What Did You Say?

Tagged with:

Antifa Denial: How a Violent Anti-Free Speech Group Became a Non-Entity in American Politics

By: Jonathan Turley | October 16, 2025

Below is my column on the rise of Antifa deniers in Washington. Once embraced and even marketed on the left, Antifa has become the group that must not be named as political violence rises across the country. It does not matter that radicals identify as Antifa, coordinate protests, carry Antifa flags, wear signature clothing, and espouse the same ideas from the “Antifa handbook.” There have even been people elected as Antifa representatives. Yet, the current spin is to pretend that they do not exist as a single organization to deflect the debate over violence on the left. Even with the past and current FBI directors saying that they exist as a group, politicians are mocking those who object to Antifa, even journalists and others targeted by its members.

This week, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) claimed that “nobody” knows what the left-wing terrorist organization Antifa is and that it does not exist. However, he previously promoted the “Antifa Handbook” in 2018 and praised the group as terrifying Trump. Now, however, he has joined the chorus of Antifa denials as political violence rises around the country.

Here is the column:

Roughly seventy years ago, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover famously declared, “There is no organized crime in America.” Hoover’s stubborn denial of the existence of the mafia continued despite ample evidence to the contrary, from arrests to congressional testimony.

Many have speculated on why Hoover maintained his stubborn denial. Perhaps, they say, he was trying to avoid the political embarrassment of long ignoring the single largest criminal network in the country.

Many today seem to be adopting a Hoover-esque wilful blindness about another violent group: Antifa. Politicians and pundits are denying that the left-wing anarchist group exists, mocking President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization.

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) seemed to morph into Hoover before our very eyes, including a posting in which he challenged anyone to “name one member of ‘Antifa.’” Former House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) was widely ridiculed for denying the existence of Antifa. Others on the left have joined Goldman in this absurd claim. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel committed part of his monologue to assure viewers that Antifa is no more than a mythical “chupacabra.” “You understand there is no Antifa,” he said. “This is an entirely made-up organization.”

I have testified about Antifa before Congress, run columns on the organization for over a decade, and wrote a book discussing Antifa. I did oppose declaring Antifa a terrorist organization due to free speech concerns, but I also know that it is very real.

By design, Antifa avoids typical leadership hierarchies and organizational structures. Antifa was first created in the 1920s, associated with the Weimar-era German communist group Antifaschistische Aktion.

It is easy to satisfy Goldman’s demand in naming some members, since they self-identify as members of Antifa. One such student came from my campus and proclaimed that Antifa was winning after his arrest for property destruction. When another radical was arrested after taking an axe to a congressional office, he self-identified as a member of Antifa. Before Kyle Benjamin Douglas Calvert, 26, implanted an IED device outside of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office in downtown Montgomery, he put up stickers reading “support your local Antifa.” Numerous Antifa members have been arrested, including some who claimed to be journalists.

Many protesters belong to Antifa groups that have names like “Rose City Antifa” and offshoots like Love and Rage and Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. Antifa members have been elected to the French and European parliaments.

Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” called by some the “Antifa bible,” explains that the group is united in its opposition to free speech. “Most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists,” he writes. “From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

Law enforcement officials like former FBI Director Christopher Wray have long debunked the deniers like Goldman. “Antifa is a real thing,” said Wray.

Ironically, when many on the left are not denying its existence, they are rallying their members or actually selling Antifa merchandise. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison — now the Minnesota attorney general — proclaimed that Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. His own son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer.

But ,with Antifa violence on the rise, Democratic leaders have gone back to denying its existence even as Antifa deploys its signature black hoodies and masks.

Indeed, some liberal activists admit to having coordinated violent protests with Antifa groups. For example, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Dwayne Dixon was a member of the radical gun club Redneck Revolt, a group recently referenced in flyers quoting the assassin of Charlie Kirk to rally the left. The flyers read, “Hey, Fascist! Catch! The only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.”

During a panel at Harvard University, Dixon reportedly admitted that an Antifa-linked group requested his gun club to provide security during the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia: “Prior to that day, as the planning for the defense of Charlottesville proceeded, the local Anarchist People of Color Collective … had requested that Redneck Revolt be present to secure Justice Park for a wide variety of activists who were expected to assemble.”

The denial of the existence of an actual group is meant to deflect the discussion of the rising violence from the left, as these same politicians fuel the rage with reckless rhetoric. But they’re not so good at keeping their story straight. While whipping up the mob with claims that democracy is dying and comparing their opponents to Nazis, they deny the existence of the very group that politicians like Ellison praise for targeting conservatives.

Hoover declined to admit the mafia existed until, on November 14, 1957, dozens of mobsters were found meeting in a farmhouse in Apalachin, New York.

What is different is that Antifa has repeatedly had such farmhouse moments, with prosecutions revealing a national movement with self-identified members. So why the denial? These are the shock troops for some politicians who think that they can use the violent group for political advantage. They are mistaken. Antifa is unlikely to have much use for establishment liberals once it gains more power.

Until then, Antifa can count on the Goldmans of the world to give them cover in denying that they exist.

In the film “The Usual Suspects,” the character Verbal Kint offered this explanation for the invisible villain Keyser Söze: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Crime, Law, political violence

Tagged with:

“Race-Based Remedies Should Have an End Point”: Justices Appear Poised to Issue Historic Ruling on the Voting Rights Act

By: Jonathan Turley | October 16, 2025

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held the long-awaited argument in Louisiana v. Callais, considering an appeal of Louisiana’s congressional map. The two majority-black districts are being challenged under the 15th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as unconstitutionally gerrymandered on the basis of race. The case could result in a rejection of race-based congressional districting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Notably, the Louisiana case was previously argued, but on the last day before the summer recess, the court issued an order setting the case for a second oral argument in the 2025-26 term. It later directed the litigants to file briefs addressing:

“whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violates either the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment, which bars the government from denying or restricting voting rights based on race.”

On Wednesday, I was addressing the annual conference of chief judges, speaking on the Supreme Court. I discussed some of the current cases, including Louisiana v. Callais. I noted that there may now be a majority in favor of a significant change on Section 2, but that some of us would be listening for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett as indicators of the Court balance.

We did hear from Kavanaugh and Barrett and the challengers could take heart in the skepticism that they expressed over the indefinite use of race in such districting.

The oral argument took an interesting turn when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sought to push back on the need to show a discriminatory intent. She interjected:

“I guess I’m thinking of it, of the fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws. And my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities.‘

“And so, it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings. And it didn’t matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary. That’s irrelevant.‘

“Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible. I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. The idea in Section 2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system.’

“They’re disabled. In fact, we use the word disabled in Milligan. We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”

Justice Jackson appears to be referring to this paragraph in Allen v. Milligan:

“Individuals thus lack an equal opportunity to participate in the political process when a State’s electoral structure operates in a manner that “minimize[s] or cancel[s] out the[ir] voting strength.” Id., at 47. That occurs where an individual is disabled from “enter[ing] into the political process in a reliable and meaningful manner” “in the light of past and present reality, political and otherwise.” White, 412 U. S., at 767, 770. A district is not equally open, in other words, when minority voters face—unlike their majority peers—bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the State, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a nonminority voter.” (emphasis added)

The court was not making an analogy to the ADA (though, in fairness to Justice Jackson, she was not suggesting that it made that point). It is also worth noting that Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

“We have understood the language of §2 against the background of the hard-fought compromise that Congress struck. To that end, we have reiterated that §2 turns on the presence of discriminatory effects, not discriminatory intent.”

Milligan was deeply fractured and the question is whether five justices would now elect to set aside or reframe some of these former rulings.

During the oral argument, Roberts seemed to do precisely that in the use of Milligan, remarking “That case took the existing precedent as a given, it was a case in which we were considering Alabama’s particular challenge based on … what turned out to be an improper evidentiary showing.”

Moreover, Justice Kavanaugh (who was one of the concurrences in Milligan) suggested that we might have reached “the end point” on such race-based districting: “[T]his Court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but … they should not be indefinite and should have a[n] end point.”

Now, back to the ADA analogy.

The disabled face permanent and ongoing physical disabilities in accessing buildings and spaces. While Jackson was stressing that intent does not matter when it comes to discrimination against the disabled, the question of the other justices is whether the use of race-based districts will continue indefinitely. The ADA is permanent because the disabilities are permanent. The analogy plays into the very point of justices like Kavanaugh on whether race-based districting would continue ad infinitum.

If the oral argument is a reflection of the eventual votes of the justices, there now seems to be a working majority of justices willing to bring “an end point” to race-based districting. The result would have tremendous legal and political impact.

Legally, one of the most litigated areas of elections would be largely curtailed. The Voting Rights Act would still be used to prevent measures to inhibit voting and to protect the right to vote for every citizen. However, the constant districting controversies over guaranteeing majority black districts would come to an end.

The move would also be a major additional move of the Roberts court to eliminate the use of race-based classifications in society from college admissions to election districting. In a 2007 case, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that position most succinctly by declaring that the “way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Politically, any loss of such gerrymandering on the basis of race could impact the Democrats who hold the vast majority of these districts.

Of course, the Court could again fracture as it did in Milligan on the rationale for any opinion. What was notable about the oral argument is that there appeared to be at least five justices considering a threshold rejection of race-based districting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Category:

Law

Tagged with:

Comey’s Perp Walk

By: Kevin Jackson | October 8, 2025

For years, James Comey strutted around Washington like the patron saint of integrity — a man who believed the FBI was one sermon short of a church.

He was the tall, sanctimonious lawman who treated press conferences like revival meetings, and himself like the high priest of righteousness. But that halo’s slipping faster than Joe Biden’s memory, because this Thursday, the former FBI Director — the one who played both puppet master and political hitman in the great anti-Trump crusade — is finally set to be arraigned in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Let that sink in. The man who orchestrated the Russia hoax, spied on Americans, and helped turn the FBI into a political protection racket for the Clintons is now facing criminal charges for lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The irony is so thick, you could spread it on toast.

As Jim Comey begins his legal battle today…

Remember what this arrogant psychopath did to newly elected POTUS Trump, General Flynn and other Trump supporters.

Lying to Congress is just the beginning of his treachery.

Comey must face justice for it all.pic.twitter.com/8R32HAOh86
— C3 (@C_3C_3) October 8, 2025

Comey, of course, insists he’s innocent — because nothing screams innocence quite like pre-recording a “trust me” video before your arraignment. In that clip, he swore he’d “done nothing wrong,” which, by Leftist translation, means “guilty as hell.” He’s expected to show up voluntarily, plead not guilty, and flash the smug grin of a man who still thinks he’s auditioning for MSNBC.

But here’s the tragicomedy of it all: these charges barely scratch the surface of his crimes. It’s like arresting a mob boss for jaywalking. For decades, Comey was the muscle behind the elite’s protection racket, shielding political royalty like the Clintons while turning the FBI into the enforcement arm of the DNC. Ordinary Americans went to jail for less than what Comey deleted over brunch.

Comey didn’t just bend the rules — he broke them, gift-wrapped them, and handed them to the swamp with a wink. He ran a rogue agency that spied on the Trump campaign using bogus FISA warrants, fabricated “intel,” and a media network that acted more like accomplices than journalists. Names like Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page should be carved on the same granite of infamy — the bureaucratic Mount Rushmore of deceit.

But Comey wasn’t the mastermind; he was the middle manager.

The real orders, as most of us suspect, came from higher up — Barack Obama, with perhaps a memo or two approved by the Clintons. That’s how Washington works. The people at the top don’t get their hands dirty; they hire someone like Comey to do it for them. And for years, he played that role perfectly — the bureaucratic button man in a Brooks Brothers suit.

So when word hit that Comey would face arraignment, conservatives didn’t celebrate — we exhaled. It’s justice long overdue, like finally seeing the crooked referee tossed out of the game. And while rumors swirl about whether he’ll be perp-walked, I think we all know the right answer: absolutely, yes. This is the man who greenlit dawn raids on Trump allies, sending armored FBI teams to bust down the doors of Roger Stone and Paul Manafort while CNN conveniently “just happened” to be there. If there’s anyone who deserves a flashbulb frenzy and an orange jumpsuit cameo, it’s James “Higher Loyalty” Comey.

Independent journalist Catherine Herridge recently noted that perp walks are rare, but in this case, she said, Comey “could be an exception.” Her understatement should win an award. The American people have waited eight years to see an FBI director in cuffs — a visual confirmation that the elite bubble finally popped.

Herridge also observed that Comey “played an outsized role in undermining public confidence in the FBI and Justice Department, the same institutions he was charged with protecting.” That’s putting it gently. Comey didn’t just undermine confidence; he torched it, buried the ashes, and sold the plot to CNN.

The Left will, of course, pretend to rally around him.

They’ll claim this is a “dangerous precedent,” that Trump’s Justice Department is weaponizing power. These are the same people who cheered when Trump’s allies were frog-marched for process crimes. Remember Roger Stone? They sent half of Quantico after him like he was El Chapo. So, forgive us if we’d like a little symmetry — poetic justice with flashing lights.

But even the Left’s loyalty has an expiration date. Comey won’t be their darling for long. He’s damaged goods, a burned asset. Once his usefulness runs out, they’ll toss him overboard faster than CNN drops a failed host. Think of Jimmy Kimmel’s return from suspension — he came back to thunderous applause and 6.2 million viewers, then watched his audience collapse days later. Comey’s trajectory will be the same: a brief, loud defense from the Left, followed by the quiet hum of abandonment once he starts singing to save himself. And believe me, this man will sing like a gospel choir at Sunday service.

The journey to get here wasn’t easy. The Left nearly pulled off their usual trick — running out the clock.

The statute of limitations on Comey’s crimes was set to expire, and they figured one more stolen election would bury the evidence for good. But fate had other plans. When U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert hesitated to prosecute, the administration replaced him with Lindsey Halligan — a prosecutor who actually believed in accountability. According to reports, Siebert didn’t want to touch Comey’s case, claiming “insufficient evidence.” Translation: “I like my Georgetown cocktail parties.”

Once Halligan took over, the dominoes began to fall. And like clockwork, the media started spinning. MSNBC, still operating as a “clown factory of misinformation,” tried to discredit the new leadership. Former Trump official Kash Patel fired back, reminding them that “in this FBI, follow the chain of command or get relieved.” Translation: play ball or get benched.

The indictment itself focuses on Comey’s 2020 Senate testimony, where he claimed under oath that he never authorized FBI personnel to act as anonymous sources in news stories. The problem is that prosecutors say they can prove he did exactly that — by directing law professor Daniel Richman to leak classified details of his meetings with Trump to the media. Comey thought he was being clever, laundering leaks through a “private citizen.” But Richman’s testimony backfired. He told investigators that Comey “explicitly told him not to communicate with the media” on certain topics, directly undercutting the prosecution’s case.

Understand that the new and improved DOJ would never go to court without its ducks in a row. They either can prove that Richman perjured himself, or they have additional evidence against Comey.

Understand that many witnesses recant their testimony against the Left, when they believe the Left are in power. But now that the veil of invincibility has been lifted, many whistleblowers are stepping up again.

And optics matter.

If Comey has to walk into court under flashing lights, the point’s already made. He’s no longer above the law. In fact, Reuters reported that an FBI agent was relieved of duty after refusing to participate in a staged perp walk for Comey — which means there’s internal debate over whether to humiliate him publicly. My vote? Absolutely. I want to see him in handcuffs, flanked by the same agents who once dragged innocent people out of bed in front of news cameras. Karma has a wicked sense of humor.

Devin Nunes, now heading Trump’s Intelligence Advisory Board, appeared on Sunday Morning Futures to discuss the arraignment. It’s poetic justice — Nunes was the first to expose the Russia Hoax and now he’s watching the architect of that hoax face the music. It was Nunes who gave America its first glimpse behind the curtain — the deep-state collusion between Obama-era intelligence officials, Democrats, and a willing press. His reward? Years of mockery. His vindication? Watching Comey’s smug mug as he’s processed by U.S. Marshals.

And let’s not forget Jack Smith, the man who made it his mission to destroy Trump.

We’ve since learned that Smith spied on nine Republican Senators in his obsessive pursuit of the January 6 “insurrection” narrative. His tactics make Nixon’s plumbers look like amateurs. When Smith eventually joins Comey in the defendant’s box — and he will — it’ll mark a new chapter: accountability, the sequel.

For the American people, this isn’t about revenge. It’s about restoration. We want a government that doesn’t serve itself, one where lying to Congress gets you more than a book deal and a CNN contributor gig. We want equal justice — and not the kind that only applies to conservatives. Comey’s downfall, however partial, sends that message.

If he’s perp-walked, it’ll be the most poetic image of justice since Trump’s mugshot — a visual metaphor for an era of corruption finally cornered. If he flips and starts naming names, the whole swamp might tremble. And if he escapes with a technical acquittal, fine — the stain of exposure will linger longer than any sentence.

So yes, James Comey may walk into court a free man. But he’ll walk out something worse: irrelevant. His moral superiority act is over. The “higher loyalty” schtick has become the punchline of a bad political joke.

Justice, like comedy, is all about timing. And for James Comey, the timing couldn’t be worse — or more perfect.

Category:

Tagged with:

Operation Arctic Fraud: Jack Smith’s Cold War Against Trump

By: Kevin Jackson | October 7, 2025

Is anybody surprised to learn that Jack Smith is a criminal?

That’s like being shocked to find out a Kardashian staged a photo op. The only real mystery here is how this guy keeps getting taxpayer-funded badges to break laws he’s supposed to enforce.

According to a Newsbreak report, former Special Counsel Jack Smith allegedly authorized surveillance on nearly a dozen Republican senators during his “investigation” into January 6. The DOJ document—discovered by FBI Director Kash Patel—details a scheme dubbed “Operation Arctic Frost.” Cute name. Sounds like a limited-edition Slurpee flavor, except this one’s spiked with espionage and arrogance.

Smith allegedly tracked private communications and phone calls from Senators Lindsey Graham, Marsha Blackburn, Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lummis, Bill Hagerty, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, and Congressman Mike Kelly. That’s not an investigation — that’s political reconnaissance. It’s like the DOJ decided to become the Democrat National Committee’s spy agency.

