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Many, including commentators like CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig, have denounced that case as legally flawed and obviously politically motivated.
Judge Juan Merchan is scheduled to rule on the immunity issue by Nov. 11 and to hold a possible sentencing on Nov. 26. Merchan has shown a pronounced bias against Trump in the past, and his counsel is likely anticipating a continuation of this pattern.
Merchan could sentence Trump to jail. However, such an abusive sentencing, even a brief one, would likely trigger an expedited appeal and would likely be stayed. Trump cannot pardon himself in a state case, but the case itself is a target-rich environment of arguable legal errors that could collapse on appeal.
Another case in New York is likely to move forward now. There is a pending appeal on the massive civil case against Trump brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. For many, James is the very face of lawfare as a prosecutor who ran on getting Trump on something, anything.
She ultimately secured another openly biased judge in Justice Arthur Engoron, who imposed an absurd, grotesque $455 million in fines and interest against Trump and his corporation. Notably, some of the judges on the appellate panel seemed to agree with that assessment, questioning not just the amount but the very use of this law in a case where there was no victim and no one lost a single dollar due to the fraud alleged.
My assumption is that the opinion is already written, held back only because of the election. It could now be issued and constitute a major change in the case. Whatever is left of that judgment, if anything, would then certainly be appealed.
Then there is the roaring dumpster fire in Georgia. An appellate court there will decide whether District Attorney Fani Willis and her office can continue prosecuting the case. If they are forced off the case, a new prosecutor must review the matter. While some criminal allegations against defendants can be established, the alleged racketeering conspiracy against Trump is legally flawed and likely to fail on appeal.
Trump will also continue to appeal civil cases such as the E. Jean Carroll case, which will linger long past the election.
Trump will not be the only defendant to see substantial changes on January 20, 2025. Trump has pledged to pardon those prosecuted over the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot. The public elected him despite that pledge and over the opposition of Democrats. That will affect hundreds and may come in the form of a mix of pardons and commutations, depending on the underlying charges.
One lingering question will be whether those who supported this lawfare will be deterred in the future. The thrill-kill politics practiced by figures like James proved costly in this election. Polls showed that many citizens have lost trust in the FBI and now view the criminal law process as being politicized in places like New York.
The next few weeks will determine whether Democratic leaders are ready for a new course in ending the lawfare.
President Biden could pardon Trump. It would be a poison-pill pardon. Trump does not need a pardon as the incoming president, but Biden could take the matter off the table by treating him as presumptively guilty. He could not only claim to have taken the higher ground (even though he ran on and promoted the prosecutions of Trump as legitimate) but use it as cover for pardoning his own son.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) could also move to pardon Trump on the New York charges. Hochul was widely criticized for calling Trump supporters (now the majority of voters in the nation) “un-American.” She could seek to make amends with a pardon.
In the end, Trump read the jury correctly. Once the lawfare was unleashed, he focused on putting his case to the public and walked away with a clear majority decision. It is unlikely that this will end all of his lawfare battles, but it may effectively end the war.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, 2024).
In part one of this investigation into how Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign is deceptively manipulating online platforms, it was revealed that the campaign is operating a Discord server that directs hordes of volunteers to use their social media accounts to deceptively push election propaganda. The goal is to artificially manufacture consensus by making pro-Kamala Harris messages on social media appear more popular than they are, and it is often done in violation of the Terms of Service of the social media platforms. In more extreme cases, they are encouraging people to skirt election laws and using these “astroturfing” campaigns to spread disinformation they think will help win the upcoming election.
Yesterday’s report documented how the Harris-Walz campaign has seen great success in manipulating Reddit’s algorithm, but that isn’t the only social media site they’re manipulating. The campaign has also been targeting Elon Musk’s X, perhaps the most influential site for political news. One particular goal, according to a user of the Harris-Walz campaign Discord server, is to get campaign volunteers to swarm the site and “block [community notes] we don’t like.”
Prior to Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the site’s management was known for capriciously removing information and regularly banning users in a way that employed a double standard that heavily disfavored conservative opinion. Musk, a major free speech advocate, sought to institute a more neutral way to deal with misleading tweets, and the “Community Notes” system was born.
Select users who signed up for the program could propose notes to be added to tweets showing that the information was wrong, misleading, or required important context. Other users can then read the proposed notes and vote on whether they are accurate or needed, and if the proposed notes get enough favorable votes, they get appended to the post permanently.
Despite this, virtually none of the false and misleading tweets from Kamala Harris’ campaign have Community Notes appended to them. One likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the Harris campaign is directing volunteers on its Discord server to vote down Community Notes even when those notes accurately say the campaign is being deceptive.
In the “twitter-community-notes” channel found on the Harris-Walz Discord, paid Democrat staffers are also writing dubious Community Notes on X to undermine GOP and Trump messaging. They then encourage volunteers to rate them positively.
Unsurprisingly, these notes are often filled with half-truths, misleading information, or lies, such as explaining how Joe Biden’s son’s brain tumor must have been due to his service in Iraq.
The Harris-Walz server even has a “Twitter (X) Community Notes Training” module, which describes how users can quickly bump up their Community Notes “Rating Impact,” which allows them to write their own Community Notes with a high enough status. They also describe “problems” with Community Notes, such as Joe Biden being tagged in “inaccurate Community Notes,” and how users can rate them negatively.
Since X’s Community Notes upvoting system is designed to mitigate political bias far better than Reddit’s, the Harris-Walz campaign’s attempt to manipulate Community Notes on X hasn’t been as successful.
One Harris-Walz Discord user lengthily expressed his frustrations at the bias mitigation system used by Community Notes (CNs), which was implemented to prevent user manipulation:
While their attempts to abuse Community Notes on X were largely ineffective, it is still a gross violation of X’s Terms of Service, which prohibits artificially amplifying information.
Other Astroturfing Operations
The Harris-Walz Discord server provides access to an app called “Reach” which gives its users access to a database of “entertaining” Harris-Walz campaign content.