Now, let’s play along with their delusion.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that there was a legitimate reason to track Republicans’ phones. Fine. What did they find? A fantasy football league and a bunch of text messages about border security? Meanwhile, the Democrats’ phones from the J6 Committee days — poof — gone. Wiped cleaner than Hunter Biden’s laptop after a visit from the Secret Service.

And speaking of cover-ups, every key J6 Committee member got their preemptive Biden-issued “autopen pardon.” Nothing screams innocence like a co-conspirator providing “just in case” legal protection before the evidence shows up.

Now let’s zoom out a bit. Jack Smith didn’t stumble into corruption.

He’s not a rogue operator — he’s part of the treasonous cabal that turned the DOJ into the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party. His history with Trump goes back years, and every move he’s made since has had the same goal: destroy the man who refuses to bow to their Deep State altar.

Remember when Democrats called January 6 an “insurrection”? Notice how not one person has been charged with actual insurrection. It’s almost as if the government knows the word doesn’t apply when nobody’s armed, no government was overthrown, and the only thing actually destroyed was Americans’ faith in election integrity.

By now, even the most hopeless Leftist barista in a Che Guevara T-shirt knows J6 was a cover-up.

The Democrats needed a spectacle — a smoke bomb to distract from their 2020 election heist. They had to convince America that the guy who drew 60,000 people to rallies somehow lost to the guy who couldn’t draw 60 to a Zoom call. The math only works if you ignore arithmetic.

President Trump, of course, has been vindicated by time. He knows he was cheated out of a second term, but in true Trumpian fashion, he’s weaponized the waiting game. The delay allowed every corrupt actor to leave a trail of digital breadcrumbs, and now, one by one, those crumbs lead straight to Democrat doorsteps. These aren’t geniuses, folks — these are bureaucrats who think “delete” is the same as “destroy.”

The walls are closing in — but this time, on them.

Take James Comey. His indictment sent shockwaves through D.C., mostly because the Left suddenly realized their “untouchables” aren’t. The Comey domino is the first in a long line. Once he flips — and he will — the floodgates will open. Bureaucrats, aides, media operatives — the entire swamp ecosystem will start squealing like Fauci at a gain-of-function hearing.

And then there’s General Mark Milley — Mr. “I secretly called China to undermine my commander-in-chief.” Recently, even he admitted he could face court-martial for his actions. Translation: “I did it, I know I did it, and I’m praying for a plea deal.” Don’t think Milley suddenly realized this, as he’s known this for years. But like other Leftists who targeted Trump, he never thought he would get found out. After all, they had destroyed Trump, right?

The Left is cracking under its own hypocrisy.

These people spent years calling Trump a dictator while literally using intelligence agencies to spy on elected officials. And all their chest-pounding over “rule of law” and so on provided cover for their treason. Temporarily.

Jack Smith’s “Operation Arctic Frost” wasn’t just about surveillance. It was about control — about keeping tabs on anyone who might expose the truth. When the DOJ spies on sitting senators, it’s not democracy. It’s tyranny with better branding.

Ironically, every Democrat who’s ever screamed about “threats to democracy” is now defending a man who illegally tapped political opponents. These are the same people who fainted over Trump’s tweets but shrug when federal agencies behave like the Stasi. If irony were currency, Democrats would have paid off the national debt by now.

So where does this go?

My bet — the thread unravels fast. Because when corruption this deep is exposed, it never stops at the first name. Jack Smith’s downfall will trigger a cascade — DOJ officials, FBI players, even sitting politicians who thought “Arctic Frost” would stay buried. Spoiler alert: there’s no permafrost thick enough to preserve this kind of rot.

And that brings us to the political weather forecast: a deep freeze for the Left. The Uniparty’s about to get frostbite in some sensitive places. Trump isn’t just exposing the swamp — he’s forcing it to melt itself. Every time Democrats act to “save democracy,” they end up proving why it needs saving from them.

Operation Arctic Frost won’t be remembered as an investigation. It’ll be remembered as the moment the Left’s paranoia became its undoing — the day the hunters realized they’d been wiretapping their own graves.

Because when all’s said and done, you can only keep secrets so long before they start keeping you.

The Left’s biggest lie is that Biden won the 2020 election. And their next biggest lie is how they created the J6 narrative to protect the lie. Now those lies are front and center.

Comey will have lots of company soon, as new indictments come. And the names on the list will be shocking for only one reason: we finally got them.

Category:

Tagged with:

Virginia Attorney General Candidate Jay Jones Accused of Additional Violent Rhetoric

By: Jonathan Turley | October 7, 2025

Jay Jones, Virginia’s Democratic attorney general candidate, is under fire for shocking statements that expressed a desire to kill political opponents and their young “fascist” children. Despite the violent rhetoric, Democrats like Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Virginia, have stood by Jones and continue to campaign for his election. Now, however, Jones is accused of making disturbing comments about the benefit of killing a few cops as a warning to others. It is unclear whether the alleged comments were made in writing (as were earlier comments), and Jones has denied them.

Virginia has become a testing ground for rage rhetoric as Democrats stand by Jones and refuse to call for his withdrawal. Spanberger herself was criticized recently for calling on supporters to “Let your rage fuel you.”

What is notable about this latest allegation is that it is coming from the very same legislator who discussed the prior statements, which Jones admitted were true.

According to the New York Post, Republican Del. Carrie Coyner told Virginia Scope on Monday, Jones used a 2020 discussion about qualified immunity to suggest that a few dead cops might be a good thing. She recounted how Jones allegedly said, “Well, maybe if a few of them died, that they would move on, not shooting people, not killing people.”

Jones denied the new allegations: “I did not say this. I have never believed and do not believe that any harm should come to law enforcement, period.”

It is unclear whether Coyner has proof of the new alleged statements.

Jones has not threatened a defamation lawsuit over the allegation. If untrue, the statement could constitute defamation as impugning Jones’s reputation and veracity as a public figure. However, as a public official, he is subject to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard and would have to show a knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth on the part of Rep. Coyner.

Category:

Law, Political, political violence

Tagged with:

Comey Indicted: The Swamp Bites Back

By: Kevin Jackson | September 25, 2025

Comey, FBI, Investigation, #TeamKJ, #KevinJackson

Imagine standing by the reflecting pool in D.C., watching the city’s elite congratulating themselves for their “service” while duplicitously ignoring their own mountains of scandal.

On the surface, the swamp looks serene, but beneath the waterline, the biggest rats have been paddling for their lives. Now, one of their towering rodents, James Comey, faces his own reckoning. Thanks to an overt statement by President Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi finally had to act on the criminality of James Comey (and soon many others).

James “I don’t know her intent” Comey was finally indicted by a federal grand jury today. He was indicted on charges of making a false statement, as well as another for obstruction.

“No one is above the law. Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on in a post on social platform X.

The president took to his social media platform over the weekend to issue a direct call to Bondi for an indictment of Comey, alongside other perceived political enemies of the president. And while the Left try to spin this as Trump interference, they know the indictment is pure justice.

President Trump pushed the issue for two reasons, the statute of limitations and holdovers who didn’t want to actually do their jobs. Specifically, Erik Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who stepped down rather than bring charges against another Trump hater, specifically New York Attorney General Letitia James. Despite a mountain of evident, Siebert declared that there was not enough evidence in the case to support allegations of mortgage fraud.

He was also overseeing the Comey case, so we know how that would have ended up. Now the case has been handed over to Lindsey Halligan, who was tapped as an interim replacement. Halligan, a White House staffer who practiced insurance law before she joined Trump’s criminal defense team in 2022, has never tried a federal case.

Trump has long called for charges against Comey, whom he blames for the bogus investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia in the 2016 contest. President Trump has consistently called that sham investigation for what it was—a “witch hunt.”

According to sources, a grand jury is eyeing Comey for perjury and obstruction.

Democrats have been preparing for this eventuality since they began the coup of Trump in 2020. Had Trump lost, we would never come anywhere near resolving this travesty of justice. However, with the unexpected Trump win, Democrats knew that Comey’s indictments were just a matter of time.

By now the world knows that along with Comey there are many operatives who lied on Trump. And now we get the delicious irony of seeing the operatives who slandered President Trump with the phoniest “Russia collusion” story ever concocted may inside of a courtroom, and then perhaps inside jail cells.

The Big Lie: Proven and Dissected

For years, Democrats and their media mouthpieces insisted the Steele Dossier—opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign via Fusion GPS—had no bearing on the infamous 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that accused Russia of interfering on Trump’s behalf. The official story: “Just solid intelligence, nothing biased here, citizen!”

Well, hold onto your MAGA hat. The CIA’s 2025 tradecraft review determined that not only was the dossier included in the ICA over the strenuous objections of career professionals—it was rammed in by, you guessed it, Brennan and Comey themselves.

Naturally, these two pillars of the intelligence world both perjured themselves before Congress (because lying is now just “narrative shaping”), repeatedly testifying that the Steele Dossier wasn’t part of the assessment. The new CIA report reads less like dry analysis and more like a rejected Tom Clancy plot: “The decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.”

In other words: Get Trump at all costs.

But why stop there? In true “cover every base” fashion, Brennan even instructed analysts by email to make sure the Steele Dossier was included. Meanwhile, the Deputy Director for Analysis literally warned in writing that this move “risked the entire credibility of the paper.” But as we’ve learned, for Democrats, risking national credibility is merely an occupational hazard. Not to mention, when you have no credibility, what’s really at risk?

Revisiting Flynn: The Collateral Damage

Of course, while Comey makes headlines, let’s revisit his favorite hobby: going rogue against political opponents under the guise of “ethics.”

There’s the infamous episode where Comey dispatched FBI agents to ambush then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn without proper protocol. If only the Trump administration paid as much attention to bureaucratic landmines as Democrats pay to avoiding accountability.

The way Comey not only tried to destroy General Flynn and his family by framing him, but later mockingly bragged about it, remains one of the most disgraceful abuses ever committed by an FBI director. He deserves prison for that alone. pic.twitter.com/nQ32z8wr8u
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 24, 2025

Why did Obama’s crowd fear Flynn?

Not only was he under consideration as Trump’s National Security Advisor, but his foreign policy chops and his willingness to critique Obama’s feckless handling of global terror made him a persona non grata for the outgoing administration. It wasn’t about the “peaceful transition of power”—it was about keeping the Deep State’s secrets safely under the rug.

Obama, in a classic “tell me you’re spooked without telling me, ” Personally warned Trump not to keep Flynn. If that wasn’t enough, Comey, ever the operator, crowed about ignoring protocol when he tried to trip Flynn up, safe in the belief that “these new guys don’t know the rules.”

So, Comey breached protocol, and sent FBI agents to set up Flynn, since they were eavesdropping on his communications.

You may recall the media’s gleeful spin: “Comey was just protecting America from Russian spies!” In reality, it was Beltway gangsters policing their turf by any means necessary.

The Indictment Drama: As the Swamp Turns

Fast-forward to fall 2025. Federal prosecutors are racing a five-year statute of limitations to decide whether to indict Comey for lying to Congress about his role in leaking information and steering the ICA. The evidence? During 2020 testimony, Comey denied ordering or permitting leaks and claimed the Steele Dossier wasn’t used to inform the ICA—statements now at odds with documented internal CIA and FBI communications. He lied.

Of course, the Democrat-apparatchik media and even some Justice Department officials are wringing their hands. “Can we really charge him?” Well, that question has been answered.

“Will it stick?” Magic 8-Ball: All signs point to yes.

Meanwhile, President Trump himself has made it clear that, if the roles were reversed, Democrats would happily indict “their enemies” on the flimsiest of pretexts. Trump, being Trump, summarized the mood best:

“They impeached me twice, indicted me five times, OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Lindsey Halligan—Trump’s former personal lawyer may have zero prosecutorial experience; she brings plenty of backbone to the task.

Deep State Blues: From Coup Plotting to Consequences

Let’s not forget, this isn’t just Comey’s party trick. The tradecraft review and ongoing House investigations have laid bare a genuine “treasonous conspiracy” that involves Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and the broader intelligence apparatus. The entirety of this operation aimed to prevent Trump’s win, and if he were elected, overturn the 2016 election.

Ironically, the so-called “insurance policy” texted by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page was just the tip of the iceberg. As mentioned earlier, we’ve learned that Brennan instructed the inclusion of fiction alongside fact, thus the entire facade collapses.

Tulsi Gabbard’s blunt summary says volumes:

“The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government.”

Take a moment to let that marinate. The people who absconded with four years of the country’s attention by claiming Trump was a secret Russian double-agent were, in fact, orchestrating a coup to destroy him for daring to beat their anointed queen, Hillary.

The Hypocrisy Olympics: Media and Democrat Sanctimony

If there were medals for hypocrisy, Democrats would sweep every event. The same party that demolished norms, spied on Trump, and fabricated “dossier-based” assessments now laughably feigns concern about “political prosecutions.”

Further, the media’s shift, meanwhile, is acrobatic.

Stories bemoan Trump’s “petty vindictiveness” while politely omitting that Comey, Brennan, and friends manufactured a multi-year witch hunt that accomplished nothing except destroying public faith in the institutions the left now claim to cherish.

Well, there is new wallpaper inside the Washington Post newsroom that reads: “Okay, democracy dies in darkness, and Democrats die in the light, so keep them off!”

Why This Matters: Justice (and Its Imitators)

The Comey case is not merely about one swamp creature finally getting hooked. It’s about a pattern of impunity deeply embedded in the upper echelons of government. When Trump-supporting Americans rally for accountability, the usual suspects call them “authoritarians.” Yet those same suspects conspired to rig investigations, leak selectively, and keep the public hypnotized with synthetic scandals.

Comey’s indictments are a cautionary tale to all bureaucratic showmen: eventually, the swamp tides turn.

The Swamp’s Last Stand

Justice in D.C. has been an urban legend—everyone talks about it, but nobody believes it’ll ever materialize. At this hour, Comey’s fate has a new course. And he won’t have a lot of people to run protection for his crimes.

If anything, the drama asserts one cold fact: political prosecution is real—in this case, it finally targets the people who corrupted the system, and not the person challenging it.

In short, what we’re witnessing isn’t just Comey’s karma—it’s the swamp’s nervous breakdown. And for America? Maybe, just maybe, we’re getting the reckoning the nation deserves.

Category:

Tagged with:

Charlie Kirk and the Age of Rage

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | September15, 2025

Below is my column in the Hill on the murder of Charlie Kirk, the latest victim of our age of rage. The evidence of Antifa scribblings and indoctrination of the shooter came as no surprise. For months, some of us have been warning Democratic leaders about their dangerous rhetoric and how it would be received by the most radical elements in the Antifa movement.

Here is the column:

“Prove me wrong.”

For years, that tagline of Charlie Kirk and his group, Turning Point USA, enraged many on the left. In “an age of rage,” nothing is more triggering for the perpetually angry than an invitation to debate issues.

Indeed, someone has now killed him for it.

What is most chilling about the assassination is that it was not in the slightest degree surprising. This follows two attempted assassinations of President Trump and the killing of a pair of Minnesota politicians.

I heard of the assassination in Prague as I prepared to speak about the age of rage and the growing attacks on free speech. I was profoundly saddened by the news. I knew Charlie and respected his effort to challenge the orthodoxy on college campuses. We all have received regular death threats (and Charlie more than most), but there is still a hope that even the most deranged will leave these threats at the ideation rather than the action stage.This killer left Charlie’s wife, Erika, and her two young children as the latest victims of senseless violence against someone who refused to be silenced.

We do not have to know much about the shooter to recognize the rage. The person who killed Charlie did not view him as a father or even as a person. That is the transformative, enabling effect of rage.

In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about rage and the uncomfortable truth for many engaging in rage rhetoric: “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. … Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”

Charlie was brave, and he was brash. He refused to yield to the threats while encouraging others to speak out on our campuses.

He was particularly hated for holding a mirror to the face of higher education, exposing the hate and hypocrisy on our campuses. For decades, faculty have purged their ranks of conservatives and libertarians. Faced with the intolerance of most schools, polls show that a large percentage of students hide their values to avoid retaliation from faculty or their fellow students.

Charlie chose to change all that. TPUSA challenges people to engage and debate them. The response from some on the left has been to trash their tables and threaten the students. Recently, at UC Davis, police stood by and watched as a TPUSA tent was torn apart.

Charlie is only the latest such victim, and he is unlikely to be the last.

For months, some of us have warned about the rise in rage rhetoric. Some believe that they can ride a wave of rage back into power. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) has called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture of himself brandishing a baseball bat.

Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.”

Various radical groups welcome such rage rhetoric, particularly Antifa. The most violent anti-free speech group in the U.S., Antifa has long attacked journalists and others with opposing views. In his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” Professor Mark Bray noted that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists. … From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

Alleged shooter Tyler Robinson, 22, reportedly left telltale Antifa markings on evidence, including marking bullets inscribed with the lyrics: “Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Ciao, Ciao”(from an Italian anti-fascist anthem) and “Hey, fascist! Catch!”

I previously testified in Congress about the dangers of Antifa, and I discuss the group in my book. Despite such warnings, Democratic leaders have dismissed those dangers or actually embraced Antifa.

Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison (D), now Minnesota’s attorney general, previously celebrated how Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. Liberal sites sell Antifa items to celebrate the violent group, including onesies for “Antifa babies.”

Some politicians have privately expressed alarm at the rising violent speech in their ranks. One Democratic member told Axios, “Some of [our supporters] have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.”

Protesters are burning cars and dealerships. Even lawyers and reporters on the left are throwing Molotov cocktails at police. Some on the left have rolled out guillotines and chanted, “We got the guillotine, you better run.”

Just before he was shot at Utah Valley University, Kirk rallied the group with its signature chant of “prove me wrong.” Someone responded by killing him.

Of course, the murder proved nothing except that senseless hate is sweeping over our country. Someone preferred to kill Kirk rather than engage with him or others who held opposing views.

It is precisely the lack of debate and dialogue that has triggered this type of violence. For those dwelling deep in the hardened silos of our news and social media, dissenting voices become increasingly intolerable.

Charlie is still exposing that hypocrisy. As I prepared to address Charlie’s murder in Prague, anti-free speech groups were already using his murder to justify even greater limits on free speech to combat hate and disinformation. This is the ultimate dishonoring of his life and his legacy. Charlie died in the fight for free speech, challenging speech codes and censorship.

Greater censorship will not make political violence less likely; it will only make the likelihood of another Charlie Kirk less likely. Europe shows that extremists flourish under speech controls. The neo-Nazis are having a banner year in portraying themselves as victims.

It is the rest of us that are deterred by speech codes. According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.

Charlie was hated because he exposed the left’s intolerance of opposing views … all in the purported cause of achieving greater tolerance. By challenging others to debate, he triggered a generation of speech-phobics who are more interested in silencing others than speaking on their own account.

Charlie was hated for stripping away the pretense and self-delusion of those canceling, blacklisting, and attacking others for holding opposing views. He did so by standing in harm’s way.

The conservatives that Kirk coaxed out of the shadows can honor his memory by showing that they will not be silenced. They can step forward and renew his same challenge: “Prove me wrong.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Crime, Hate, Law, political violence

Tagged with:

Karma Forecloses on This Corrupt Democrat

By: Kevin Jackson | September 18, 2025

Bad news for Big Tish.

Trump’s nemesis Letitia James built her career accusing him of fraud. Now she’s staring down mortgage fraud allegations of her own—and suddenly the “fraud fighter” looks more like the fraudster. Graphic: Courtroom gavel with a foreclosure sign.

Karma doesn’t knock. It kicks down the door. For years, New York Attorney General Letitia James strutted around as the self-appointed dragon slayer of Donald Trump, waving around lawsuits like trophies and branding herself the one who would finally end Trump’s career. But in a twist so ironic it belongs in a satire novel; James now finds herself on the wrong side of a fraud investigation. Yes, the same “fraud-buster” who dragged Trump through court for allegedly lying on valuations is now facing heat for her own false documents: mortgage fraud tied to her Virginia residence.

According to Newsbreak, Trump officials are pushing for charges against her.

Investigators found that when James purchased her Virginia home in 2023, paperwork fraudulently listed the property as her “primary residence” when it wasn’t. That little box isn’t just paperwork fluff; lying about primary residency can drastically change mortgage terms and constitutes mortgage fraud. This wasn’t some clerical oops. This was lying for financial benefit—exactly the kind of dishonesty James used to try to bludgeon an innocent Trump.

And it wasn’t some random stranger filling out forms wrong. The documents came through under James’ name, via power of attorney signed through her own niece. Whether you stamp the pen yourself or hand the pen to family, the responsibility lies with you. That’s law 101. And the fact is, many people don’t believe the “niece” story.

Trump Retribution? No—Accountability

Her defenders scream this is political revenge. But let’s cut the nonsense. If an ordinary citizen lied on mortgage paperwork, they wouldn’t get an ABC News puff piece or cries of “weaponization”—they’d get indicted. Period.

ABC confirms that DOJ subpoenas have already been issued to James. When her defenders say “no clear evidence,” what they really mean is “we haven’t spun it enough yet.” Because at the end of the day, James got a financial benefit through fraudulent documentation—the definition of mortgage fraud. The fact that investigators are hesitating to indict tells you more about the rot in the justice system than about her innocence. The irony bites even harder when you recall James’ civil fraud case against Trump, where she paraded herself as crusader for truth. Laughable that any Democrat can get the word truth to roll off their tongue without having a seizure.

She built her political brand on promising to “get Trump.” She used her office as a political club, weaponizing the justice system against her enemies. Now the spotlight exposes her own corrupt dealings, and suddenly the system looks far less interested in speedy convictions. Funny how that works.

Hypocrisy on Display

James’ career is one long string of accusations, mugshot press conferences, and partisan grandstanding. She made “fraud” her middle name when she targeted Trump, painting him as the epitome of corruption. Yet now that she’s caught up in her own fraud scandal, her allies claim she’s the victim. The hypocrisy is so thick, you need a bulldozer to plow through it.

She wanted to make Trump the face of corruption. Now she’s turned herself into the poster child for the very fraud she claimed to oppose. The joke writes itself: Letitia “Fraud Fighter” James caught in (checks notes)… fraud.

Political Weaponization: Her Own Creation

The establishment whining about Trump’s “weaponization of justice” is laughable. Who was the pioneer of turning courtrooms into political battlegrounds? James. Her entire platform was about bringing down a political rival through lawfare. She normalized it, she celebrated it—until it cut the other way. Now she wants to cry foul? Too late. She set the precedent. Trump’s officials don’t even need to innovate here; they’re just flipping the playbook James invented back on her.

Bigger Picture

This entire saga reminds Americans that political witch hunts have a way of backfiring. When prosecutors become the prosecuted, it’s usually because they overplayed their hand, drank too much of their own propaganda, and thought they were untouchable.

Letitia James is not untouchable. She’s just another two-faced politician who abused her power to attack her enemies while thinking no one would notice her own sins. Well, people noticed. And subpoenas don’t just vanish.

The woman who tried to end Trump’s legacy may end up remembered not as the one who toppled Trump—but as the AG who blew up her own career with lies scribbled onto mortgage forms.

Category:

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

Branco Cartoon – Black Robe Killers

A.F. Branco | on September 9, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/branco-cartoon-black-robe-killers/

Judicial Murder — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

BRANCO TOON STORE – A.F. Branco 2026 Calendar is out. ORDER TODAY!

A.F. Branco Cartoon – 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was killed by a repeat violent criminal released by a radical leftist justice system.

HUGE: Rep. Randy Fine Plans to Introduce Bill to Hold Judges Accountable for Releasing Violent Criminals to Reoffend Following Horrific Public Stabbing Murder of Woman on Light Rail by Deranged Career Criminal

By Jordan Conradson – The Gateway Pundit – Sept 8, 2025

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) announced on Sunday that he is going to introduce legislation to hold soft-on-crime judges accountable if they release a violent criminal back to the street and the criminal commits more crimes.
The proposed legislation would “hold judges accountable when violent repeat offenders they release commit new crimes,” he said.
This comes after 34-year-old Decarlos Brown Jr. murdered 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska last month by stabbing her multiple times in the Charlotte, North Carolina, light rail station.
Surveillance video from the incident shows Brown, unprovoked, stabbing Zarutska from… READ MORE

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also, Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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.

Category:

Crime, Law

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

Branco Cartoon – Mayor Pinhead

A.F. Branco | on September 3, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/branco-cartoon-mayor-pinhead/

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Gov Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson hate Trump more than they care about their citizens.

‘We’re Going In’: Trump Says He’ll Send National Guard to Chicago, Without Giving a Timeline

By Johnathan Jones – The Western Journal – Sept 2, 2025

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he will send the National Guard into Chicago.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump confirmed his intention, but offered no timetable.
“Well, we’re going. I didn’t say when. We’re going in,” he said during remarks at the White House.
At least 58 people were shot, eight fatally, during the holiday, ABC News reported.
One drive-by shooting left seven people wounded, police said.
Trump has repeatedly criticized Democratic leaders in Illinois for failing to stop the bloodshed.
“Chicago is the worst and most dangerous city in the World, by far,” Trump wrote Tuesday on Truth Social. “Pritzker needs help badly, he just doesn’t know it yet. I will solve the crime problem fast, just like I did in DC. Chicago will be safe again, and soon.” … READ MORE

Category:

Tagged with:

Former Arizona Ethics Professor Sues University for Alleged Termination for Speaking Out Against Gender Policies

By: Jonathan Turley | September 2, 2025

Former University of Arizona professor Daniel Grossenbach is suing the school over alleged retaliation over his views on gender policies in his children’s school district. Grossenbach, who taught ethics as an adjunct instructor from 2020 to 2023, was a contract faculty member (as opposed to tenured faculty) and was terminated after a cancel campaign over his voicing objections to the policies. The lawsuit presents a familiar free speech controversy in higher education, where conservatives or libertarians are targeted for their views outside of universities, while those on the left are rarely subject to such campaigns.

Daniel Grossenbach says the university was pressured to terminate his contract in November 2023 after receiving anonymous complaints about his parental rights advocacy in his children’s school district. Grossenbach is the father of two students at Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) and founded a parental rights group called SaveCFSD in 2023. The group fought “policies and practices of hiding minors’ mental health information as a violation of fundamental parental rights.” The impetus of the group was gender identity surveys of students that allegedly led to lists of students who preferred different names and pronouns without notifying parents.

Grossenbach’s advocacy is clearly protected speech under the First Amendment. Grossenbach alleges that he was fired due to anonymous complaints accusing him of leading an “anti-gay hate group,” engaging in anti-LBGTQ speech on social media, and spreading “misinformation.” However, the university insisted that his position was eliminated because of funding for new full-time roles.

The problem is that, after he was terminated, the school posted other openings for adjunct professors in the ethics department and Grossenbach alleges that the university withheld documents showing that administrators were responding to the complaints. The lawsuit paints a rather conflicted picture for the university. While we have not seen the university’s answer to the complaint, the pattern is a familiar one.

The support enjoyed by faculty on the far left is in sharp contrast to the treatment given to faculty with moderate, conservative, or libertarian views. This includes blocking figures from speaking on campuses due to their political views. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy.

The treatment of faculty based on their ideology is striking and disturbing. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments on the left, including “detonating white people,” abolish white people, denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).

Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.

When these controversies arose, faculty rallied behind the free speech rights of the professors. That support was far more muted or absent when conservative faculty have found themselves at the center of controversies. The suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest.

The University of Arizona’s lack of transparency and conflicting record raise very serious free speech questions in this case. The litigation could create an important precedent if allowed to proceed into discovery and trial.

He is represented by Liberty Counsel, which is alleging violations of the First and 14th Amendments, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Arizona’s public records law.

Category:

Free Speech, Law, LGBTQ+ AND TRANSGENDER, Political

Tagged with:

The Schiff Mortgage Fraud Fiasco: When FAFO Meets Fannie Mae

By: Kevin Jackson | August 24, 2025

Schiff, impeachment, #TeamKJ, #KevinJackson

The Art of the Lie: How Adam Schiff’s House of Cards Might Finally Collapse

If hypocrisy were a currency, Adam Schiff would be a billionaire. The man who spent years peddling the most debunked political fairytale since “Hillary’s 2016 victory speech” now finds himself in the crosshairs of the universe’s most ruthless accountant: karma. And the irony? He’s not being taken down for Russian collusion hoaxes, election interference, or even his suspiciously close proximity to underage congressional pages (allegedly!). No, Schiff’s downfall might come from the most mundane of white-collar crimes—mortgage fraud.

Oh, the poetry. The sweet, delicious, chef’s kiss of it all.

Schiff’s Greatest Hits: A Legacy Built on Lies

Before we dive into the mortgage mess, let’s take a quick stroll down memory lane—a lane paved with Schiff’s finest fabrications.

Russian Collusion: The Nothingburger That Wouldn’t Die
Schiff, as House Intelligence Committee chair, spent years insisting he had “more than circumstantial” evidence that Donald Trump was a Kremlin puppet. Spoiler: He had nothing. The Mueller report? A dud. The Steele dossier? A Democratic-funded fanfic. Schiff’s credibility? Deader than MSNBC’s ratings post-2020.
Impeachment(s): Because Once Wasn’t Enough
Schiff led the charge in both Trump impeachments—one over a perfect phone call, the other because the Left really, really didn’t like losing in 2016. Both failed. Spectacularly.
January 6: The Insurrection That Wasn’t (Unless You Count FBI Informants)
Schiff hyperventilated about an “armed insurrection” while conveniently ignoring that the only person shot was an unarmed Trump supporter. But hey, why let facts ruin a good narrative?

And now, after years of weaponizing the justice system against his enemies, Schiff might finally face consequences—not for his big lies, but for a small one.

The Mortgage Fraud Fiasco: When FAFO Meets Fannie Mae

Holy Mother of Big Tish, now he finds himself in trouble, frankly for the smallest of his criminal activities: mortgage fraud.

Trump’s accusations of fraud began with a Tuesday a Truth Social post, in which he accused “scam artist” Schiff of committing mortgage fraud and wrote that Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Division was after him.

“Adam Schiff said that his primary residence was in MARYLAND to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America, when he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA because he was a Congressman from CALIFORNIA.”

Schiff’s response? Predictable. Schiff called President Trump’s claim a “baseless attempt at political retribution” for the impeachments.

For those unfamiliar with mortgage fraud (i.e., people who don’t work in Congress), claiming a property as your primary residence when it’s actually a second home is a big no-no. Why? Because primary residences get lower interest rates. It’s like telling the DMV your Ferrari is a Prius to save on registration—except way more illegal.

The Irony Is So Thick You Could Spread It on Toast

Schiff spent years pushing the narrative that Trump was a fraud—tax fraud, bank fraud, “probably defrauded a hot dog vendor in 1987” fraud. And now? The man who cried “collusion” might get busted for the most basic white-collar crime imaginable.

It’s like Al Capone getting nailed for tax evasion—and like Capone, Schiff is equally as vile a criminal and guilty of much bigger crimes.

Schiff’s Best Defense? ‘But Trump!’

In a desperate Hail Mary, Schiff tried to pivot to Trump’s “ongoing Jeffrey Epstein files controversy.” What controversy? The one where Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after he creeped out the staff? The one where flight logs show Trump flew on Epstein’s plane once (compared to Bill Clinton’s 26 times)? That “controversy”?

Nice try, Shifty.

Why This Might Actually Stick

Unlike Russian collusion or J6 theatrics, mortgage fraud is refreshingly simple. Either Schiff lied on his loan applications, or he didn’t. And if the documents Trump posted are legit? Well, let’s just say Fannie Mae doesn’t have a sense of humor.

Conclusion: The Universe Always Collects

Adam Schiff built a career on lies, smears, and weaponized hypocrisy. And now, in a twist so poetic it would make Shakespeare smirk, he might finally face consequences—not for his big crimes, but for the small one he thought nobody would notice.

I absolutely love the irony that two of Trump’s biggest opponents, Big Tish and Adam Schiff are both in trouble for the thing that they tried to use to bankrupt Trump.

Karma’s a bitch, Adam (and Big Tish). And she always comes collecting.

Category:

Tagged with:

Bombshell: Karma Hits Trump Prosecutor in Stunning Mortgage Scandal

By Jimmy Parker | August 25, 2025

The staggering hypocrisy of the liberal elite and their media accomplices is on full, breathtaking display as New York Attorney General Letitia James, a figure who built her entire political career on the weaponization of the legal system, now has the audacity to cry foul when the very same system turns its gaze upon her. For years, James operated not as an impartial arbiter of justice, but as a partisan attack dog, famously campaigning on a promise to target President Donald Trump.

She transformed the esteemed office of the Attorney General into a political weapon, relentlessly pursuing politically motivated charges against her opponents while enjoying the fawning coverage of a compliant press. Now, faced with serious, evidence-based allegations of her own financial fraud, her desperate claims of a political witch hunt ring hollow, exposing the profound double standard that defines the modern Democratic Party.

The case against James, as detailed by Bill Pulte, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is not a matter of political retribution but one of serious, alleged criminal misconduct that strikes at the heart of financial integrity. The allegations suggest a pattern of deception spanning decades, including

falsifying records to secure favorable mortgage terms for a property in Norfolk, Virginia by falsely claiming it as her primary residence,
misrepresenting a five-unit Brooklyn building as a four-unit to qualify for a better loan,
and even the bizarre instance of identifying her own father as her husband on mortgage documents.

These are not trivial matters; they are the types of “white collar” crimes federal prosecutors, with their 98% conviction rate, typically only pursue with ironclad evidence. This stands in stark contrast to the flimsy, manufactured cases James herself has championed, which were always transparently about political damage rather than actual justice.

LETITIA JAMES, YOU ARE THE WORST OF THE WORST.@BrandonStraka @gatewaypundit
THIS is POLITICAL PERSECUTION: pic.twitter.com/g7ub8Hx2Di
— Gregory Lyakhov (@GregoryLyakhov) August 24, 2025

The liberal media’s role in this charade has been predictable and shameful. Where they once cheered James on as she relentlessly pursued President Trump with charges that would never be brought against a private citizen, they now subtly frame her as a victim, questioning the motives of the investigators rather than the substance of the serious allegations. They created this monster, celebrating her weaponization of the courts, and now feign ignorance when the specter of actual, non-partisan justice appears. This is the same corrupt media complex that President Donald Trump has rightly and tirelessly fought against, a cabal of entrenched interests that protects its own while destroying the lives of conservatives.

The potential downfall of Letitia James would serve as a powerful testament to the enduring principle that no one, not even a powerful, politically-connected Democrat, is above the law—a principle that has been a cornerstone of President Trump’s mission to Drain the Swamp.

Category:

Tagged with:

New York Attorney General Letitia James

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Official Who Approved $2 Million Payout to Disgraced Russia Hoaxers Identified as Left-Wing Activist Brian Netter

By: Mollie Hemingway | August 01, 2025

Peter Strzok — Netter now works for a group chaired by Marc Elias, who helped run the Russia collusion hoax.

Author Mollie Hemingway profile

Mollie Hemingway

Visit on Twitter@mzhemingway

The Department of Justice official who signed off on $2 million in taxpayer-funded payments to disgraced Russia collusion hoax participants left the Department of Justice to help lead the “legal resistance” to President Donald Trump and other duly elected Republicans, new records reviewed exclusively by The Federalist reveal.

FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, sued the Department of Justice over the release of messages detailing their role in pushing the Clinton campaign’s Russia collusion hoax. They said the release of the messages that were written using government resources violated their privacy. The Biden administration rewarded the duo with lucrative payouts. Strozk received $1.2 million in taxpayer funds while Page received an $800,000 settlement.

“[W]e have identified Brian Netter, Deputy Assistant Attorney General as the individual that approved the settlement agreements,” a DOJ official told the Center to Advance Security in America, which had filed a Freedom of Information Act request in 2024, when the payouts were publicly announced. Netter was the deputy assistant attorney general for the Federal Programs Branch during the term of President Joe Biden.

Netter currently serves as the legal director at Democracy Forward, a Democrat Party-affiliated group launched in 2017 to fight President Trump with lawfare. The group brags that it took Trump to court more than 100 times in his first term in office. It has continued its use of the courts to win political battles into his second term in office. “Liberal Legal Group Positions Itself as a Top Trump Administration Foe,” touted The New York Times last November.