X has also introduced “Radar,” a feature that lets users see post volumes on specific topics. Using messaging guidance from three Reach posts, I found evidence of hundreds of astroturfing profiles for the Harris campaign on X. The same search was done on Google with one of the images, suggesting broader reach. While the Google data is larger, it is also likely incomplete while the X data is complete. The scale of this operation continues to grow.
Users can connect their own personal social media accounts to the Reach app, so they can easily repost memes, videos, and other content that promotes the ideals of the Harris-Walz campaign.
While topics relating to current events routinely trend on Reddit and X, other platforms, such as TikTok and Instagram, gear themselves towards entertaining content. To target these platforms, the campaign is also using Reach. Unfortunately for them, the content they provide pretty much resembles your liberal aunt’s Facebook timeline.
To people who have spent years online learning the nuances of meme culture, this is fundamentally repulsive. It embodies the inauthentic nature of the modern internet, which has seemingly replaced the “old net” in the last two decades.
Not only do they love flamboyant actors masquerading as American “men,” they also enjoyed actively promoting it during a football game, boosting their post with unrelated hashtags that happened to be trending at the time. This is yet another shady tactic used to bump up social media posts inauthentically, shamelessly employed by official Harris-Walz volunteers.
But at this late stage in the campaign, it would appear spreading inauthentic content and deceptive messages is all the Harris campaign can do.
The author runs the popular Twitter account @reddit_lies.
This month, there is a new case on the docket after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The First Circuit reversed a trial court that dismissed the case, alleging that the American firearms industry is legally responsible for violence in Mexico. I believe the First Circuit is dead wrong and will be reversed. However, as a torts professor, there is a question of whether the tort element of proximate cause could be materially changed in the case. Torts professors are already lining up to argue that there is a proximate cause under existing doctrines to hold the firearms industry liable. I respectfully disagree.
In the petition, Smith and Wesson and other gun manufacturers challenge the claim, including the argument that their sale of lawful firearms in the United States is the proximate or legal cause for the carnage in Mexico. They note that Mexico has long been riddled with violence and corruption connected to the extensive drug industry in that country.
In my view, the trial court dismissed the case correctly under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That was passed to bar suits against firearms companies based on criminals using these products for criminal or intentionally tortious acts.
However, the First Circuit reversed on the ground that Mexico has made a legally cognizable case that gun manufacturers aided and abetted firearms trafficking that has harmed the Mexican government. The First Circuit is an outlier in this case and ignores both the purpose of the law and basic tort principles of proximate causation.
The Court has accepted the review on two questions:
1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
PLCAA was enacted to require dismissal at the inception of lawsuits like this, and other courts have recognized that. The First Circuit’s decision creates a circuit split.
Mexico’s complaint is wildly off base both factually and legally. It suggests that these companies are effectively funneling guns to criminal gangs in Mexico by producing products that they have used in criminal conduct.
The First Circuit adopted an analogy that destroyed the credibility of its decision:
Imagine that a U.S. company sent a mercenary unit of combat troops to attack people in Mexico City. Such an attack would directly cause Mexico itself the expense of paying soldiers to defend the city. Proximate cause would be quite clear. So, too, here, where the defendants are alleged to have armed the attackers for their continuing assaults.
Is that the best these federal judges could come up with? There is a vast difference between the United States sending a combat unit across the border and manufacturers who supply distributors who serve dealers who sell lawful products to consumers. That sounds more like The Merchandisers than The Expendables.
PLCAA specifically bars any “qualified civil liability action” against gun manufacturers and licensees. Any action filed against a federal firearms licensee for damages or other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm is expressly addressed in the statute under § 7902 of PLCAA: “A qualified civil liability action … shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.”
Mexico and gun control advocates are focusing on an exception for any manufacturer or seller of a firearm that “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product [firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought….”
The First Circuit found that, if proven, a case can be made that Smith & Wesson engaged in “affirmative and deliberate efforts to create and maintain an illegal market for [its] weapons in Mexico” and that, as such, it was “aiding and abetting downstream dealers in violating state and federal laws governing the transfer of firearms.” The level of speculation and conjecture in such a claim is manifestly obvious. Mexico failed to offer anything beyond conclusory claims as to “downstream” users to allege this nexus.
The exception is clearly directed at violations of gun statutes, such as falsifying records or conspiracy to sell to a specific prohibited person. Even then, it must be shown to be the proximate cause of the injury. Mexico does not maintain such a specific showing but treats sales generally as aiding and abetting the violence in that country.
Under standard tort doctrine, criminal or intentionally tortious acts by third parties generally cut off legal causation. However, there is an exception where such conduct is foreseeable. Here is the language from Second Restatement of Torts 448:
“The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort or crime is a superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom, although the actor’s negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or crime, unless the actor at the time of his negligent conduct realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime.”
The Third Restatement contains the same approach while, again, recognizing that “If the third party’s misconduct is among the risks making the defendant’s conduct negligent, then ordinarily plaintiff’s harm will be within the defendant’s scope of liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical & Emotional Harm (2010)§ 19 cmt. c (“If the third party’s misconduct is among the risks making the defendant’s conduct negligent, then ordinarily plaintiff’s harm will be within the defendant’s scope of liability.”).
However, these exceptions have not been extended to the extent envisioned by Mexico or the First Circuit. For example, in the famous case of Brower v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 91 N.J.L. 190 (1918), a train negligently struck a wagon carrying cider and knocked the driver senseless. The railroad personnel left his goods unprotected and they were stolen. The court ruled:
“The negligence which caused the collision resulted immediately in such a condition of the driver of the wagon that he was no longer able to protect his employer’s property; the natural and probable result of his enforced abandonment of it in the street of a large city was its disappearance; and the wrongdoer cannot escape making reparation for the loss caused by depriving the plaintiff of the protection which the presence of the driver in his right senses would have afforded.”
Simply selling a lawful product falls significantly short of this type of nexus. It would be akin to holding train manufacturers liable for the negligent operation of the train engineer in Brower in aiding and abetting such conduct by third persons.