Marc Elias, the attorney known for his work damaging the integrity of both the 2016 and 2020 elections, chairs the board of Democracy Forward. Elias, as the Clinton campaign general counsel, signed the checks for her campaign’s Russia collusion hoax. To hide the Russia collusion hoax’s origins, the funding was fraudulently run through Elias’s law firm as “legal services.” Clinton was fined only $113,000 for the false claims she made to hide her role. Elias also ran Democrats’ legal effort to destabilize the 2020 elections with the sudden expansion of unsupervised mail-in balloting operations staffed by Democrat-run nonprofit groups.

Other current and recent board members of Netter’s group include former Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, former Biden Chief of Staff Ronald Klain, Kamala Harris’ sister Maya Harris, and former leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Mindy Myers.

Netter worked for Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice from 2021 through early 2025. He opposed then-former President Trump’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block National Archives releases to the January 6 committee, a lawfare committee comprised only of members appointed by then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Netter married Democrat lawyer and activist Karen Dunn in a ceremony officiated by Garland in 2009. Dunn, who played a key role in the Hillary Clinton campaign and was widely considered a likely White House Counsel if Hillary Clinton won her 2016 presidential campaign, specializes in Democrat debate preparation. She co-led President Barack Obama’s presidential debate preparation team for his re-election campaign and led presidential debate preparation for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024. In 2020, she led the preparation of Kamala Harris for the vice presidential debate.

Dunn started a law firm with Jeannie Rhee, one of the attorneys who worked on perpetuating the Russia collusion hoax through the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation. The firm hired Mueller alumnus Rush Atkinson as well.

Dunn clerked for Garland when he was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Netter also clerked for Breyer and Judge Judith Rogers on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Congressional overseers were upset by the reward given to the hoaxers and demanded to know who signed off on them. They were thwarted by officials who said they didn’t know who had authorized the payments, and declined to respond to Congressional inquiries to find out.

“The American people are rightly concerned about the Biden Administration’s targeting of conservatives while their political allies were given special treatment,” said James Fitzpatrick, director of the Center to Advance Security in America. “These settlements are a prime example of the outrageous abuse of power endured by the American people under Joe Biden.”

Netter did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. She is the author of “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.” Reach her at mzhemingway@thefederalist.com

Category:

Tagged with:

The Reveal: The Public is Finally Learning How Democrats Pulled Off the Greatest Political Trick in History

By: Jonathan Turley | August 1, 2025

Below is my column in Fox.com on the release of the last declassified material on the origins of the Russian collusion investigation. After the release, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote in the New York Times insisted that they never relied on the Steele dossier. The column only reaffirmed the level of dishonesty and duplicity that marked their tenures in office. (The Times still printed this claim despite being demonstrably untrue).

The documents quote Brennan in overruling career analysts and intervening to include the dossier in the intelligence assessment. Moreover, the column echoes the media spin that the investigation was about an attempted Russian interference while dismissing the collusion claim that consumed much of the first term. (Even after leaving office, Brennan continued to push the false collusion claim). Both countries routinely hacked each other’s emails — that is why we have the most recent incriminating evidence on the Clinton campaign’s funding and spreading the false collusion claims. We hacked their emails. We have also regularly tried to influence the elections of other nations. The key to the dossier and the Russian investigation was the allegation of collusion and the central role of the Clinton campaign in creating the narrative that Trump was a Russian asset.

Here is the column:

This week, Washington was rocked by new releases in the declassification of material related to the origins of the Russian investigation. The material shows further evidence of a secret plan by the Clinton campaign to use the FBI and media to spread a false claim that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. With this material, the public is finally seeing how officials and reporters set into motion what may be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in American politics. There never was a Russian collusion conspiracy. This is the emerging story of the real Russian conspiracy to manufacture a false narrative that succeeded in devouring much of the first term of the Trump Administration.

What is emerging in these documents is a political illusion carefully constructed by government officials and a willing media. The brilliance of the trick was getting reporters to buy into the illusion; to own it like members of an audience called to the stage by an illusionist.

The effort closely followed the three steps of the classic magic trick: The Pledge, The Turn, and The Prestige.

The Pledge

The trick began with the pledge, the stage where the public is set up by showing ordinary events with the suggestion that it is about to transform into something extraordinary. The key is to make something seem real that is actually not.

The Clinton campaign delivered the pledge by secretly funding the Steele dossier, using Fusion GPS and a former British spy named Christopher Steele, to create a salacious account of Trump being an agent of Russia. New emails state that Hillary Clinton personally approved the operation.

It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it funded the infamous Steele dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted but acquitted in a criminal trial.)

During the campaign, a few reporters asked about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. After the election, journalists discovered that the payments for the Steele dossier were hidden as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie under Elias.

When New York Times reporter Ken Vogel tried to report the story, he said, 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.”

Later, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, appeared before Congress for questioning on the Steele dossier. Podesta emphatically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

The FEC ultimately sanctioned the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee over the handling of the funding of the dossier through his prior firm.

The Turn

The next step is the turning point when the ordinary becomes something extraordinary. This required the involvement of the government. The Clinton team worked behind the scenes to feed the dossier to the FBI. It would be the criminal investigation that would transform the ordinary accounts, like Carter Page speaking in Moscow, into an elaborate Russian plot. Even though the FBI was warned early on that Page was a CIA asset, not a Russian asset, the Clinton team found eager officials in the Obama Administration to assist in the illusion.

The newly disclosed evidence shows how the turn was made. In July 2016, Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s “plan” to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The original Russia investigation — funded by Clinton’s campaign — was launched days after this briefing.

Months later, it would be Brennan who overruled his own CIA analysts in his ordering of a second last-minute assessment at the end of the Obama Administration in support of the Russian allegations. It would help make the turn with the all-consuming Russian investigation that would follow.

Career analysts were not buying the turn. They objected that the reliance on the Steele dossier “ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.” One CIA analyst told investigators that “[Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s main flaws, [Brennan] responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’”

That is the key to the turn; it needs only to be enough to fool the audience.

The Prestige

The final stage is called the Prestige, where the magician faces the toughest part of the trick. As explained in the 2006 movie “The Prestige,” the viewer is “looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled.” However, “making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back.”

The difference is that this trick was designed to derail Trump and it worked. In the end, however, the Special Counsel and Inspector General both rejected the Russian collusion claims. The public then reelected Trump. Now, the prestige may be revealed by the CIA.

Reports indicate that the CIA is about to declassify material showing that foreign sources were also in on the trick. The information reportedly indicates that foreign sources were aware of the move to create a Russian collusion scandal and expected that the FBI would play a role in the plan. That was before the bureau launched its controversial Crossfire Hurricane probe. One source said the foreign intelligence predicted the move “with alarming specificity.”

The most recently declassified material shows that the Russian actors in 2016 hacked emails from the Open Society Foundations, formerly known as the Soros Foundation. The emails reveal a broader network of activists and allies who were aware of the Clinton conspiracy.

Leonard Bernardo, who was the regional director for Eurasia at the Open Society Foundations, explained that “during the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated…from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications.”

Bernardo added, “Julie (Clinton Campaign Advisor) says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later, the FBI will put more oil into the fire.”

The media (including the Washington Post and New York Times, which won Pulitzer prizes for reporting on the debunked claims) are apoplectic in dismissing these disclosures. The last thing they will do is report on how they helped sell a political hoax. The problem is that they never said it was a trick. They said it was the truth. That is why they cannot honestly cover the story. To do so would not be coverage, it would be a confession.

It appears that everyone was in on the trick: the U.S. government, the media, even foreign governments. The only chumps were the American people. Now they are about to see how it was done.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

DOJ, FBI INVESTIGATE BRUTAL CINCINNATI ASSAULT CAPTURED IN VIRAL VIDEO

Tagged with:

Third suspect in brutal Cincinnati beatdown arrested, charged with assault

By Rachel Wolf , Alexis McAdams , Greg Wehner Fox News | Published July 30, 2025 8:05am EDT

CINCINNATI – A third person has been arrested in connection with a brutal beatdown in Cincinnati that left two people seriously injured this past weekend, police sources confirmed to Fox News. Sources also said that the individual was booked overnight. Jermaine Matthews has been arrested and charged with aggravated riot and assault. Sources confirmed to Fox News Digital that authorities are taking the investigation into the viral beating in Cincinnati. Now, just days after the beatdown, three people have been arrested in connection with the crime.

The arrest comes a day after 34-year-old Montianez Merriweather and 24-year-old Dekyra Vernon were arrested on charges of felonious assault, aggravated riot and assault. All three suspects appeared in court on Wednesday morning for bond hearings.

Jermaine Matthews' mugshot — Jermaine Matthews was arrested in connection with a brutal beatdown outside a nightclub in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Cincinnati Police Department)

CINCINNATI POLICE CHIEF SAYS OUT OF 100 PEOPLE WATCHING AND RECORDING VIOLENT ATTACK, ONLY 1 CALLED 911

The judge held Merriweather on a $500,000 bond; Matthews on a $100,000 bond; and Vernon on a $200,000 bond.

Detectives told the judge during the bond hearing that they are working to determine what led up to the “extremely violent” incident that happened, which includes reviewing multiple videos.

“Ultimately, we do have on video Mr. Merriweather walking up to a co-defendant. He whispers something to him, then walks back behind the victim,” the detective said. “We have Mr. Merriweather coming up behind the victim, striking him in the side of the face from behind.”

The judge asked the detective if he would call this a surprise attack.

WATCH: Three suspects in brutal Cincinnati beatdown appear for bond hearings Video

“This is kind of like an ambush, almost like it was setup in a certain way,” the detective told the judge, adding that the footage came from a camera mounted on a nearby building.

He continued, alleging that Merriweather and a co-defendant, later identified as Matthews, were seen chasing the victims as they were trying to retreat, and once the victims were on the ground, they began to punch and kick them.

“Mr. Merriwether goes after another gentleman behind another car and then he walks off to the side and goes to the sidewalk,” the detective said. “So as to Mr. Merriweather’s involvement in this, we believe that he coordinated this with Mr. Matthews. He walked up to him on a video, whispered something to him, and then strategically placed himself behind the victim.”

Suspect in the Cincinnati viral beating in court — Montianez Merriweather, 34, stands in front of Municipal Court Judge Michael Peck during his arraignment on felonious assault and aggravated riot charges stemming from the early morning downtown brawl July 26, 2025. His bond was set at $500,000, July 30, 2025. At right is his public defender, Dan Might. (Liz Dufour/The Enquirer, Imagn)

Detectives also alleged that Matthews was seen on video chasing one of the victims into the street, and when the victim fell, Matthews allegedly started kicking him several times. When he stopped kicking the suspect, the detectives claimed, Matthews appeared “visibly, just, enraged” before going to hit another person. When asked if the punch looked like a surprise punch, the detectives explained that it appeared intentional.

Cincinnati mob beat-down split image — A fight broke out on Friday night in downtown Cincinnati, leaving several people injured. (X/@Anthea06274890)

DEMOCRAT POLICIES PAVED WAY FOR BRUTAL CINCINNATI ATTACK, SAY OHIO REPUBLICANS: ‘FEAR AND CHAOS’

Still, detectives said in one video, Matthews was seen standing in the area when the victim punched him in the face.

“We are looking into that,” the detective said. In another video, Matthews is seen squared up with someone when he gets punched in the face, the detectives alleged, and “everything goes south from there.”

Cincinnati detectives said in court that they believe Merriweather and Matthews coordinated with each other during the attack. Court records show Merriweather has an extensive criminal history. In December 2008, when he was just 17, Merriweather was convicted of aggravated robbery. He had also faced robbery, aggravated burglary and kidnapping charges stemming from the same incident, though those charges were dismissed.

Since 2019, Merriweather has been charged with things like felonious assault, domestic violence, receiving stolen property, possessing weapons while on disability, and carrying weapons in a motor vehicle as a felon. Matthews has three previous felony convictions, all of which were drug-related.

The defense attorney for Vernon said his client was in a “very different situation,” saying she is 24-years-old and has no prior criminal history other than traffic violations and an open warrant for a traffic violation.

Women on the ground after Cincinnati street beat-down and man on the ground during fight split image — A fight broke out on Friday night in downtown Cincinnati, leaving several people injured. (X/@Anthea06274890)

Detectives shared a still image of the attack with the judge, and although Vernon only had traffic violations on her record, they said the photo shows a significant bond was warranted. They alleged that one video shows Vernon watching the “brawl” on the street, and in the same video a woman is seen trying to protect the victim and help him up. Vernon then is seen knocking the same woman out, they said.

The victim, detectives said, has been back to the hospital twice for treatment and was “significantly harmed” by the incident.

Still, detectives said Vernon was standing on the sidewalk, watching the fight when she stepped out onto the street and interjected herself as someone was trying to stop it.

The FBI confirmed to Fox News Digital that it was involved in the investigation into the assault and that it would be working with police.

“The FBI has been and will continue closely coordinating with the Cincinnati Police Department on this matter,” the FBI told Fox News Digital.

Video

In the early hours of Saturday morning, violence broke out near the popular nightclub LoVe and the late-night restaurant next to the establishment. Footage of the incident went viral and sparked public outrage. Cincinnati Chief of Police Teresa Theetge said during a press conference on Monday afternoon that her department had charged five people for their involvement in the violence, though she would not release the names of the individuals. Additionally, she said that while there was a crowd of about 100 people watching or getting involved in the attack, only one person called 911.

“That is unacceptable to not call the police,” she said. “Traffic was horrendous. People saw this. They were fighting in front of traffic. Why didn’t people call us?”

Theetge said in a statement on Wednesday that more arrests are coming, as her team continues to work the active investigation.

“As I have stated previously, our Investigative Team and Fugitive Apprehension Unit are working tirelessly and will not stop until every individual involved in this attack is identified and arrested,” the chief said, while commending members of the community for coming forward with “crucial” information. “This remains an active and ongoing investigation with more arrests forthcoming.”

Footage shows a man and a woman being beaten up by a crowd of people, with the woman eventually being knocked out cold with a sucker punch. Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy spoke with Holly — the woman who was knocked out — on Monday.

“She’s a single working mom who went to a friend’s birthday party. It’s unconscionable that there were no police present in that area of Cincinnati on a Friday night, or even an ambulance to take her to the hospital,” he said. “Hard-working Americans shouldn’t have to worry for their safety when they have a good time in our cities. Holly said not a single local or state official had yet reached out as of earlier this afternoon, other than one police detective.‘

“Leftists like to lecture about ‘systemic injustice’ while thugs turn our cities into war zones. I’m done with their excuses,” he continued. “As governor, I’ll make sure they’re behind bars, not running wild. Our cops will have the green light to restore order—no apologies. Holly appreciates the kind words and prayers from patriots across the country and hopes that the publicity around her story ensures that local & state leaders clean up our failing cities. We hope to visit Holly soon as she recovers.”

Cory Bowman, who is also Vice President JD Vance’s half-brother in addition to being a candidate for Cincinnati mayor, slammed the city’s leadership over the incident.

“People don’t even see the sense in calling 911 anymore,” Bowman told Fox News Digital.

Fox News’ Alexis McAdams and Fox News Digital’s Adam Sabes and Peter D’Abrosca contributed to this report.

Rachel Wolf is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital and FOX Business.

Category:

Crime, Law

Tagged with:

The World’s Most Dysfunctional Body? Cory Booker Captures the Decline the United States Senate

By: Jonathan Turley | July 30, 2025

When President James Buchanan declared that the United States Senate is the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” he clearly had not envisioned Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.). In yet another tirade on the floor, Sen. Booker attacked not just President Donald Trump but his Democratic colleagues for voting for a bipartisan bill on law enforcement. Behind the “I am Spartacus” theatrics is a more troubling trend in the United States Senate as it devolves into a more populist, impulsive institution.

In 1872, Moncure Daniel Conway published an account of a meeting between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Jefferson questioned Washington’s support for the creation of a second or upper house in the form of the Senate. Washington asked:

“Why…did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer, before drinking?”

“To cool it,” answered Jefferson, “my throat is not made of brass.”

“Even so,” rejoined Washington, “we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

These days, it seems like legislation goes to the Senate to heat up. The Senate is losing its constitutional and cultural moorings as the cooling saucer for our heated politics. Instead, it is becoming more like . . . well . . . the house.

The role of the Senate is key to the Madisonian design in forcing compromise and deliberation. Senators were given longer, six-year terms to insulate them from the immediate political demands that often motivate the House.

That has changed with the 24-hour media-saturated political environment. It has changed in this age of rage. Cue Corey Booker:

Putting the claims of “secret police” and, once again, the imminent collapse of democracy, Booker was immediately set upon by his colleagues after he moved to block the bipartisan bill by fellow Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.). Klobuchar effectively accused Booker of grandstanding and hypocrisy:

“I will note that Sen. Booker objected to my police reauthorization bill, the cops funding, the Clinton cops funding, long before Donald Trump came into office. So, this is not just about this. This is a long dispute over this type of funding.”

She also snapped back at Booker saying that he could not make a key hearing on the drafting of the bill because of a conflict, noting “I can’t help it if someone couldn’t change their schedule to be there.”

Cortez Masto struck back at the notion that Democrats should simply refuse to cooperate with the Administration or that working with Republicans is what Booker calls “complicity.”

Booker is clearly maneuvering for a possible presidential run and seeking to tap into the rage growing on the far left. He is also the inevitable result of the rising rhetoric of figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in pandering to the far left of his party. Democratic senators are now being denounced as “establishment” as Booker and others tack to the left to lead “the resistance.”

Booker just raised the anger ante for Democrats. They must either join the resistance and the rage or face the ire of their party. In the interim, the constitutional system will suffer. We need the House of Representatives as the “people’s house.” We do not need two Houses of Representatives. The Senate ideally moderates, not magnifies, the pressures and passions in the political system.

Booker’s tirades clearly resonate with some on the far left, but it is likely to come at a cost for the institution itself. As tensions build on the Democratic side, Teddy Roosevelt’s quip seems to be coming true in voting for bipartisan legislation: “When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not guilty.””

Category:

Tagged with:

“I am Not a Trump Fan”: Disturbing Public Statements Surface from Brennan’s Hand-Picked Head of Controversial Assessment

By: Jonathan Turley | July 29, 2025

We have been discussing the recently declassified material related to the Russian investigation, including disclosures of the role of former CIA director John Brennan at the end of the Obama Administration to reinforce the unfounded allegations of Russian collusion and influence. After an earlier intelligence assessment rejecting the narrative was effectively quashed, Brennan reportedly hand-picked the team to do a second rushed 2016 U.S. intelligence community assessment in the final days. We are now learning more about the person Brennan selected to head that team. Just the News and other outlets are revealing not just the extreme political bias of Susan Miller, but her remarkably poor handle on some key facts. The one unassailable fact that comes out of her postings is her declaration that “[I] am not a Trump fan.”

A review of Miller’s social media postings reveals intense hostility toward Donald Trump and his supporters, including calling the President a “dictator” and MAGA supporters “Nazis.” What is particularly notable is that she still maintains that the widely ridiculed Steele Dossier, secretly funded by the Clinton campaign, “might be true.” Despite the findings of the Special Counsel and various investigations, she has insisted that Trump may indeed be a “Russian asset” or a “Kremlin asset”

Miller recently retired but says that she continues to train CIA officers.

Brennan choose wisely if he wanted to ensure that a reliable political ally would draft the assessment. However, she has said that there were others in the CIA who wanted an actual finding that Trump’s election was illegitimate. That was the narrative pushed by Hillary Clinton and many Democrats after the 2016 loss. She suggested that that may still be true, a form of election denial that is still accepted on the left as they criticize Trump for his questioning of the 2020 defeat.

Miller appears to be one of the last diehards claiming that the Steele dossier could have also repeatedly still proved correct in its allegations.

Some interviews are striking in their conflicting elements, like insisting “all of us went in with a completely open mind” but that “they [the Russians] definitely wanted him [Trump].”

Miller also seemed to view the CIA’s role as part of a resistance, or at least counterforce to Trump: “I headed up the report team. … I wanted people who would speak truth to power.”

On social media, Miller comes across as unhinged at times in responding to stories with screeds like “This is awful! Further proof that Trump is a dictator.” She also wrote, “Good grief. As if we needed proof that MAGA types are nazis…”

She responded to a foreign poster by saying, “Yes….the Hitler analogy is not lost on a bunch of us…..sadly….”

In one of the most bizarre series of statements, Miller accuses Trump, Barr, and Durham of putting “me on trial” because she was interviewed in the various investigations.

She insisted in an interview with Times Radio in July that Trump got Barr and Durham “to open a trial on us…I spent 8 hours on trial; other team members also had trials. Not unexpectedly, nothing criminal was found.”

Just the News notes that Miller said again in June that “Trump put me on trial….criminal complaint after inauguration.” There is no indication of what that criminal complaint entailed, where it was filed, or what happened to it.

Miller appears to be struggling to make the case against Brennan and herself in carrying out this intelligence assessment. It is telling that, within the entire CIA establishment, Brennan would select Miller for this controversial report. What is even more chilling is that top intelligence officials would continue to cling to debunked sources like Steele. It is the kind of intransigence common among those living in echo chambers created by news and social media sites. CIA analysts are supposedly trained to avoid such confirmation bias.

All of this makes for a great pitch to join figures like Clapper or McCabe with MSNBC or CNN contracts. It is less compelling in defending the work product of the CIA on this report.

Category:

censorship, Crime, Law, Political

Tagged with:

5 key takeaways from latest ‘Russiagate’ revelations: ‘This was treason’

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter |Thursday, July 24, 2025

White House Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard talks to reporters in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on July 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Gabbard released a 2017 report from the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence that she says undermines the conclusion of intelligence agencies during the Obama administration that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

This week’s news cycle erupted after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently declassified documents that allegedly show former President Barack Obama and members of his administration laid the groundwork for the years-long “Russiagate” investigation that snarled much of President Donald Trump’s first term. Trump has since accused his predecessor of treason for attempting to subvert his electoral victory in the 2016 presidential election by undermining his administration with a political hoax suggesting Russia collusion.

Gabbard has stopped short of overtly accusing Obama of treason but noted Wednesday that she has referred evidence to the U.S. Department of Justice that could lead to his criminal prosecution.

Here are five key takeaways from the developing story.

1. ‘Years-long coup’

On July 18, Gabbard declassified more than 100 documents, including memos and emails, that she claimed provided “overwhelming evidence” that the Obama administration conspired to manufacture and politically weaponize false intelligence.

In a lengthy X thread, Gabbard alleged that after Trump’s 2016 victory, Obama and his national security team — including officials such as James Clapper, John Brennan and James Comey — were involved in producing the intelligence claiming Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential election to favor Trump, which was then leaked to the media to undermine his presidency.

🧵 Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama Administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President @realDonaldTrump, subverting the… pic.twitter.com/UQKKZ5c4Op
— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) July 18, 2025

“Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President [Trump], subverting the will of the American people and undermining our democratic republic,” Gabbard wrote.

Gabbard claimed that despite assessments from the intelligence community that Russia was not trying to steal the election, Obama personally directed the creation of a new assessment to push a false narrative.

During an appearance in the White House press briefing room Wednesday afternoon, Gabbard reiterated her assertions but declined to accuse the former president of treason, a potentially capital crime.

“I’m leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice,” Gabbard said, adding, “The expressed intent and what followed afterward can only be described as a years-long coup and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic and an attempt to undermine President Trump’s administration.”

Gabbard issued another X thread Wednesday.

🚨 BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard announces she has officially referred Barack Obama to the DOJ for CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

"The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment.

There are… pic.twitter.com/RICxmXysoL
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 23, 2025

2. John Brennan reportedly overrules senior intelligence officials: ‘Very politicized inquiry’

Former CIA Director John Brennan overruled senior intelligence officials who raised concerns regarding the key claim in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump, according to documents reviewed by reporter Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist.

Intelligence experts within the CIA, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressed concerns during the drafting of the ICA, noting there was no direct intelligence to substantiate its claim. Despite objections, Brennan reportedly dismissed such concerns during a heated meeting on Dec. 30, 2016.

A subsequent CIA review criticized the ICA’s rushed timeline, limited access to underlying intelligence and the inflated confidence level assigned to it despite reservations from top officials.

The records also indicated Brennan selectively shared the intelligence with Congress, which prompted skepticism from then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who came to believe it was politically motivated and an attempt to undermine Trump.

3. Trump accuses Obama of treason: ‘They did things that nobody’s ever even imagined’

During a press gaggle in the Oval Office on Tuesday with the Philippine president, Trump escalated his rhetoric by accusing Obama of treason, which prompted a rare statement from Obama’s spokesperson.

Trump accused Obama of being the “ringleader” in the attempt to subvert the 2016 presidential election with weaponized, manufactured intelligence, but said he has been “shielded by the press for his entire life.”

“It was President Obama,” Trump said regarding Russiagate. “It wasn’t lots of people all over the place — it was them, too — but the leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him?”

NOW – Trump says Obama committed "treason" and is "guilty." pic.twitter.com/3YRnQkupdV
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) July 22, 2025

“Look, he’s guilty. It’s not a question. … It’s there. He’s guilty. This was treason. This was every word you can think of.”

“They tried to steal the election; they tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody’s ever even imagined, even in other countries,” Trump said.

Trump added that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also played a major role, and that Gabbard has “thousands of additional documents coming,” which he suggested will further incriminate the Obama administration.

“So, President Obama, it was his concept — his idea,” Trump said. “But he also got it from crooked Hillary Clinton — crooked as a $3 bill, and Hillary Clinton and her group, the Democrats, spent $12 million to Christopher Steele to write up a report that was a total fake report.”

4. Obama spokesperson pushes back: ‘Weak attempt at distraction’

Obama’s spokesman Patrick Rodenbush issued an unusual scathing statement in the wake of Trump’s claims, which he dismissed as “bizarre” and “ridiculous” without denying them.

BREAKING 🚨 Statement issued from the Office of President Obama:

"Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous…
— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) July 22, 2025

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” Rodenbush said. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.”

“These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,” Obama’s spokesman continued. “Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.”

“These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio,” he added.

5. House Speaker Mike Johnson floats potential Obama subpoena: ‘Sinister plot’

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., maintained that the Obama administration has done immense damage to the public trust by participating in what he described as “a sinister plot.”

Speaking to CBN reporter David Brody in an interview published Monday, Johnson also suggested congressional subpoenas for the former president and members of his administration may be incoming.

JUST IN: Speaker Johnson tells me says he has no concern at all about bringing Former President Barack Obama in for a congressional deposition or subpoena over the newly declassified documents bombshell. "If it's uncomfortable for him, he shouldn't have been involved in… pic.twitter.com/hAeVHdYt4m
— David Brody (@DBrodyReports) July 22, 2025

“I think we have a responsibility to follow the truth, where it leads,” Johnson said. “To do effectively the opposite of what that other team did — they were engaged in a partisan political plot to take down their foe in the other party. We need to be about the rule of law and bring an order to the chaos and searching out the truth because the American people are owed those answers.”

Johnson expressed no sympathy for Obama potentially being dragged into a criminal investigation.

“If it’s uncomfortable for him, he shouldn’t have been involved in overseeing this, which is what it appears to us has happened,” he said.

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post. Send news tips to jon.brown@christianpost.com

Category:

Tagged with:

Silence of the Lambs: The Media Ignores Declassified Documents on the Manufacturing of the Russian Conspiracy

By: Jonathan Turley | July 22, 2025

Consider this story: An outgoing president and his top officials are told that there is no evidence of Russian collusion or influence in the national election. The White House then moved to suppress the intelligence assessment and reverse the conclusions, while false claims were leaked to the press.

That is not just a major but a Pulitzer-level story, right?

Apparently not. The legacy media has largely ignored the declassified evidence and possible criminal referral on the Obama administration seeding the Russian collusion narrative just before the first Trump Administration. It supports allegations in the real Russian conspiracy: the conspiracy to create a false Russian collusion scandal to undermine the election and administration of Donald Trump in 2016.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard suggested last week that intelligence was “manufactured and politicized” despite countervailing conclusions from American intelligence that there was no collusion or influence on the election. Critics have noted that CBS only covered the story to refute it.

The release of this information is historically significant, as it finally allows the public to see how this effort began with the Clinton campaign and was then actively cultivated by Obama officials. We previously learned that the Clinton campaign spent millions to create the infamous Steele dossier and then hid their role from the public.

Attorney Marc Elias, the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign, pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted but acquitted in a criminal trial.) During the campaign, reporters asked about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. When journalists discovered after the election that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie, they met with nothing but shrugs from the Clinton staff.

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, 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 back when John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress on the Steele dossier and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

Not only did Clinton reportedly spent over $10 million on the report, but Obama was briefed that she was going to create a Russian collusion narrative as part of her campaign. Aware of that Clinton effort, these new documents suggest that Obama and his aides actively sought to affirm the allegations just before Trump’s inauguration. The FBI then ramped up its own efforts despite also being told that the Steele dossier was unreliable and contradicted.

I disagree with the use of the charge of treason being thrown around with this release. Based on this evidence, it would be hard to make a criminal case against Obama, let alone the specific charge of treason. However, there are good-faith allegations raised about prior congressional testimony of key players in the Obama Administration. There may be viable criminal allegations ranging from perjury to obstruction to making false statements to federal investigators.

It is too early to gauge the basis for possible criminal charges. However, the release of this new evidence is both historically and legally significant. There is now a legitimate concern over a conspiracy to create this false narrative to undermine the incoming Administration. It proved successful in derailing the first Trump Administration. By the time the allegations were debunked, much of the first term had been exhausted. That is worthy of investigation and the public has a right to expect transparency on these long-withheld documents.

The silence of the legacy media is hardly surprising, given the key role the media played in spreading these false claims. Most media outlets find themselves in an uncomfortable position, having fostered an alleged conspiracy for years. Most reporters are not keen on making a case against themselves in spreading of these false claims.

Category:

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

Branco Cartoon – Treason Cam

A.F. Branco | on July 22, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/branco-cartoon-treason-cam/

DNI Treason Cam — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

A.F. Branco Cartoon – DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard has released Proof Obama, Brennan, Hillary, Comey, and Clapper committed Treason.

“They’re Coming Out of the Woodwork!” – DNI Tulsi Gabbard Says Disgusted Whistleblowers Who Helped Craft Obama-Brennan’s Phony Russia Report Are Turning Over Affidavits to DOJ

By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – July 20, 2025

The walls are closing in on Obama’s Deep State.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard dropped a political nuke Sunday morning on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo.
Gabbard confirmed that multiple intelligence whistleblowers—some of whom helped compile the now-debunked 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)—are “coming out of the woodwork” and preparing to hand over sworn affidavits to the Department of Justice.
Maria Bartiromo:
Do you believe that we will see prosecutions? Our audience wants to know where this story goes from here. Will we ever see anyone held accountable for this incredible lie on the American people? … READ MORE

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

Category:

Tagged with:

Exclusive: Hundreds Of Ballots Cast By More Than 100 Potential Noncitizens In Texas, AG Says

By: Beth Brelje | July 15, 2025

It is good officials are still digging into the 2020 election, but it is past time to repair the election process for future elections.

Author Beth Brelje profile

Beth Brelje

Visit on Twitter@BethBrelje

Welcome to 2025, where we are still uncovering election fraud from the 2020 and 2022 elections. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating more than 100 possible noncitizens who may have voted in both the 2020 and 2022 elections, casting more than 200 ballots. In this case, most of the suspected illegal ballots were cast in Harris County. Paxton is also investigating in Guadalupe, Cameron, and Eastland counties, based on information from the Texas Secretary of State.

Add the possible 100 fraudulent voters announced this week to the 33 potential noncitizens who may have voted illegally in 2024. Paxton started investigating those 33 voters in June after the Texas secretary of state made a referral, based on information found in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (USCIS) SAVE database, showing they voted in the 2024 general election.

Some 1,200 federal agencies use SAVE to verify U.S. citizenship or determine current immigration. For example, when an applicant applies for a Social Security Number, a drivers license, or for public housing assistance, the agency will check SAVE to see if they are a citizen. Legally, noncitizens are not allowed to vote in U.S. elections.

“Illegal aliens and foreign nationals must not be allowed to influence Texas elections by casting illegal ballots with impunity. I will not allow it to continue,” Paxton said in a statement. “Thanks to President Trump’s decisive action to help states safeguard the ballot box, this investigation will help Texas hold noncitizens accountable for unlawfully voting in American elections. If you’re a noncitizen who illegally cast a ballot, you will face the full force of the law.”

No one can realistically say fraudulent, noncitizen voting doesn’t happen. There are too many examples to ignore. Sometimes it is a single incident with one voter, like the Chinese student living in Michigan who was improperly registered to vote and is charged with voting the November election. Other times, it is a group of voters, like when Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson found 15 likely noncitizens across the state voted in November’s election, but she said illegal activity is “very rare.”

So rare, that an audits of voter registration rolls in Iowa found 277 noncitizens registered to vote or actually voted in the 2024 election. In Oregon, the elections director quit after officials discovered more than 300 noncitizens had been registered to vote, and the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles processed more than 54,600 voter registrations, 2021-2024, with an unknown citizenship.

Just last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it is investigating newly declassified FBI documents alleging that in 2020 the Chinese Communist Party was making thousands of fake U.S. driver’s licenses to use to validate fake mail-in ballots. The investigation is ongoing, but we can already see it is a huge scandal. And the list goes on, and on, and on. Not rare.

The remedy is so simple. Mandatory voter identification at voter registration and when voting. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would keep noncitizens from voting by requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote. It passed in the House in April and still has not moved in the Senate. It should be a bipartisan issue, but Democrats have claimed that providing identification is a burden that disenfranchises voters.

It is good officials are still digging into how the 2020 election went off the rails, so we understand the weak spots. But it is past time to shore up the election process with simple fixes like the SAVE Act, so in 2030 we are not still trying to figure out what happened in 2028.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.

Category:

illegal Immigration, Law, Political

Tagged with:

AI Generated Police Reports: A Tool for Law Enforcement or a Potential Concern?

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor to jonathanturley.org | July 15, 2025

The expanding adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is finding utility in nearly all areas of human thought and expression. Its speed, increasing sophistication and accuracy promises not only unique ideas but shows ability in automating ordinary processes which hopefully afford people savings in time and resources, enabling them to focus on the bigger picture and more important duties. There are however some worrying trends that can come up on the reliance of such technology in areas it is not yet suited. This article will focus on one area: police and criminal justice reporting.

A common complaint expressed in the law enforcement world and for that matter many other professions, is that an officer spends more time on paperwork than performing actual duties. In recent years, one solution promises a fundamental change to reduce the amount of time devoted to report writing through GenAI. The technology has developed to such a degree that industry offers law enforcement agencies the ability to use video recordings provided by body cameras or dash cameras to not only transcribe what was said by persons in the video (via voice recognition) but assemble the pertinent audio and video information into an actual police report that can be reviewed, corrected if necessary, and signed off by a commissioned law enforcement officer as his official report of the incident.

The promise made by GenAI is that officers will spend less time on overhead and can instead devote greater time to patrol and investigative duties elsewhere and thus be more efficient and less interrupted by paperwork.

To understand the problem let’s look at a brief synopsis of some milestones of police report generation over the past forty-five years.

With most agencies in the United States, the early 1980s consisted of sparse use of computer systems by line officers—they were typically database implementations for storing information of persons, vehicles, wanted or stolen records and as communications systems between agencies—rarely used by officers when completing crime reports and such. Most reports and citations were handwritten or typed and because of the amount of time used, especially in the case of handwritten forms, the amount of information conveyed was less, yet the time requirement was high. As the 1980s began to close personal computers began to be adopted by agencies for officer use and eventually the systems became more integrated and greatly more efficient. The speed of report writing not only increased, but the retrieval time and search ability was unmatched. Paper records and microfiche now became archaic.

Yet with the ease and efficiency of record keeping greatly improved, paradoxically so did the volume of information created, or required. This is certainly not unique to law enforcement as it has also been the case with patient charting with healthcare and in other fields. The efficiency invited the opportunity to create more data, and it was then expected.