It is hard to see how the Court could find that these companies were “the” proximate cause of the harm without creating a federal standard for proximate cause that would extend foreseeability beyond any recognition. There are powerful superseding intervening forces in play in Mexico. To embrace this theory that the manufacturers knowingly and foreseeably increased the risk of violence in Mexico would allow torts to effectively gut the industry and existing federal law.
Previously, gun control advocates tried to use product liability and nuisance laws to curtail gun sales. Those cases failed as over-extending tort doctrine to achieve indirectly the courts what could not be achieved directly in the legislatures. Conversely, Congress passed PLCAA to prevent such circumvention of the legislative process.
There are good-faith arguments to be made that the exception for criminal conduct can be maintained where there is sufficient foreseeability and that the First Circuit was merely allowing Mexico to prove its case. However, the complaint is manifestly insufficient for such a claim.
There is no specific evidence that would establish the required showing of knowledge or foreseeability by manufacturers in working with Mexican drug gangs. Mexico has been rife with drug cartels and corruption for decades. Much of this violence has occurred with the cooperation and collusion of Mexican officials, including law enforcement officials.
In my view, the First Circuit should and will be reversed.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right, I explore how vandalism and aggressive campus protests should not be treated as free speech but as proscribed conduct. College Fix has another example of this distinction today when a person trashed a Turning Point table on the campus of UC Berkeley.
The posting shows a possible student pouring tomato juice over the group’s fliers and posters. The display promoted an event with Chloe Cole and Harrison Tinsley, who are critics of gender transitioning. The activist responds to objections from the volunteers by saying “Are you worried I’m going to stain your f**king signs as you lie to people, aw so sorry. I f**king tried to talk to you a**holes. Enjoy getting this stain out.”
Likewise, anti-Israeli protesters at the University of Minnesota occupied and reportedly trashed a university building. None of these acts are protected as free speech. They are conduct that violate either university rules or criminal law or both. Much like shouting down speakers, these are actions that silence others or damage property. Trashing displays or silencing others is the antithesis of free speech. Yet, universities often fail to take meaningful action against such actors.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students. She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students. Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
What is most striking about this video is the license that the activist claims in trashing the display in stating “I f**king tried to talk to you a**holes.” The notion is that, if you tell people with opposing views that they are wrong, you are then justified to take violent action. It is the license of rage and this video shows how many today do not like to admit that they like the rage. It is addictive. It gives you this sense of license to say and do things that you would not ordinarily say or do.
This activist has every right to protest this event at Berkeley. However, trashing a display is a criminal act that should be punished by the university if this is a student. It should also be pursued by police to deter such conduct in the future. Free speech is enhanced, not curtailed, when such conduct is barred on our campuses.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly updated its 2022 crime data to show an increase in violent crimes, despite previous data showing violent crimes had fallen that year, which was touted as a victory for the Biden-Harris administration.
“For some reason, the media, they did pick the crime data that they think goes and makes the Democrats look as good as possible. And then even when the crime data that they’ve relied on turns out by the very source of that data to be wrong, none of them fix it,” Lott, the founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, told Fox News Digital in a Zoom interview this week.
The FBI released its annual crime in the nation data for 2022 last year, which found a 2.1% decrease in violent crimes compared to 2021, Lott explained. The data was lauded by Democrats and the media as part of a turning point for crime woes in the U.S., following the crime wave of 2020, when defund-the-police protests and riots swept the nation and the pandemic’s stay-at-home orders upended daily life. Now, the data reflects a net increase of 80,029 violent crimes in 2022 over 2021. Lott found that under the umbrella of violent crime, there were an additional 1,699 murders, 7,780 rapes, 33,459 robberies and 37,091 aggravated assaults that year.
Vice President Kamala Harris and President Biden attend a campaign event in Pittsburgh, on Sept. 2, 2024. (AP/Jacquelyn Martin)
“To give people an idea of the size of the change, when the 2022 data came out in September 2023, they initially reported that violent crime had fallen by 2.1% in 2022.… That’s the final data, supposedly, for 2022. The revision of that final data that came out last month, now claims that rather than the 2.1% drop, that there was actually a 4.5% increase in violent crime that occurred in 2022. That’s a 6.6 percentage point change there,” Lott told Fox News Digital.
“It’s from a drop to an increase. And, you know, the bizarre thing to me is, for a year after the 2022 data was put out, we were having headlines, news articles after news articles saying, ‘Violent crime is falling, people mistakenly or erroneously believe that it’s increasing.’ And, you know, and they were relying on this data. But you don’t see any corrections in the news. Saying, ‘Oops, the FBI data that we relied on was wrong, that rather than a drop, there was actually an increase that had occurred,’“ he added.
President Biden and the Harris campaign have touted that violent crimes had fallen under their leadership, with Biden calling the reported violent crime drops “historic” while citing the FBI’s most recent data.
“This year, the homicide and violent crime rates have continued their rapid decline from their peaks during the last administration,” Biden said in an official White House statement late last month. “…. Communities across our country are safer now than when I took office.”
“Americans are safer today than when Vice President Harris and I took office. We can’t stop now,” Biden added in a separate White House statement in August touting crime data from an independent organization of police chiefs across the nation.
Former President Trump gestures at a campaign rally at the Findlay Toyota Arena Sunday, Oct. 13, 2024, in Prescott Valley, Arizona. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The Trump campaign, when asked about the revised data, took a victory lap, saying, “President Trump was right…. AGAIN!”
“The federal government lied about Biden’s cognitive decline, lied about the job numbers, and now we learn they lied about crime numbers too,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital. “Kamala Harris must admit she’s wrong and address how she plans to bring down the rising crime crisis. Every mainstream media reporter who was quick to correct President Trump must cover this new revelation if they have any shred of integrity left.”
Trump has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that “crime in this country is through the roof” under the Biden-Harris administration, despite the previous figures promoted by the FBI showing violent crime was allegedly on a downward trend. When asked about the revision, the White House argued that following the passage of the American Rescue Plan in 2021 under the Biden-Harris administration, violent crime is “at a near 50 year low.”