Soon it became no longer necessary for a line officer to drive to a station to complete reports as in-car systems became standard practice, eventually replacing such things as paper citation forms given to violators but instead typing it in electronically, filing it automatically with the department and the courts, and printing off a copy for the violator. Nearly all the officer’s paperwork could be completed electronically and in the field.

The next advance began with what is commonly referred to as DashCams and BodyCams, electronic audio and video of law enforcement officer encounters with the world and individuals. Both have proven to be very useful in terms of correctly capturing information for which can be used by the criminal justice system. The cameras are greatly useful in correctly documenting events witnessed by the officer and in most respects are superior to not always reliable memory of those involved. In some ways they have reduced the amount of paperwork since the officer wearing the camera can simply provide a written synopsis in the written report and then reference an attached video as evidence. Or of this is not fully permitted, watching the video while composing the written report served to prompt the officer to write the report completely and accurately as depicted in the video. The GenAI service can take this to a high level of efficiency by generating most of the report in draft form whereupon the attesting officer then makes any corrections and fills in any gaps or external details. Such reports generated by AI mimic that of the conventional standard “style” of a crime report and from a workflow perspective the officer assumes a role that is in some way more of an editor rather than an author.

On a side note, when electronic videos of police cameras came to the attention of the public, the compliance requirement of freedom of information/public disclosure law went far beyond that of ordinary written reports which could relatively easily be redacted and disseminated when appropriate. Now departments must be tasked with being video editors to redact non-disclosable information such as faces, identities, words, addresses and other private information. The storage requirement for hours of video for sometimes hundreds of officers has become costly and added an additional burden.

Any new technology does have concerns that might offset some of the benefits. Some of the concerns are at what point does the AI become the primary author and the officer the rubber stamp approver. I present some open questions on the technology:

Will a low number of GenAI providers of police reports lead to a near monopoly of companies having access and control of information of most law enforcement agencies?

Will reliance on GenAI lead to an atrophy of skill in report writing in the ordinary sense by employees and if accuracy improves make them prone to overlook the occasional but highly consequential errors?

Law enforcement agencies have strict controls over dissemination of records for current or in-progress investigations and intelligence. Is GenAI use a vector by which outside actors can infiltrate police and government agencies? Those who might hack into the GenAI providers could learn of investigations or forewarn wanted persons of an upcoming arrest, or watch the agency via the AI input it submits?

Who controls the data given to the GenAI provider and is it subject to proper oversight? Will there be a temptation to sell the information to third parties?

How can bias be controlled in the GenAI response? The output is only as good as the input or the algorithm. Could the AI develop a bias as a result of incorporating the data it generates?

Are revisions and updates to each report considered work product and/or are they subject to discovery?

If the GenAI report is mostly completed by something other than the officer, how true is the officer’s testimony as to what he believed was happening since his mind did not actually create most of the report?

Is the present implementation of GenAI reports sufficiently efficient to mitigate the time required for necessary corrections and edits by the signing officer?

If the procedure is to plug the video/audio into the GenAI application, receive the generated draft, then make corrections and certify under penalty of perjury that the report is a true and accurate declaration of facts…are officers willing to risk a false swearing or perjury charge if computer generated data was inaccurate and overlooked?

Will GenAI created reports be considered expert analysis and will the output be challenged by the courts?

Are police administrators sufficiently adept and understanding of the artificial intelligence technology to fully understand managing or configuring the software?

Ethically have we fully considered what we are doing with GenAI with regard to justice? Those civilians and others who are subject to the GenAI reports have the most to lose as their lives can be changed markedly for the better or for the worse. Have we become so lazy and indifferent to them that we cannot be bothered to completely write a report ourselves?

What would become of the future of criminal justice if artificial intelligence is incorporated without restraint or consideration of the consequences? I can foresee a few areas where it promising use such as for generating a picture of an unidentified assailant from the descriptions of a witness, analyzing trace evidence, finding trends in data, and such. I do have reservations in what is made of the technology when it can be inexpensively replicated and used in place of a commissioned law enforcement officer.

An example would be incorporating AI into actually enforcing the law, where a camera films a speeding vehicle, a stop light violation, or eventually a strong armed robbery. The AI then identifies the persons involved, generates the report, and makes a charging decision with less and less human involvement. Are we to allow AI systems standing to enforce the law and are we going to question it since we have become so accustomed to its reliability and the fact that it is used everywhere? It might sound like “future shock” but we should consider how far we are willing to accept the convenience of low-cost surrogates of our responsibility.

By Darren Smith

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

Category:

Crime, Law, Science

Tagged with:

Admission Against Interest: Valley State University Honors College Director Brags About Race-Based Admissions

By: Jonathan Turley | July 9, 2025

“We accept virtually all students of color.” Those words from Professor Roger Gilles, director of the Frederick Meijer Honors College, may seem a bit odd to Supreme Court justices who believe that they ended racial discrimination in admissions years ago in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). The college is part of Grand Valley State University in Michigan and still apparently uses race as not just one factor but an overriding factor in admissions. Gilles’s April 4, 2022, email to colleagues could prove the ultimate admission against interest. As detailed by the College Fix, he explained to the faculty that “we accept virtually all students of color, except in cases in which the student’s writing is such that we’re convinced they would struggle far too much in our first-year sequences.” He even boasted that “This year, in fact, we accepted a ‘Signature Saturday’ student with a high GPA but an SAT score of 880..!” That score would put a student below the 25th percentile. Gilles also said that race was the predominant factor in aid, stating ‘[w]ith the cooperation of Jodi in Admissions and Michelle in Financial Aid, we’ve tried hard to give most of the limited number of Honors-specific scholarships we award to students of color. This has been the case going back to Dr. J.” Dr. J is a reference to Professor Jeff Chamberlain, who was hired by the University of North Florida to perform the same function and is now an academic program manager for the University of Oregon.

The College Fix alleges that the university redacted portions of the email where the discrimination on the basis of race was discussed.

Despite Gilles appearing to defy the Supreme Court ruling in the Students for Fair Admissions case, it was clearly not enough for some. Professor Melanie Shell-Weiss wrote that “[f]rom a diversity standpoint, the needle effectively hasn’t moved.”

In 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts declared: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

In 2023, Roberts wrote in Students for Fair Admissions that “[universities and colleges] have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

These admissions could trigger a response from the Departments of Justice and Education under Title VI, which prohibits preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity. The government loves admissions against interest, particularly in the area of college admissions where most faculty and administrators rarely publicly acknowledge race-based selections.

Category:

Education, Law, Political

Tagged with:

“Shameful”: Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Trump Administration but Adds His Own Personal Condemnation

By: Jonathan Turley | July 9, 2025

The Trump administration notched another victory this week when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington granted a motion to dismiss a case brought by five organizations to stop the cancellation of more than 360 grant awards by the Justice Department. However, in reaching this relatively straightforward conclusion, Judge Mehta opted to follow a pattern set by other judges in adding his own personal commentary on the wisdom of the policy change. Judge Mehta easily found that he lacked jurisdiction over such questions. However, he then vented his own personal views on the policy:

“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”

Actually, neither the court’s displeasure nor sympathy should be part of the decision of a court of law. With all due respect to Judge Mehta, some of us find it shameful that judges are using these opinions to express their political viewpoints. I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary, particularly among the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who previously presided over Trump’s election interference case, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. In 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 still under investigation at the time and, when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.

Later, Chutkan decided to use the bench to amplify her own views of the pardons and Jan. 6. Like Judge Mehta, she conceded that she could not block the pardons but used the cases to express her personal disagreements with President Trump and his policies. She proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”

Judge Mehta has also been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and a bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol.

I fail to see how being assigned this case gives a judge license to hold forth on their own views of the merits of these grants or the implications of their suspension. He is tasked with deciding the legal questions in the case, which he did so correctly.

Category:

Law

Tagged with:

Trump Wins Multi-Million Dollar Defamation Lawsuit Against CBS

By: Mandy Matthews | July 2, 2025

Paramount Global, parent company of CBS, confirmed on Wednesday it will pay $16 million to settle President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over the handling of a “60 Minutes” interview – funds that will go to Trump’s future presidential library rather than to him directly.

Trump originally sued in October, demanding $10 billion over claims that CBS deceptively edited an October 2024 interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris to favor the Democratic Party. He later amended the claim to $20 billion in February.

Paramount’s $16 million settlement, disclosed Wednesday, stems from mediation initiated in April. It explicitly excludes any apology or expression of regret from the network.

In a separate move to increase transparency, Paramount agreed that future “60 Minutes” interviews with U.S. presidential candidates will be accompanied by released transcripts, redacted only for legal or security reasons.

CBS has repeatedly maintained that the editing in question was routine and lawful. The lawsuit centered on CBS airing two versions of Harris’s response on Israel and the Israel–Hamas war—one brief and another more forceful—before and after the presidential race.

Paramount, which previously sought dismissal of the lawsuit as “completely without merit,” opted for settlement to avoid a protracted court battle and to clear regulatory hurdles linked to its pending $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media.

The Trump lawsuit was filed in a Texas federal court under the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act, asserting that CBS’s editing constituted false and misleading commercial conduct.

Paramount’s decision is part of a growing pattern: Disney-owned ABC News paid $15 million and issued a public apology in December, while Meta agreed to pay about $25 million in January—both in agreements to address Trump’s claims.

The “60 Minutes” controversy triggered internal upheaval: Executive producer Bill Owens resigned in April, followed by CBS News President Wendy McMahon in May, amid staff concerns over editorial independence and corporate intervention.

Analysts warn that such settlements may threaten journalistic integrity by emboldening political figures to deploy litigation as leverage—rolling back hard‑won press freedoms.

Paramount’s board, including controlling shareholder Shari Redstone, reportedly weighed settling for up to $20 million internally, mindful of both merger risks and potential regulatory scrutiny.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who must sign off on the Skydance transaction, has initiated a probe into whether CBS’s edits met the threshold for “news-distortion,” signaling deeper scrutiny of broadcast standards.

With this settlement, Reuters notes, Paramount aims to sanitize its legal slate ahead of merger approval—while Trump continues to pursue additional legal claims against media outlets

Category:

Tagged with:

The Icarian Gene: The Rise and Fall of the Expert Class

By: Jonathn Turley | June 26, 2025

Rad more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/06/26/the-icarian-gene-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-expert-class/

The warning was stark. At issue was a privileged class that has long dictated policy despite countervailing public opinion. At issue, the luminary warned, is nothing short of democracy itself. No, it was not the continued rallies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., VT) to “fight oligarchy.” It was Justice Clarence Thomas rallying his colleagues to fight technocracy, or government by experts. He warned against allowing “elite sentiment” to “distort and stifle democratic debate.” Yet, the story is even more profound of an elite class which succumbed to the Icarian gene and fell to Earth due to hubris and excess.

In his concurrence in United States v. Skrmetti, a case upholding Tennessee’s ban on adolescent transgender treatments, Thomas called for his colleagues to stand against an “expert class” that has dictated both policy and legal conclusions in the United States. The reference to “experts” is often used to insulate an opinion as self-evidently true on a given question when they speak as a group. It distinguishes the informed from the casual; the certifiably authoritative from the merely interested. Yet, what constitutes an “expert” can be little more than an advanced degree, and the “overwhelming opinion of experts” can be little more than groupthink.

Thomas warned his colleagues that “[t]here are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.”

Indeed, those “good reasons” have become increasingly obvious to those outside of the Beltway. The public saw experts line up during the pandemic to support mandatory uses of surgical masks, shutting down schools, and requiring the ruinous six-foot rule of separation. Many of these rules were later found lacking in scientific support. At the same time, dissenting experts, including the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, were blacklisted, censored, or fired for challenging these views.

We have seen the same orthodoxy on issues ranging from gender dysphoria to COVID measures.

In his concurrence, Thomas lashed out at the virtual mantra in court papers and the media of an “overwhelming medical consensus” in favor of transitioning children. This is often cited as the conclusive judgment of experts as opposed to citizens who overwhelmingly oppose treatments for children, including castration or surgical removal of genitalia. Thomas insisted that “so-called experts have no license to countermand the ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.’”

For decades, citizens largely identified the government with bringing modern approaches to programs eliminating long-standing social ills from poverty to illiteracy to inequality. Roughly 100 years ago, the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt transformed the government’s role in American life. A generation of experts brought new ideas of electrification, education, and economics to the country.

This veneration was furthered by Kennedy’s assemblage of “the best and the brightest” and Johnson’s “Great Society” reformers.

The courts later followed with greater and greater deference afforded to these experts, including the establishment of the “Chevron doctrine” insulating agency decisions from substantial judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that courts were poorly equipped to second-guess the expertise of agency experts.

The Reagan Revolution challenged those assumptions. Reagan famously told voters that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

Over the years, the mystique took on a more menacing aspect for many in the country as they watched academic and scientific groups become more advocates than experts. There seemed to be a shift from making for a better life to making us better people through progressive social agendas.

The result has been a dramatic change in trust for higher education and, by extension, the supremacy of the expert class. According to Gallup, only a third of Americans today have great confidence in higher education and roughly the same number have little or no confidence. That is a drop of over twenty percent in the last ten years.

Other polling shows drops in the trust for state and local public health officials as well as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The decline of the expert class can be traced to the changes in higher education over the last couple of decades. As I discuss in my book The Indispensable Right, an orthodoxy has taken hold of most universities with a purging of conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty. Within these ideological echo chambers, appointments, publications, and grants often seem to turn on conclusions that favor political agendas.

Over the years, dissenting faculty members have been forced out of scientific and academic organizations for challenging preferred conclusions on subjects ranging from transgender transitions to COVID-19 protections to climate change. Some were barred from speaking at universities or blacklisted for their opposing views.

As shown during COVID, many of the exiled experts were ultimately proven correct in challenging the efficacy of surgical masks or the need to shut down our schools and businesses. Scientists moved like a herd of lemmings on the origin of the virus, crushing those who suggested that the most likely explanation is a lab leak (a position that federal agencies would later embrace).

Scientists have worked with the government in suppressing dissenting views. At the end of last year, The Wall Street. Journal released a report on how the Biden administration suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab leak theory, as dissenting scientists were blacklisted and targeted. When experts within the Biden Administration found that the lab theory was the most likely explanation for COVID-19, they were told not to share their data publicly and were warned about being “off the reservation.”

British pediatrician Hilary Cass published a review for NHS England that cast doubt on gender-identity treatments for children and young people. The research reportedly led to an aggressive campaign by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to suppress the results.

The gravitational pull of social agendas has overwhelmed not just scientific judgment but common sense. For example, there has been a push to treat gender as a socially constructed myth. A University of Pittsburgh anthropology professor declared that you cannot tell the gender of an individual from their bones – a widely ridiculed assertion.

The editor-in-chief of Scientific American Laura Helmuth made her own contribution to gender ideology by tweeting out a statement with a 2017 article in Audubon Notebook stating “White-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes that pair up in fascinating ways. P.S. Nature is amazing[.] P.P.S. Sex is not binary.”

Various experts cried fowl and noted that her point was ideologically driven and scientifically absurd. (Helmuth later resigned after posting a profanity-laden attack on social media calling Trump voters “fascists” and bigots).

In many cases, dissenting views on social or political issues are treated as disqualifying for any research. At Cornell, professors signed a letter denouncing “informed commentary” critical of violent protests as racist.

In 2020, Harald Uhlig, the senior editor of the prestigious Journal of Political Economy and the Bruce Allen and Barbara Ritzenthaler Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago, criticized Black Lives Matter and the movement to defund the police. The response was a campaign to remove Uhlig from the Journal. Writers like economist Paul Krugman insisted that he was now “yet another privileged white man” attacking the “less fortunate.”

The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center removed Associate Professor of Medicine Norman Wang from his position as Program Director of the Electrophysiology Fellowship after he wrote an article in a peer-reviewed journal questioning the use of affirmative action in medical schools admissions. (Later, the Supreme Court would declare such use of race as unconstitutional race discrimination).

Another controversy arose in 2024 just before the Supreme Court considered access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used for abortions by mail. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk relied on two studies that showed harm from the use of the pill.

The Sage journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology was widely criticized by abortion advocates for publishing the studies. One month before the oral argument, the studies were conveniently retracted and a review published that found the conclusions “invalidated in whole or in part.”

Justices and judges will often take favorable studies as gospel in supporting their legal conclusions. In her dissent in the University of North Carolina affirmative action case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson triggered a controversy in citing a 2020 study from a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Jackson claimed that race-based admissions “saves lives” because having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood of the survival of high-risk Black babies. The claim of the brief and the flawed methodology of the study was shredded by critics.

The fact is that it is easy to produce near uniformity of experts since most universities now run from the left to the far left. The combination of biased hiring practices has left most departments with few or no conservative faculty members. As a result, the media can report that liberal positions are supported overwhelmingly by “experts.”

For example, it is now common for the media to report signed letters or petitions of law professors denouncing conservative positions or rulings. It rarely mentions that most law schools have only a couple of conservative faculty members. It is like getting a pro-papal petition from the College of Cardinals. Nevertheless, the coverage leaves the impression that opposing views on transgenderism, gun rights, or other subjects are absurd and rejected by virtually all “experts.”

Both the courts and the public, however, appear to be losing their awe for the expert class. The Supreme Court recently tossed the Chevron Doctrine and called for courts to resume their prior scrutiny of agency decisions.

None of this means that courts or the public should disregard science or experts. Indeed, many experts still follow core principles of unbiased inquiry and discourse. However, good science requires open inquiry and a diversity of viewpoints. Citizens are rejecting science by plebiscite, the self-authenticating petitions where academics purported to speak for an expert class.

The expert class lost the public when they replaced objectivity with orthodoxy. No matter how many experts claim that gender is a social myth, the public is not likely to dispense with reality. The rise and fall of the expert class is a story of the costs of arrogance and excess. Higher education has created a privileged class of social warriors who abandoned core principles of neutrality and objectivity in research. It is an Icarian generation of scholars who flew too close to the sun and fell to Earth in the eyes of the public.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court. He is the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” and the forthcoming Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution (Simon & Schuster 2026).