“Under the previous administration, our country saw the biggest increase in murder rates on record. President Biden and Vice President Harris immediately got to work to turn it around and passed the American Rescue Plan which led to the largest ever federal investment in public safety. As a result, violent crime is at a near 50 year low, and is continuing to decline this year according to independent data from police chiefs in the nation’s largest cities,” White House spokesperson Robyn Patterson told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.
An administration official added in a comment to Fox Digital that the “FBI often adjusts crime estimates as more data is reported.”
“During the prior administration, the FBI upwardly adjusted crime data during its last three years: in 2018, 2019, and 2020. These adjustments are standard practice,” the official continued before citing an article on the data this week. “Real Clear Investigations fails to mention that, in 2021, there was a sharp decline in the number of agencies participating in FBI data collection because the FBI temporarily disallowed an earlier collection method. The FBI switched back to its prior method in 2022.”
Lott explained he noticed the quiet update when the FBI released its 2023 crime data set last month, adding: “It was pretty easy to see that things had changed.”
“For 2022 and 2021 in particular, they had some changes for a few of the previous years, but they were very small. The changes for 2021 and 2022 were very large. You know, I looked through the press release that the FBI had put out, there was no mention of them having changed the data for earlier years. And surely no mention of the large change that had occurred. I looked through the Uniform Crime Report summary report that the FBI puts out, and there was no mention of the size of the change. There’s one footnote there that vaguely mentions that they had updated the data for 2022. No mention about updating it for 2021 or any other time,” he said, calling the discovery “shocking.”
The data update is akin to when the Bureau of Labor Statistics overestimated the number of jobs created in the U.S. by 818,000 between March 2023 and March 2024, Lott said.
NYPD arrive at a crime scene near Gracie Mansion in Manhattan on July 26, 2024. (Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Lott authored an article on the data for Real Clear Investigations this week, which argued the updates to 2022 stats open the door to questioning if the 2023 stats showing an estimated 3% drop in violent crimes compared to 2022 are legitimate.
“Without the increase, the drop in violent crime in 2023 would have been less than half as large – only 1.6% instead of the reported drop of 3.5%,” Lott wrote.
While FBI data has shown alleged drops in violent crimes in recent years, other government data sets have shown crime has increased in the last few years.
The seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation outside its headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 15, 2022. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
Crimes such as rape or sexual assault, aggravated assault, and robbery increased from 2020 to 2023, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed last month as part of its National Crime Victimization Survey. Across the board, the survey found total instances of reported violent crimes increased from 5.6 per 1,000 individuals aged 12 and over in 2020, when Trump was still in office, to 8.7 per 1,000 in 2023.
Lott, who also served as a senior adviser for research and statistics at the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, authored an op-ed for Real Clear Politics last month and detailed that the DOJ survey found that total violent crimes are 55.4% higher in 2023 than in 2020, the end of Trump’s tenure, while rape crimes increased by 42%, robbery by 63%,and aggravated assault by 55%. The DOJ survey does not include surveys on murder, but that category is almost always reported to police departments, and subsequently to the FBI, he noted, and makes up about 1% of the U.S.’ total violent crimes.
Fox News Digital reached out to the FBI and Harris campaign regarding the 2022 data but did not immediately receive replies.
In announcing his “Operation Aurora,” former President Donald Trump has suggested that he may use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to crackdown on “every illegal migrant criminal network operating on American soil.” The plan to begin mass deportations is certainly popular with the public, according to polling. However, without a declaration of war, he will likely have to look to alternative statutory vehicles for a peacetime operation. There are novel arguments that could be made in federal court, but they run against the presumed meaning of critical terms under the law. The odds do not favor the government in the likely challenges.
This is not the first time that the Trump campaign has invoked the AEA. Last year, the campaign cited the law as giving it the power to “remove all known or suspected gang Members, drug dealers, or Cartel Members from the U.S.”
The AEA has only been used three times and each time we were in a declared war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. It is a law that became infamous in its use to put Japanese, German, and Italian civilians in internment camps during World War II.
The first reported case arising under the [AEA] is [by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in] Lockington’s Case [in 1814] … Lockington … had refused to comply with the executive order of February 23, 1813, requiring alien enemies who were within 40 miles of tidewater to retire to such places beyond that distance from tidewater as should be designated by the marshals. He was arrested, and on petition for habeas corpus attempted to test the legality of his imprisonment. Chief Justice Tilghman said of the [AEA]:
“It is a provision for the public safety, which may require that the alien should not be removed, but kept in the country under proper restraints. … It is never to be forgotten that the main object of the law is to provide for the safety of the country from enemies who are suffered to remain within it. In order to effect this safety, it might be necessary to act on sudden emergencies. … The President, being best acquainted with the danger to be apprehended, is best able to judge of the emergency which might render such measures necessary. Accordingly, we find that the powers vested in him are expressed in the most comprehensive terms.”
The law’s sweeping language makes it ripe for abuse. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Brackenridge in Lockington’s Case (1814) observed that under the AEA “the President would seem to be constituted, as to this description of persons, with the power of a Roman dictator or consul, in extraordinary cases, when the Republic was in danger, that it sustains no damage: ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat.”
However, the AEA’s only limiting language is found in the triggering language for those powers:
“Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event…”
In Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a supportive decision of the presidential authority under the AEA on when the powers expired, but not when the powers begin:
“And so, we reach the claim that, while the President had summary power under the Act, it did not survive cessation of actual hostilities. This claim in effect nullifies the power to deport alien enemies, for such deportations are hardly practicable during the pendency of what is colloquially known as the shooting war. Nor does law lag behind common sense. War does not cease with a cease-fire order, and power to be exercised by the President such as that conferred by the Act of 1798 is a process which begins when war is declared but is not exhausted when the shooting stops.” (emphasis added).
This broad granting of authority under the AEA is obviously a great attraction for presidents who have rarely hesitated to use the maximal levels of their powers. However, the threshold requirement of a declared war has proven the limiting element, and it is telling that the law has been used only three times by presidents.