Category:

Tagged with:

The Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law: Democrats Denounce Iranian Attack as Unconstitutional

By: Jonathan Turley | June 28, 2025

Yesterday, I wrote a column in the Hill discussing how Trump is unlikely to go to Congress in launching an attack on Iran and how he has history on his side in acting unilaterally. The column noted that many Democratic politicians and pundits who were supportive of such unilateral actions by Democratic presidents such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are suddenly opposed to Trump using the same power. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are “shocked, shocked” that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors.

Democratic members are calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act.

Schumer insisted that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement.

Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya. I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges.

I have long criticized the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. That has not happened since World War II in 1942. Over 125 military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach.

Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan.

The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action.

The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period.

President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA .

Presidents have routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question.

In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.

Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway. Despite Congress expressly denying, ” authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces,” both Obama and Trump did precisely that.

Trump was wise to notify Congress. However, what occurs after that is anyone’s guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater.

Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period.

Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations.

In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust in the use of the same authority that they once accepted in prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has both testified and litigated in the area of war powers, including the prior representation of members of Congress. He also testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.

N.B.: A slightly different version of this column ran on Fox.com

Category:

Tagged with:

Ninth Circuit Rules for Trump on National Guard Deployment

By: Jonathan Turley | June 20, 2025

California Gov. Gavin Newsom just lost a major ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that President Donald Trump is likely to prevail in his deployment of National Guard troops. Newsom and various Democratic politicians have insisted that Trump’s order is unlawful and that Newsom has to agree to any request for deployment. The Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Newsom does not have such a veto over deployments.

The Ninth Circuit blocked the injunction of District Court Judge Charles Breyer who suggested in open court that Trump was acting like another “King George.” He then wrote an opinion that included many Democratic talking points — suggesting, for example, that Trump was creating disorder by calling out the National Guard to deal with disorder. Breyer further indicated that the violence in Los Angeles was relatively minor, despite potentially deadly attacks on law enforcement, arson, and looting.

Breyer gave the Administration little time to appeal his ruling, but it was enough for the Ninth Circuit.

Title 10 provides:

Whenever—

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or

possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a

foreign nation;

(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the

authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

10 U.S.C. § 12406.

In his decision, Judge Breyer took the extreme position that Trump could not use subsection 3 if there was any possibility of executing federal laws absent the use of the National Guard troops:

[T]he statute does not allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces obstacles that cause him to underperform in executing the laws. Nor does the statute allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces some risk in executing the laws. . . . The statute requires that the President be “unable” to execute the laws of the United States. That did not happen here.

In its decision, the court rejected this premise and held that “Section 12406 does not have as a prerequisite that the President be completely precluded from executing the relevant laws of the United States in order to call members of the National Guard into federal service, nor does it suggest that activation is inappropriate so long as any continued execution of the laws is feasible.”

It concluded that “it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” in federalizing control of the guard. It also rejected Newsom’s claim of a veto on deployment.

Here is the opinion: 25-3727_order-for-pub

Category:

Crime, Law, political violence

Tagged with:

Supreme Court Says the Constitution Does Not Second-Guess the People on ‘Gender-Affirming’ Care

By: Thomas Jipping | June 18, 2025

Demonstrators in support of a ban on — Transgender rights supporters and opponent rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the high court hears arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietch via Getty Images)

In one of the most-anticipated decisions of its 2024-25 term, United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court held that a Tennessee law prohibiting so-called “gender-affirming” medical interventions for minors does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. That was the only question before the Supreme Court, and it got the answer right.

Tennessee is among more than 20 states that prohibit such medical interventions for minors. Its law, called SB1, allows doctors to prescribe drugs such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones or to perform certain surgeries only to treat specific medical conditions. These include congenital defects, disease, or physical injury. It prohibits their use in cases of “gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, [and] gender incongruence.”

Three minors who wanted to identify with the opposite sex and their parents challenged SB1, arguing that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that states provide the “equal protection of the laws.” They argued that SB1 was just like more familiar laws that discriminate based on sex, which the Supreme Court already held must meet a higher legal standard. The Biden administration also joined the case to oppose the Tennessee law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Tennessee, didn’t buy it and neither did the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 opinion, refusing to find a “sex-based classification” in a statute that, to state the obvious, does not classify based on sex. SB1 applies to all minors, regardless of sex. The only distinctions it makes are age (it applies to minors, not adults) and the medical use of the particular surgeries and drugs. Neither of these has anything to do with sex.

Every Supreme Court decision has two parts: the judgment, which is typically a yes/no answer to a specific legal question, and the opinion, which explains the reasons for the judgment. The judgment decides the case before the Court and the opinion can impact other cases. Here, Roberts’ opinion addressed some important issues that will no doubt be raised in other cases.

He emphasized, for example, that our understanding of gender is constantly changing and that the advisability and efficacy of medical interventions in cases of gender dysphoria or incongruence is being hotly debated. In fact, Roberts pointed out, several European countries that jumped on the “gender-affirming” care bandwagon have reversed course, “rais[ing] significant concerns regarding the potential harms associated with using puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors.”

In addition, the Court refused to extend its controversial decision in Bostock v. Clayton County from the statutory to the constitutional context. In Bostock, the Supreme Court held that firing someone who is gay or “transgender” amounts to discrimination “because of” sex, violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Liberal activists want the Supreme Court to reach the same conclusion with respect to the Equal Protection Clause. Roberts refused, explaining the important differences between SB1 and “the logic of Bostock.”

Unless a law discriminates on the basis of things such as race, religion, or sex, courts are not going to second-guess legislative judgments about policy issues. This decision means that gender-related laws like SB1 are in the broad category of matters, such as regulating the practice of medicine generally, that the people and their elected representatives must handle. SB1, Roberts wrote, “clearly meets this standard.”

Like European countries have concluded, the Tennessee legislature argued that any perceived discordance between sex and gender can be resolved by an approach far less invasive and permanent than surgery or drugs and will likely produce better outcomes.

Challenges to similar laws in other states raise the same Equal Protection Clause issue and whether parents have a right, under the Due Process Clause of the same Fourteenth Amendment, to obtain medical interventions for their minor children. This decision should settle the first issue, but the second will likely find its way to the Supreme Court as litigation elsewhere continues.

In recent polls, many Americans say that the Supreme Court decides cases based more on politics than law. The Court can fuel that perception when it makes up rights that are not in the Constitution’s text, or tries to reach a result that is politically, but not judicially, correct. This is not one of those cases. The Court applied basic Equal Protection Clause analysis and came to the obvious, and objectively correct, conclusion. As Roberts concluded, the Equal Protection Clause does not resolve “fierce scientific and policy debates” like those today that relate to gender. That’s our job as citizens.

Category:

Law, LGBTQ+ AND TRANSGENDER, Political

Tagged with:

More Heat Than Light: New York Judge Blocks ICE Access to Rikers Island Over Alleged Adams Conflict

By: Jonathan Turley | June 17, 2025

This week, New York Judge Mary Rosado issued an opinion in Council of City of N.Y. v. Adams. The court is blocking the city from allowing the federal government to maintain office space at Rikers Island. The reason is that Rosado agreed that Mayor Eric Adams had a conflict of interest and likely bargained away the access as part of a quid pro quo arrangement to get the Justice Department to drop criminal charges against him. The opinion is quite extraordinary and, in my view, fundamentally flawed. The opinion generated more heat than light on the proper handling of a conflict of interest.

The court recounts the testimony of Danielle R. Sassoon, Esq., Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, regarding a January 31, 2025, meeting with President Donald J. Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bove, and the mayor’s criminal defense counsel. She claimed that “Adams'[] attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with [immigration] enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.”

After that meeting, on February 3, 2025, Mayor Adams’ criminal defense attorney, Alex Spiro, wrote to Bove that the prosecution of the mayor will “become increasingly problematic as the Trump administration seeks to aggressively enforce immigration laws and remove undocumented immigrants …. [T]he federal government cannot possibly rely on Mayor Adams to be a fully effective partner in all situations in ongoing public-safety missions while he is under federal indictment ….”

One week later, on February 10, 2025, Bove directed federal prosecutors to dismiss with prejudice the pending criminal charges against Mayor Adams. The plaintiffs allege that these negotiations traded away city policies or privileges in exchange for the dropping of the charges, a charge that Adams vehemently denies. On February 13, 2025, after meeting with the Administration’s “Border Czar,” Thomas Homan, Mayor Adams announced that he would issue an executive order allowing federal immigration authorities to be present on Rikers Island. The next day, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss all pending criminal charges against Mayor Adams.

After the announcement, a number of deputy mayors resigned in protest. Adams then appointed Randy Mastro as First Deputy and delegated to him the authority to “[p]erform any function, power or duty of the mayor in negotiating, executing and delivering any and all agreements, instruments and any other documents necessary or desirable to effectuate any of the matters” related to public safety.

On April 8, 2025, Mastro issued Executive Order No. 50, authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with federal law enforcement agencies allowing them to maintain office space on Department of Corrections property, specifically Rikers Island.

The timing of these actions raised objections from many, both inside and outside City Hall. That included United States District Judge Dale Ho, who agreed to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice, but not after lashing out at the administration. Ho wrote that “[e]verything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the [i]ndictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.” He further warned that the suggestion “that public officials may receive special dispensation if they are compliant with the incumbent administration’s policy priorities … is fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law.”

I disagreed with Judge Ho’s use of the order to opine on an alleged quid pro quo that was not established in the record or even material to his decision. Ho agreed that he could not “force the Department of Justice to prosecute a defendant” and agreed to dismiss the matter with prejudice. That was the correct and only decision that he could make. However, he further strongly suggested the need for an investigation but lamented that he “did not have the authority to appoint an independent prosecutor.”

I do not question Judge Ho’s sincere objections or the good-faith basis of many in raising this allegation. However, I do not believe that judges or justices should use their positions to opine on political or ethical issues that are not clearly before them. The issue before Judge Ho was solely the dismissal of a criminal case and he had no record, or in my view license, to hold forth on his unsupported suspicions in the case.

The matter, however, was raised and litigated directly before Judge Rosado by the city council, which sought to nullify the Executive Order as being violative of city ethical rules. Specifically, the city council cited New York City Charter § 2604(b)(3), which provides in pertinent part that “[n]o public servant shall use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any … privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant.”

Judge Rosado found a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, citing Baker v. Marley, 8 NY2d 365, 367 (1960), that an action must be declared null and void when the action “directly or immediately affects him individually.” She specifically found:

Plaintiff-Petitioner has shown a likelihood of success in demonstrating, at a minimum, the appearance of a quid pro quo whereby Mayor Adams publicly agreed to bring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) back to Rikers Island in exchange for dismissal of his criminal charges. This showing is grounded in (1) Mayor Adams’ public statements; (2) Mayor Adams’ criminal defense attorney’s written overtures to the Department of Justice; (3) the temporal proximity between these overtures and Mr. Bove’s directive to dismiss the criminal charges against Mayor Adams; (4) statements from former Acting United States Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon and Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten; (5) Mr. Homan’s statement that he will “be in [Mayor Adams’] office, up his b ___, saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’” and (6) the written findings by United States District Judge Dale Ho.

Although Defendants-Respondents deny any quid pro quo in conclusory fashion, this is insufficient and almost expected. As wisely stated by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the quid pro quo need not be stated in express terms “for otherwise the law’s effect could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods. The inducement from the official is [violative] if it is express or if it is implied from his words and actions ….” Based on the record, Plaintiff-Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of an implied, if not an express quid pro quo based on Mayor Adams, Mr. Spiro, Mr. Bove, and Mr. Homan’s words and actions.

In my view, the decision is wrong on a number of key elements.

Who decides?

First, Judge Rosado heard this case despite the fact that there is a process for such allegations to be raised and adjudicated before the Conflict of Interest Board. Rosado recognizes the obvious problem and admits that

“[t]o be clear, the Conflicts of Interest Board is the preferred and proper forum for many garden variety conflict of interest disputes, such as those involving improper gifts, failures to disclose financial interests, and other financial conflicts.‘

“However, the Conflicts of Interest Board is not equipped with the powers and tools to grapple with the case, which involves the promulgation of an Executive Order at lightning speed, upending a decree of New York policy barring federal law enforcement authorities from maintaining a presence on Department of Corrections property.”

I found the court’s logic on this portion of the opinion to be conclusory and counterintuitive. There is nothing in the law or regulations that defines the Board as focused on “garden-variety” conflicts. It is the system created by the city council to address conflict allegations and, while Judge Rosado believes that she can do better than the board, that is hardly a convincing basis to circumvent the process for the adjudication of such claims. Rosado ignores that this is a specialized body expressly tasked with such conflicts. It is unclear how the court is “better equipped” with its own limited staff to address such matters, other than having the ability to issue judicial injunctions.

Deception or Delegation?

Putting aside this act of judicial overreach, there is also the problem that the order was ultimately issued not by Adams but by Mastro. There are very compelling public policy reasons for taking this action. The city is struggling with the massive demands of its undocumented immigrant population. Before he was ever charged, Adams was viewed as a moderate on such questions who was open to greater federal enforcement. Many states and cities cooperate with federal authorities in this way as a matter of public policy.

Judge Rosado admits that there is a valid question of whether the delegation constituted a type of recusal or cleansing of the decision. However, she maintained that Mastro is not independent because he was appointed by Adams and reports to him. Moreover, she cited New York City Charter § 2604(b)(3), which states that delegating oversight or management does not necessarily erase a conflict of interest. She notes that Adams said publicly that he did not recuse himself and found:

“The Defendants-Respondents’ hyperbolic argument that if Mayor Adams cannot delegate to First Deputy Mayor Mastro, then there is nobody he can delegate to, is without merit. First Deputy Mayor Mastro, although an accomplished and highly educated attorney, is not independent of Mayor Adams and therefore cannot be considered impartial and free from Mayor Adams’ conflicts. First Deputy Mayor Mastro reports directly to Mayor Adams, is appointed by Mayor Adams, and can be fired by Mayor Adams. He is Mayor Adams’ agent.”

It is not clear, however, who would be sufficiently free of Adams’ authority to allow for them to make the myriad of decisions vis-a-vis federal authority. In this matter, Mastro and the Mayor’s office are arguing that he made an independent judgment on the merits of the policy. More importantly, Judge Rosado ignores the implications of her order. She never explains how the city is to function if any order dealing with the federal government could be viewed as part of a quid pro quo. There are a host of joint operations and programs with the federal government. Where does one draw the line and who then makes these decisions ranging from housing to prisons to voting? Rosado seems to shrug and say that anyone reporting to the Mayor or subject to his authority is not sufficiently independent.

The Order

Judge Rosado ultimately finds against Adams, but includes rhetoric exulting the prior pro-immigration policies that further undermines the opinion:

The Court finds that Plaintiff-Petitioner has demonstrated imminent and irreparable harm for purposes of obtaining a preliminary injunction. The harm to intangible assets such as damage to reputation, loss of goodwill, and brand tarnishment are routinely found sufficient to grant injunctive relief. New York City, which thrives as a global hub due in large part to its reputation as being a welcoming home for immigrant communities from around the world, risks having this goodwill and invaluable reputation irreparably damaged as a result of an Executive Order borne out of Mayor Adams’ alleged conflict of interest. New York City, through legislation and decades of policy, has established a reputation as a “Sanctuary City.” This reputation, and the goodwill built from decades of policy decisions, and which have provided New Yorkers with numerous intangible cultural and economic benefits, risks being irrevocably tarnished. The harm to New York City’s reputation as a Sanctuary City, and the goodwill with numerous communities that flows from that reputation, is best preserved through a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants-Respondents from acting on Executive Order No. 50.

…

The Court is also cognizant of threat of irreparable harm in a more concrete sense—that is the threat to detained New York State and City residents and their dignity. There is ample evidence that there is already a serious, imminent and ongoing risk that immigrant New Yorkers, and even foreign tourists to New York City, are being wrongfully detained. There are documented reports of individuals being deported to stranger third-countries, and New York City residents are taken into custody for expressing political views contrary to the federal government’s agenda. Residents who are here seeking asylum are being deported to countries they claim to have previously faced persecution for their sexuality, politics, or religion. And this concrete harm flows to the Plaintiff-Petitioner…

I was frankly astonished by the direct discussion of the mayor’s criminal charges in the conjunction with negotiations over enhanced federal enforcement. While I understand the defense counsel’s job to seek any lawful avenue for relief, I would have immediately cut off such discussions as inappropriate from the perspective of the Justice Department. If such discussions occurred, there is a legitimate concern over a quid pro quo. However, this is not how courts should address such allegations. I believe both Judge Ho (who ruled correctly) and Judge Rosado (who did not) exceeded the parameters for their opinions with extraneous commentary. That is particularly the case with Judge Rosado. More importantly, I believe that Judge Rosado is simply wrong in circumventing the designated board for addressing conflicts of interest and issuing this sweeping opinion.

This is not an easy matter for any board or court. These meetings and the timing of these decisions raise obvious concerns. However, courts are not allowed to engage in conjecture. It is not just plausible but likely that Adams would have extended the access to Rikers Island even without any change in his criminal case.

I do not see the limiting principle in this decision. Adams is still the mayor and may have independent and good-faith reasons for orders that are favorable for the federal government. Indeed, his order was the correct one on the merits. While Judge Rosado never explores the countervailing benefits while writing at length on the costs to a city of immigrants, they are obvious and cannot be ignored. In other words, Adams had every reason to support federal enforcement as a Mayor who ran on making New York a safer city.

This matter should have been left to the Conflicts of Interest Board, and the decision itself is ill-considered and incomplete.

Category:

Crime, Law

Tagged with:

Is DEI DOA? Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Added Burden for Whites in Discrimination Lawsuits

By: Jonathan Turley | June 6, 2025

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down three major cases with unanimous decisions. One, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, raises additional questions over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that have been widely used in higher education and businesses. There is no reason to believe that DEI measures are DOA, but the decision is likely to accelerate challenges based on reverse discrimination after the Court rejected the imposition of an added burden for members of any “majority group” including straight, white males.