It can be used for limits that fall short of deportation or internment. For example, President Woodrow Wilson barred alien enemies during World War I from possessing firearms and explosives, coming within a half a mile of a military facility or munitions factory, residing in certain areas, possessing certain communications equipment, and publishing certain types of materials.
Trump can argue that governments such as Venezuela are using the open border to flood the nation with migrants, including those released from their prisons. That does offer a possible avenue under the claim that a formal declaration, but it would also require a broad reading of the term “invasion” or “incursion.” The problem is that the clear thrust of the law was a conventional war. The question is whether federal courts are willing to adopt a very broad interpretation of such terms despite the presumed legislative intent behind the law at the time of its passage.
The greatest hope for a new Trump Administration would be to argue that the use of the law is a “political question” and thus inappropriate for judicial review. That is often a powerful argument that leads to deference of the courts to the political branches.
Yet, even Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court’s opinion recognizing the doctrine, reserved the possible use of judicial review to address “an obvious mistake” or “manifestly unauthorized exercise of power.” Courts have declined to use that reservation but there are strong arguments that this is a matter of statutory interpretation and not a matter left to the political discretion of the legislative or executive branches.
Politicians often speak of national emergencies as “wars” but there remains a difference between the colloquial and the legal. A war on illegal immigration is not the same as a war on the Axis powers. The former can be declared in a campaign while the latter requires a declaration of Congress.
None of this means that a president would not have the authority for mass deportations or that Congress could not pass additional such authority. The massive influx of millions of undocumented persons is now a national crisis with growing national security, economic, and social costs for the nation. The numbers are certainly analogous to an “invasion” for cities and states grappling with the wave of migrants. However, the AEA in my view is a poor vehicle for such a program.
Accordingly, I remain skeptical that such a massive program would survive judicial review. Any effort to do so would face an emergency demand for a preliminary injunction. As a threshold legal question, it could move fairly quickly through the courts, and we could have an answer to a question that has lingered for over two centuries.
It appears that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith are not done yet in releasing material in advance of the election. In a previous column, I criticized the release of Smith’s 180-page brief before the election as procedurally irregular and politically biased, a criticism shared by CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors. Nevertheless, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits and evidence in advance of the election. The brief clearly contains damning allegations, including witness accounts, for Trump. The objection to the release of the brief was not a defense of any actions taken on January 6th by the former president or others, but rather an objection to what even the court admitted was an “irregular” process.
As discussed earlier, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.
To avoid allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states“Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
Even if one argues that this provision is not directly controlling or purely discretionary, the spirit of the policy is to avoid precisely the appearance in this case: the effort to manipulate or influence an election through court filings.
With no trial date for 2025, there is no reason why Smith or Chutkan would adopt such an irregular process. The court could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings.
If there is one time where a court should err on the side of avoiding an “irregular” process, it is before a national election. What may look like simply an adversarial process to some looks like oppo research to others. Delaying the release would have avoided any appearance of such bias.
For Smith, the election has long been the focus of his filings and demands for an expedited process. Smith knows that this election is developing into the largest jury verdict in history. Many citizens, even those who do not like Trump, want to see an end to the weaponization of the legal system, including Smith’s D.C. prosecution. Trump has to lose the election for Smith to be guaranteed a trial in the case.
Chutkan has given the Trump team just seven days to oppose her order. That would still allow the material to make it into the public (and be immediately employed by the media and Harris campaign) just days before the election. The move will only increase criticism that this looks like a docket in the pocket of the DNC.
It is telling that, once again, the timing just works out to the way that is most politically impactful. Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”
Below is my column in The Hill on the release of the filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before the election. Even Judge Tanya Chutkan described the move as “irregular,” but still ordered the release. While the usual voices heralded the move, others, including the CNN senior legal analyst, denounced the release as a raw political act by the court and the Special Counsel. The problem is that it was not in the least bit surprising.
Here is the column:
“The most stupendous and atrocious fraud.” Those words from federal prosecutors could have been ripped from the filing this week of Special Counsel Jack Smith defending his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Yet they were actually from a Justice Department filing 184 years ago, just days from the 1840 presidential election. Democratic President Martin Van Buren was struggling for reelection against Whig William Henry Harrison, and his Justice Department waited until just before voters went to the polls to allege that Whig Party officials had paid Pennsylvanians to travel to New York to vote for Whig candidates two years earlier. It was considered by many to be the first “October Surprise,” the last-minute pre-election scandal or major event intended to sway voters.
To avoid such allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states“Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”
Jack Smith, however, has long dismissed such considerations. For years, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.
After the Supreme Court rendered parts of his indictment against Trump presumptively unconstitutional, Smith made clear that he was prepared to prosecute Trump up to the very day of his inauguration. True to his reputation and record, Smith refused to drop the main allegations against Trump to avoid official decisions or acts that the court found to be protected in Trump v. United States. Instead, he stripped out some prior evidence linked to Trump’s presidency, including witnesses serving in the White House. Yet the same underlying allegations remain. Smith just repeatedly uses references to Trump as acting as “a private citizen.”
It is like a customer complaining that he did not order a Coke and the waiter pouring it into a Mountain Dew bottle and saying, “Done!”
Smith even refused to drop the obstruction of official proceedings, despite another recent Supreme Court decision (Fischer v. United States) rendering that charge presumptively invalid.
Smith is making his case not to Judge Tanya Chutkan, but to America’s voters. Chutkan has consistently ruled with Smith to help him expedite the case. She permitted his hastened “rocket docket” despite declaring that she would not consider the election schedule as a factor in the pace of filings or even of the trial itself.
For critics, Judge Chutkan has proven far too motivated in the case. Indeed, many thought that she should have recused herself given her statement from a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022. Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her courtroom for trial by Smith.
In their latest move, Chutkan and Smith used the Supreme Court decision to file a type of preemptive defense — an excuse to lay out the allegations against Trump in a 165-page filing filled with damaging accounts and testimonials against Trump, just weeks ahead of the election.
Even Chutkin herself acknowledged that Smith’s request was “procedurally irregular,” but she still allowed it. This was a premature exercise that would ordinarily occur months later, after defense filings. She could have scheduled such filings just a few weeks from now. She could have easily kept the filing under seal to avoid the appearance of political machinations. But the political effect appears to be the point. Chutkin again selected the most politically impactful option, at Smith’s urging.
This was so“irregular” that ordinarily anti-Trump legal analysts, such as CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig, denounced Smith’s filing as “an unprincipled, norm-breaking practice.” He added that “Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects.”
Others, as expected, applauded the filing as not just well-directed but well-timed. Smith was making his closing election argument to voters because he knows that the 2024 election will be the largest jury verdict in history. If voters reelect Trump, then neither Chutkin nor Smith will likely see a jury in the case. This is why they must convict Trump now in the public eye, or else admit to an effective acquittal by plebiscite.
Their timing could well backfire. The weaponization of the legal system is central to this election, including the role of the Justice Department in pushing the debunked Russia-collusion allegations from the 2016 race. For many, the content of Smith’s filing is not nearly as important as the time stamp over the case caption. Titled a “Motion for Immunity Determination,” it seems more like a “Motion for an Election Determination.”
Smith’s raw political calculation should be troubling for anyone who values the rule of law. None of this excuses anything in these allegations against Trump. But the most disturbing part of Smith’s October Surprise was that it was not in the least bit surprising.
Below is my column in the Hill on the rough week for New York Attorney General Letitia James in court. James has campaigned on lawfare, and the Democratic New York voters have wildly supported her weaponization of the legal system against Trump and others. Now some judges are balking…
Here is the column:
In an age of lawfare, New York Attorney General Letitia James has always embraced the total war option. Her very appeal has been her willingness to use any means against political opponents. James first ran for her office by pledging to bag Donald Trump on something, anything. She did not specify the violation, only that she would deliver the ultimate trophy kill for Democratic voters. James follows the view of what Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz said about war, law is merely politics “by other means.”
Yet, the political success of James in weaponizing her office has been in stark contrast with her legal setbacks in courts. James earlier sought to use her office to disband the National Rifle Association, the most powerful gun rights organization in the country, due to self-dealing and corruption of executives. James notably did not target liberal groups accused of similar violations. The ridiculous effort to disband the NRA collapsed in court.
It did not matter. James knew that such efforts were performative and that New York voters did not care if such attacks failed. She will continue to win the lawfare battles, even if she loses the war.
This week, two of James’s best-known campaigns were struggling in court.
James is best known for her fraud case against Trump, in which she secured a $464 million fine and a ban on Trump from the New York real estate business for three years. That penalty, which has now risen to $489 million with interest, was in a case where no one had lost a dime due to the alleged inaccurate property valuations in bank loans secured by the Trump organization. Not only where the banks fully paid on the loans and made considerable profits, but they wanted to make additional loans to the Trump organization.
In appellate arguments this week, James’s office faced openly skeptical justices who raised the very arguments that some of us have made for years about the ludicrous fine imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron. Justice David Friedman noted that this law “is supposed to protect the market and the consumers — I don’t see it here.”
His colleague Justice Peter Moulton told her office “The immense penalty in this case is troubling” and added, “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by [Engoron] to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?”
The answer, of course, is the case was never about markets. It was about politics. The fact that the banks were “happy” is immaterial. Happiness in New York is a political, not legal calculus. The justices did not rule this week, but an opinion could be issued within a month.
In the same week, James faced a stinging defeat in another popular cause. James had targeted pro-life organizations for spreading supposed “disinformation” in not just opposing the use of mifepristone (the abortion pill used in the majority of abortions in the United States), but in advocating the use of reversal procedures if mothers change their minds before taking the second drug in the treatment regimen.
Critics charge that, while there are some studies showing successful reversal cases, the treatment remains unproven and unapproved. It remains an intense debate. James, however, wanted to end the debate. She targeted pregnancy centers and was then sued by two pro-life ministries, Summit Life Outreach Center and the Evergreen Association.
Judge John Sinatra Jr. blocked James‘s crackdown as a denial of free speech. Notably, these centers were not profiting by sharing this information or advocating such reversal treatment. James merely declared that people advocating such reversal treatments are engaged in “spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising…without any medical and scientific proof.”
It is a familiar rationale on the left and discussed in my latest book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”It is the same rationale that led to the banning and blacklisting of experts during the pandemic for views that have now been vindicated on the efficacy of masks and other issues. They were silenced by those who declared their viewpoints as dangerously unproven or unapproved, but who were themselves wrong.
James claimed a right to crack down on views that she deemed unproven, even by those who were seeking only to disseminate information rather than sell products. It did not seem to matter to her that, in the 2018 in NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court rejected the effort by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (now the secretary of Health and Human Services) to require crisis pregnancy centers to refer abortions. The court refused to create an exception for requiring speech from licensed professionals.
After the effort failed to force doctors to disseminate pro-abortion information in California, James sought to prevent others from disseminating pro-life information in New York. The court ruled that, under the First Amendment, government officials cannot simply declare certain views as “disinformation” as a pretext to censor disfavored speech.
If there are harmful or fraudulent products or practices, the government has ample powers to target businesses and professionals involved with them. James, however, was seeking to silence those who advocate for a treatment that is unproven but not unlawful.
James’s legacy now includes an effort to disband a civil rights organization, deny free speech and secure confiscatory fines against her political opponents. Yet she is lionized by the media and politicians in an election that is billed as “saving democracy.”
In the end, James knows her audience, and it is not appellate judges. It does not matter to her if she is found to be violating the Constitution or abusing opponents. She has converted the New York legal system into a series of thrill-kills.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams. The most serious charges may be the foreign campaign contributions. However, the indictment is not nearly as overwhelming as suggested by the government. That may be why they are openly threatening Adams associates to cooperate or face ruin.
Here is the column:
The federal five-count indictment of New York Mayor Eric Adams is on its face a damning document of alleged public corruption. The government is alleging that Turkish officials saw Adams as a rising star in the Democratic Party and started to groom him for influence.
However, once beyond the details of the opulent rooms and flight upgrades, there may be less here than meets the eye in some of these charges. The campaign-contribution violations raise serious problems for Adams in the alleged solicitation of unlawful foreign contributions. Yet the counts must be read with caution. We have not seen the specific defenses to the allegations of using “straw men” to funnel unlawful contributions and the alleged favors bestowed on contributors. Indictments are one-sided and highly slanted interpretations of the facts by prosecutors to secure a conviction.
For example, many of the gifts from Turkish sources were realized in the form of upgrades on flights to business class or expensive hotel suites. It is not clear what Adams knew of the logistics for such travel or their inclusion in annual reports. Despite their public personas, many populist politicians tend to be a pampered class who expect to be feted in the best quarters as they speak as the “voice of the people.”
That was captured most vividly by NYC Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sashaying at the Met Gala in a designer dress reading “tax the rich.” It was a scene with a crushing irony. The dress itself was worth more than some people make in a year, and it was just “loaned” to AOC despite being made specifically for her. She also did not pay for her ticket, which would cost $35,000.
It triggered an ethics investigation and allegations of ethical violations. In one night, Ocasio-Cortez flaunted roughly half of the value of the alleged Adams gifts as she paraded as a social warrior among the social elite. The truly hilarious aspect was that it was the elite who were thrilled by the demonstration and subsidized it.
The Adams allegations would constitute a fairly crude form of corruption by today’s standards. For the Biden family, it looks like small potatoes. Adams lacked a Hunter and the type of labyrinth of accounts maintained by the Bidens to funnel millions from foreign sources.
One of the most discussed allegations concerns a high-rise building built by Turkish friends in Manhattan to serve as their new consulate. The Turks wanted the building opened before the arrival of the Turkish president in 2021, strongman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The problem is that, according to prosecutors, New York Fire Department officials found an array of dangerous defects in the building and believed that it was a fire risk. They refused to allow the building to open until it met those standards. The government alleges that Turkish officials immediately dialed up their well-groomed ally, Adams, and told him that it was “his turn” to support Turkey. Adams intervened and prosecutors say that FDNY officials were afraid for their jobs.
Once again, however, Adams has defenses. He can argue that New York is the home of the United Nations and a large population of diplomats and international organizations. This was a foreign country seeking to open a consulate and he intervened to avoid an embarrassing diplomatic tiff.
Suggesting that a push to cut short fire inspections may be difficult to maintain under a bribery theory. That was the type of expansive case that government attorney Jack Smith used against former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell and it failed spectacularly before the Supreme Court. There are other reasons besides flight upgrades why Adams might have facilitated a speed up of building approvals.
In the end, this is a Bob Menendez-lite indictment. Failing to publicly list how you moved from economy to business class on flights is hardly the stuff of “All the King’s Men.” It is more like “All the King’s Upgrades.” The biggest problem for Adams is that the US Attorney’s Office went public with a threat for all of those who do not cooperate and pledged that more will be “held accountable.” In other words, the indictment amplified the tune in a game of musical chairs. Anyone close to Adams may want to sit down before the music stops. That means that Adams can expect close associates to be testifying against him with the enthusiasm of those threatened with ruin by federal prosecutors.
If Eric Adams is convicted, it will be at the hands of his associates. The jury will not be particularly sympathetic with a politician snaring the Bentley Suite at the St. Regis Istanbul. Prosecutors love to play on such opulence like their use of Paul Manafort’s $15,000 Ostrich coat.
Combined with former friends and associates, it may be enough for the ultimate upgrade for Adams from business class to a federal cellblock.
New York Mayor Eric Adams speaks at a press conference Thursday before appearing in court after his indictment. (Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images)
Did New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat and former police captain, accept foreign bribes and foreign campaign contributions? That’s the key issue in the federal indictment of New York’s mayor just handed down by a federal grand jury led by Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
The indictment charges Adams with five felonies under federal law that could result in his spending a long time in prison, including wire fraud, solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions from a foreign national, and outright bribery.
The indictment claims that when Adams became Brooklyn borough president in 2014, he “sought and accepted … valuable benefits, such as luxury international travel” from “wealthy foreign businesspeople including at least one Turkish government official seeking to gain influence over him.”
In 2018, when Adams made public his plan to run for mayor, the indictment alleges that he “not only accepted but sought illegal campaign contributions to his 2021 mayoral campaign, as well as other things of value, from foreign nationals.” As Adams’ “prominence and power grew” and it became clear that he was going to become mayor of the Big Apple, those “foreign-national benefactors sought to cash in on the corrupt relationship,” the indictment alleges. It claims that Adams agreed, “providing favorable treatment” and “granting requests” from them.
The indictment describes an elaborate scheme to hide illegal foreign campaign contributions as well as corporate donations and individual donations exceeding the legal limits.
“Overseas contributors” used “straw donors,” U.S. nationals who falsely claimed they were making the donations that actually were from foreign nationals. Businesses evaded a ban on corporate contributions by using their employees to make those contributions, reimbursing the employees through corporate accounts. And “wealthy individuals” also used straw donors to evade laws “restricting the amount any one person can donate to a candidate,” the indictment says.
Adams also is accused of defrauding the City of New York through its public funding program for political campaigns. The city has a program that “matches small-dollar contributions from individual city residents with up to eight times their amount in public funds.”
The indictment claims that Adams applied for matching funds for the straw donor contributions he received; despite knowing they were fraudulent donations. The result? Adams’ 2021 mayoral campaign received $10 million in public funds that he shouldn’t have gotten.
The indictment says that the same Turkish government official who funneled illegal campaign contributions to Adams, referred to in the indictment as a “senior official in the Turkish diplomatic establishment,” also arranged “free or discounted travel on Turkey’s national airline.”
The official also arranged “free rooms at opulent hotels, free meals at high-end restaurants, and free luxurious entertainment” for Adams “and his companions” in Turkey, the indictment says.
Adams’ passport must have quite a number of U.S. Customs stamps in it, since the “free or discounted” travel apparently included trips to “France, China, Sri Lanka, India, Hungary, and Turkey itself.”
To illustrate the “opulent hotels,” the indictment contains photos of some of the hotels Adams stayed in, including two photos of the Bentley Suite bedroom and bathroom at the St. Regis Hotel in Istanbul. Adams paid less than $600 for a suite that normally costs $7,000 for two nights, the indictment alleges.
An essential part of the government’s prosecution is the claim that Adams not only knew about all of this, but that he “and others working at his direction, repeatedly took steps to shield his solicitation and acceptance of these benefits from public scrutiny.” Those efforts, the indictment alleges, included not disclosing the travel benefits he received on the city’s required annual financial disclosure form as well as creating “fake paper trails, falsely suggesting he had paid” for the travel benefits his generous overseas benefactor financed.
The mayor also was apparently diligent in deleting “messages with others involved in his misconduct” to destroy evidence, although the indictment is replete with email and text messages captured by government investigators.
Part of the quid pro quo for all of these benefits, according to the indictment, was the Turkish official telling Adams that he had to override the New York Fire Department in order “to facilitate the opening of a new Turkish consular building” without a fire inspection “in time for a high-profile visit by Turkey’s president.”
“Adams did as instruct,” the indictment says, and the responsible fire official “was told that he would lose his job if he failed to acquiesce.” The building was allowed to open. If the scheme had not worked, the indictment alleges, the “building would have failed an FDNY inspection.”
The indictment also alleges that Adams successfully intervened on behalf of others who illegally funneled money to him, such as a businessman who wanted help with the city’s “Department of Buildings.”
The five criminal counts against Adams allege violations of 18 U.S.C. §1342 and §1343; 52 U.S.C. §30121 and §30109; and 18 U.S.C. §2 and §666. These federal statutes cover conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, federal program bribery, soliciting and receiving campaign donations from foreign nationals, and plain, old-fashioned bribery.
If you’re wondering how a federal prosecutor has jurisdiction over campaign contributions being made to a local mayoral campaign, it is because 52 U.S.C. §30121 bans all political contributions by foreigners in federal, state, and local elections.
Congress has the constitutional authority for this because of its power over foreign aliens and immigration, which includes the ability to keep them out of all of our elections, not just federal elections.
In the final paragraph of the indictment, the government asks for forfeiture by Adams of “all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the commission” of his misdeeds. That means that in addition to long jail time, Adams—if convicted—could be on the hook for millions of dollars in criminal forfeiture and civil penalties.
No one should doubt that these are very serious, very substantial charges, although Adams is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty or decides to plead guilty. But all of the information in the indictment seems to indicate that federal prosecutors and agents conducted an in-depth, thorough investigation.
If Adams decides to fight the charges instead of trying to negotiate a plea deal with the government, we may be looking at a very long, very expensive process before the case is resolved.
Speaking on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show this week, Clinton was asked about continued allegations of Russian efforts to disseminate Russian propaganda in the United States. Clinton responded:
Hillary Clinton has long been one of the most anti-free speech figures in American politics, including calling upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). She is now suggesting the arrest of Americans who spread what she considers disinformation. It is a crushingly ironic moment since it was her campaign that funded the infamous Steele dossier and spread false stories of Russian collusion during her presidential campaign. Presumably, that disinformation would not be treated as criminal viewpoints.
“I think it’s important to indict the Russians, just as Muller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States.”
The interview was chillingly consistent with Clinton long antagonism toward free speech.
START AROUND THE 9TH MINUTE. SHE WANTS AMERICANS LIKE ME PROSECUTED FOR PUBLISHING THE TRUTH.
Clinton, of course, was not challenged by Maddow on the fact that her campaign was the conduit for disinformation linked to Russian intelligence services. Not only did U.S. intelligence believe that the Clinton campaign was used to make the debunked claims, but it was clearly done for purely political purposes.
Clinton efforts were so obvious by July 2016 that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The Russian investigation was launched days after this briefing.
(MSNBC/via YouTube)
Her general counsel, Marc Elias, his former partner Michael Sussmann, and the campaign were later found involved in not just spreading the false claims from the Steele dossier but other false stories like the Alfa Bank conspiracy claim.
It was Elias who managed the legal budget for the campaign. We now know that the campaign hid the funding of the Steele dossier as a legal expense.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said that Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Elias was also seated next to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, when he was asked about the role of the campaign, he denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Even assuming that Podesta was kept in the dark, the Durham Report clearly shows that Elias knew and played an active role in pushing this effort.
The Clinton campaign lied to the media, spread false claims of Russian disinformation, and was accused of being a conduit for Russian intelligence. So, would the “better deterrence” have been for Clinton herself to be arrested?
Sussmann ultimately did stand trial but was acquitted. Notably, John Durham noted that “no one at Fusion GPS … would agree to voluntarily speak with the Office” while both the DNC and Clinton campaign invoked privileges to refuse to answer certain questions.
For a person who is on her fourth memoir, Clinton is remarkably hostile to free speech. Notably, in all of these memoirs, she does not address her prominent role in calling for the censorship and now arrest of those with opposing views. She also does not discuss how her campaign lied to the media and funded the Steele dossier. Perhaps that is coming in the fifth memoir. What is clear is that Clinton herself has no fear that such prosecution would ever await her. She is one of those who may silence others but not be silenced. The public is to be protected from views that she deemed disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation.
To that end, as one of the guardians of truth, Clinton chastised the media for not being more consistently anti-Trump, a daunting prospect since the media has been accused of running almost 90 percent negative stories on Trump. Nevertheless, shortly after the second assassination attack on Trump, Clinton called Trump a danger to the world and added that “I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for the press to have a consistent narrative about how dangerous Trump is.”
Ideally, between the arrests of those accused of disinformation and an effective state media, Clinton hopes to rein in errant thoughts and viewpoints.
In the interview, Maddow did not have even a slight objection to the implications of arresting people with criminal viewpoints. Censorship and criminal prosecutions are such mainstream concepts that they are as unsurprising as a fourth Clinton memoir.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
Image: AP
Image: Fortune
Image: X
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.