The immediate question before the Court was a circuit split over the standard that applies to a member of a “majority” group who claims that he or she was treated unfairly based on majority characteristics. The Sixth Circuit, along with four other circuits, held that such litigants must shoulder additional pleading burdens under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Many of us have long argued that this long-standing rule was itself discriminatory and at odds with both constitutional and statutory authority. It was a bizarre interpretation of a law that barred employees from discriminating based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.” That would ordinarily require a plaintiff to support a claim of disparate treatment by showing that she applied for a position for which she was qualified but was rejected under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. However, judges began to add their own burden of white, male or straight litigants in requiring them to show additional “background circumstances” that show the defendant is an “unusual employer” that discriminates against majority groups.

In this case, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed that she was demoted at the Ohio Department of Youth Services after Ginine Trim, a gay woman, replaced her supervisor. Trim hired a younger gay man allegedly based on sexual orientation. Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit dismissed the complaint because Ames failed to identify any other “background circumstances” that demonstrated her employer discriminated against heterosexual women. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court that reversed the Sixth Circuit and rejected the “additional circumstances” test as at odds with the plain text of Title VII.

“As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The “law’s focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic.” Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). By establishing the same protections for every “individual”—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a concurrence that chastised lower courts and “judges creating a textual legal rules and frameworks.”

The opinion has broader implications for businesses and higher education where DEI has been used to brush aside such reverse discrimination claims. Often such claims are mocked as suggesting that members of a majority group are “victims.” While not imposing this specific “add-on,” these controversies involve much of the same bias against reverse discrimination claims. Litigants complain that they often face greater demand and resistance to their claims as opposed to employees who are part of minority groups.

Various legal groups insisted that the Sixth Circuit was correct and that majority-group litigants should shoulder an added burden, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Women’s Law Center, Latino Justice, National Employment Law Project and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The views of these groups could not garner a single vote on the Court.

The Ames decision is a welcome development in bringing greater uniformity in the treatment of discrimination claims. It is also a shot across the bow of businesses and universities that have used DEI to dismiss the countervailing interests and claims of majority-group employees.

Here is the decision: Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services

Category:

Tagged with:

Marc Elias Moves to Thwart Trump DOJ’s Litigation Over Alleged Voter Inaccuracies

By: Fred Lucas | June 04, 2025

Democrat election attorney Marc Elias. (David Jolkovski for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias moved this week to intervene in a Trump Justice Department lawsuit filed last week against North Carolina for the state’s alleged inaccurate voter registration rolls.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit alleges North Carolina’s Board of Elections used a state voter registration form that failed to require voters to provide identifying information such as a driver’s license or the last four digits of a Social Security number, as required under the federal Help America Vote Act.

The Justice Department said that the litigation advances President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” to ensure enforcement of existing federal election laws.

The North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans hired Elias’ firm, the Elias Law Group, for a motion to intervene in the case, the Carolina Journal reported. Elias has been a staple in election litigation cases, representing Democrat candidates and liberal interest groups for about two decades, notably representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The North Carolina Board of Elections has had a new 3-2 Republican majority since May and is potentially less likely to defend the legal challenge by a Republican administration.

Elias’ motion notes that before the 2024 election, the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit similar to the Justice Department’s suit against the state and that the losing GOP candidate in a state Supreme Court race made similar complaints.

“Now, the federal government has joined the fray, echoing the alarmist tone of these past suits,” the motion says.

Four lawyers from Washington-based Elias Law Group are listed on the motion as well as one from the Chapel Hill, North Carolina-based law firm of Patterson Harkavy.

But the motion says the government’s lawsuit doesn’t identify a single voter who was registered in a way that was noncompliant with the Help America Vote Act.

“Despite its paltry allegations, the federal government asks this court to force North Carolina to engage in a herculean data-collection process, contacting every single voter in the state whose registration file appears to be missing information and then collecting that information,” the lawyers for the retirement alliance argued in the motion. “The inevitable consequence of the federal government’s lawsuit is clear: Voters who cannot be contacted stand to be kicked off the rolls, even if they complied with HAVA [Help America Vote Act] when they registered or never had to comply with HAVA at all.”

In filing the lawsuit last week, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a public statement: “Accurate voter registration rolls are critical to ensure that elections in North Carolina are conducted fairly, accurately, and without fraud. … The Department of Justice will not hesitate to file suit against jurisdictions that maintain inaccurate voter registration rolls in violation of federal voting laws.”

The Justice Department lawsuit says the state “failed to maintain accurate lists in North Carolina’s computerized statewide voter registration” database in violation of Section 303(a)(5) of the federal law, which requires a Social Security number, driver’s license, or other identification.

The federal lawsuit notes the Help America Vote Act says, “States are encouraged to use the unique identifier to share information with other governmental offices for purposes such as death certificates, court and tax records, etc., to assure proper maintenance of voter records, file integrity, and protection of voter rights.”

Category:

Tagged with:

Fred Lucas

British Blasphemy Prosecution: London Man Convicted After Burning Qur’an

By: Jonathan Turley | June 4, 2025

We recently discussed how the United Kingdom has continued its erosion of free speech by pushing an effective blasphemy law. Now, a London man has been convicted of a “religiously aggravated public order offence.” Hamit Coskun, 50, a Turkish-born Armenian-Kurdish atheist was arrested after burning a Qur’an.

Coskun was protesting the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara over his embrace of radical Islamic principles. Exclaiming “f**k Islam” and “Islam is religion of terrorism,” he burned the Qur’an and was then slashed by a Muslim man with a knife. Critics were outraged that the man (who later pleaded guilty) was released while police continued to hold Coskun.

Despite arguing that his protest was protected speech, District Judge John McGarva convicted him and declared that his actions were “highly provocative” and that they were “motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.” Judge McGarva made clear that his views of Islam would not be tolerated in the United Kingdom:

“After considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That’s based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. It’s not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers.’

“I do accept that the choice of location was in part that you wanted to protest what you see as the Islamification of Turkey. But you were also motivated by the hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location.”

Coskun later correctly condemned the decision as “an assault on free speech” and added:

“Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago, and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I’d set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.”

For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests, including in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.

A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”

Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement:

“I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”

Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:

“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”

The fear is that an expanded hate speech law that includes criticism of Islamophobia will operate like a British blasphemy law. In 2008, the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England. This new effort could constructively restore such prosecutions as they relate to Islam.

Category:

Crime, Free Speech, International Politics, Law, Religion

Tagged with:

For Playing Political Games With Trump’s Deportations, Judge Ho Gives SCOTUS The Smackdown It Deserves

By: Shawn Fleetwood | May 28, 2025

Judge Ho giving remarks at Heritage. — ‘I worry that the disrespect they have been shown will not inspire continued respect for the judiciary, without which we cannot long function.’

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

Shawn Fleetwood

Visit on Twitter@ShawnFleetwood

The refusal by a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to shut down leftists’ lower court judicial coup against President Trump has drawn sharp rebukes from conservatives across America. These critics (correctly) argue that the high court’s unwillingness to stop (and at times, its willingness to participate in) this effort both subverts the power of the executive branch and undermines the will of the more than 77 million Americans who voted for the president in the 2024 election. But it’s not just judicial commentators and everyday citizens who are getting fed up with the justices’ political gamesmanship.

Last week, a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order “expedit[ing] to the next available randomly designated regular oral argument panel” the case known as A.A.R.P. v. Trump. The matter centers around Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members.

The order came as part of the lower court’s compliance with a May 16 SCOTUS decision, in which a majority (7-2) on SCOTUS remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit. As described by Fox News, the ruling — in which Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented — “revolved around the alleged illegal immigrants not having enough time to reasonably file a challenge to their deportations.”

While the Fifth Circuit panel’s order followed the Supreme Court’s instructions, it also included a multi-page concurring opinion from Judge James Ho. In addition to arguing that the identified Tren de Aragua members “should not be allowed to proceed in this appeal,” the Trump appointee excoriated the high court for the “disrespect” it has shown “the district judge as well as the President and other officials” in the case.

“As an inferior court, we’re duty-bound to follow Supreme Court rulings — whether we agree with them or not. … So, I concur in our order today expediting our consideration of this matter, as directed by the Supreme Court,” Ho wrote. “But I write to state my sincere concerns about how the district judge as well as the President and other officials have been treated in this case. I worry that the disrespect they have been shown will not inspire continued respect for the judiciary, without which we cannot long function.”

Ho went on to note that it “is not the role of the judiciary to check the excesses of the other branches, any more than it’s our role to check the excesses of any other American citizen” — an apparent rebuke to recent remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts. While speaking at an event in his hometown of Buffalo, New York, earlier this month, the Bush appointee tacitly endorsed the concept of judicial supremacy, claiming the courts can unilaterally “strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president” they believe to be unlawful or unfavorable.

“Judges do not roam the countryside looking for opportunities to chastise government officials for their mistakes,” Ho wrote. “Rather, our job is simply to decide those legal disputes over which Congress has given us jurisdiction.”

Much like Alito did in his dissenting opinion in SCOTUS’s May 16 decision, Ho ardently defended District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s handling of petitioners’ requests for emergency relief, saying he “conducted himself in a reasonable and indeed admirable manner” and “any criticism of [him] is unwarranted and unfortunate.” He further echoed Alito’s criticisms of the Supreme Court’s characterization of Hendrix’s declination to immediately abide by petitioners’ late-night requests as “misleading.”

“We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court — not a Denny’s. This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion,” Ho wrote. “If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so. … If this is not to become the norm, then we should admit that this is special treatment being afforded to certain favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua —and we should stop pretending that Lady Justice is blindfolded.”

The Fifth Circuit judge concluded his fiery opinion by underscoring that Trump deserves the same level of respect all presidents before him have been afforded. He specifically pointed to former President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union address and former President Bill Clinton’s inability to practice law before the high court as examples of presidents who — despite having disagreements with court rulings — were entitled to said respect.

“Yet I doubt that any court would deny any of those Presidents the right to express their views in any pending case to which they are a party, before issuing any ruling. Our current President deserves the same respect,” Ho wrote.

Whether Roberts and his colleagues take Ho’s criticisms seriously remains to be seen. But what is certain is that the longer the high court continues to entertain leftists’ judicial coup, the more credibility it loses with the American people.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Category:

Tagged with:

Noem: ICE Arrests Illegal Tied to Threat on Trump’s Life

By Michael Katz | Wednesday, 28 May 2025 03:36 PM EDT

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Wednesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials arrested an illegal alien who allegedly wrote a letter in which he threatened to kill President Donald Trump. On May 21, an ICE field intelligence officer received a handwritten letter in the mail allegedly from Ramon Morales Reyes, 54, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. illegally at least nine times between 1998-2005. The next day, Reyes was arrested.

“Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars,” Noem said in a statement, which included a copy of the letter allegedly written by Reyes and details of his arrest. “This threat comes not even a year after President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania, and less than two weeks after former FBI Director [James] Comey called for the President’s assassination.”

Noem was referring to a now-deleted Instagram post by Comey of a photo of seashells arranged on a beach to form the numbers “86 47” — a combination many interpreted as a coded call for violence against President Trump.

“All politicians and members of the media should take notice of these repeated attempts on President Trump’s life and tone down their rhetoric,” Noem said. “I will continue to take all measures necessary to ensure the protection of President Trump.”

Reyes’ criminal record includes arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property and disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse modifier, DHS said. He is in ICE custody at Dodge County Jail in Juneau, Wisconsin, pending his removal proceedings.

The letter stated, “We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans – we have done more for this country than you white people – you have been deporting my family and I think it is time Donald J. Trump get what he has coming to him. I will self deport myself back to Mexico but not before I use my 30 yard 6 [rifle] to shoot your precious president in the head – I will see him at one of his big rally’s.”

Michael Katz ✉

Michael Katz is a Newsmax reporter with more than 30 years of experience reporting and editing on news, culture, and politics.

Category:

Crime, illegal Immigration, Law, political violence

Tagged with:

A Judge of Her Peers? Judge Dugan Assigned a Judge Previously Rebuked for Political Comments

By: Jonathan Turley | May 21, 2025

Five years ago, I wrote about a federal judge who, in my view, had discarded any resemblance of judicial restraint and judgment in a public screed against Republicans, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin judge represented the final death of irony: a jurist who failed to see the conflict in lashing out at what he called judicial bias in a political diatribe that would have made MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blush.

His name is Lynn Adelman.

I was wrong in 2020. Irony is very much alive.

This week, a judge was randomly selected to preside at the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. A critic of Trump’s immigration policies, Dugan is accused of obstructing federal law enforcement and facilitating the escape of an unlawful immigrant.

The judge assigned to the Dugan case? You guessed it. Lynn Adelman, 85.

A judge is expected to come to a case like this one without the burden of his own baggage. Judge Adelman is carrying more baggage than Amtrak in Wisconsin.

The selection of Adelman shows how political commentary by judges undermines the legitimacy of the court system. Now, in a case that has divided the nation, the public will have to rely on a judge who discarded his own obligations as a judge to lash out at conservatives, Trump, and conservative jurists.

Adelman was a long-standing Democratic politician who tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to run for Congress during his 20-year tenure in the Wisconsin Senate. For critics, Adelman never set aside his political agenda after President Bill Clinton nominated him for the federal bench. Adelman was sharply rebuked for ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of a Democratic challenge over voting identification rules just before a critical election. Adelman blocked the law before the election despite a Supreme Court case issued years earlier in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), rejecting a similar challenge.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a stinging reversal, explaining to Adelman that in “our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong.”

Adelman, however, was apparently undeterred. In 2020, he wrote a law review article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”

Adelman attacked what he described as a “hard-right majority” that is “actively participating in undermining American democracy.” He also struck out at Trump as “an autocrat… disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”

Adelman was later admonished by the Civility Committee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for his public political attacks as “inconsistent with a judge’s duty to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and as reflecting adversely on the judge’s impartiality.”

The costs of such extrajudicial commentary became vividly clear this week. Judge Dugan is being called a “hero” by Democratic politicians and pundits for helping an individual evade federal arrest. At least one judge has pledged to do the same in her courtroom. On the other side, many are appalled by Dugan’s conduct as fundamentally at odds with the role of a jurist in either the state or federal system.

There are weighty issues in the case and the public has a right to expect a fair trial with a judge who will not be swayed by his own political viewpoints. Dugan already had the advantage of a trial before a jury taken from one of the most liberal districts in the country. She will now have a judge who was himself sanctioned for political statements and reversed for ignoring controlling precedent.

This problem is growing within our courts, including at the Supreme Court. I recently wrote about public commentary by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan that created distractions this month in cases before the Supreme Court. The public has a right to expect more from jurists. The price of the ticket to the bench is to set aside one’s political agenda and political commentary. When you don that robe, you must discard your politics. Some, however, seem to cling to both the bias and the bench.

The message for the public could not be worse this week. In a case involving a Democratic judge accused of discarding basic judicial principles, a random selection produced a Democratic judge reversed for discarding basic judicial principles.

For conservatives, these cases reaffirm a view of a dual-track legal system. Lawfare has been raging in blue cities like New York where President Trump faced judges denounced for their political associations or past commentary. In Washington, Trump was assigned a federal judge who previously appeared to lament that Trump was not a criminal defendant in her courtroom. She was then randomly assigned Trump’s case after he was charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

We have the greatest legal system in the world, but it cannot survive long without the faith and support of the public. That is why judicial ethics rules bar not just conflicts of interest but the appearance of a conflict of interest. The perception of political bias robs our courts of their inherent legitimacy and authority for citizens.

Just as Adelman lashed out at most of the Supreme Court as lacking credibility, he can hardly expect conservatives and Republicans to find him a credible choice in the Dugan case. That is why I was wrong five years ago. Irony is not entirely dead. It is just uniformly ignored.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

WATCH: Nancy Mace Drops Bombshell in Nude Photo Hearing

By Jimmy Parker | May 21, 2025

In a bold and unapologetic move, Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace took a stand against privacy violations and sexual exploitation during a House Oversight Subcommittee hearing on “surveillance in private spaces.” Mace displayed a nude image of herself—allegedly taken without her consent by her ex-fiancé, Patrick Bryant—to highlight the dangers of covert recording and the lack of legal protections for victims.

Mace, a fierce advocate for women’s rights and a survivor of sexual assault, did not hold back in her condemnation of Bryant’s alleged actions. “Today I will show my naked body on one of the videos predator and rapist Patrick Bryant took of me and many other women. Without our knowledge. Without our permission. And without our consent,” she declared in a pre-hearing post on X. During the hearing, she reinforced her claims, stating Bryant had recorded nude women and even filmed “rape,” calling his behavior “creepy” and “criminal.”

Bryant, however, vehemently denied the accusations, telling Fits News: “I categorically deny the false and outrageous claims made by Nancy Mace. I have never raped anyone. I have never hidden cameras. I have never harmed any woman. These accusations are not just false. They are malicious and deeply personal. My mistake was loving and trusting someone who later weaponized our relationship.”

Despite Bryant’s denials, Mace’s decision to publicly confront her alleged abuser underscores the urgent need for stronger federal and state laws to protect victims of non-consensual recording and sexual exploitation. “Today I exposed a monster whose victims deserve justice,” she asserted. “The victims also deserve stronger federal and state laws to protect them.”

While Mace’s courage should be applauded, the liberal media has largely downplayed the significance of her testimony, instead focusing on trivial political narratives. This is yet another example of the mainstream press ignoring real issues that affect women while pushing their own agenda. Where is the outrage from the so-called “feminist” left? Where are the headlines demanding justice for Mace and other victims?

Today I exposed a monster whose victims deserve justice. The victims also deserve stronger federal and state laws to protect them.

To other potential victims, I want you to know, “I have your back.”

I would run through a brick wall to protect women and girls in South Carolina.… pic.twitter.com/RjcsXDz7pr
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) May 20, 2025

In stark contrast to the left’s silence, President Donald Trump has consistently championed law and order, advocating for stronger protections against sexual predators and standing with survivors. His administration prioritized justice for victims, unlike the current weak-on-crime policies that allow predators to operate with impunity.

h/t: Steadfast and Loyal

Category:

Tagged with:

Comey’s Recent Behavior Confirms He’s Our Worst FBI Director

By: Thomas Baker

May 20, 2025

4 min read

James Comey issuing a possible threat on the president is just the latest example of his extraordinarily poor judgment.

Thomas Baker

James B. Comey posted on Instagram a photo of seashells arranged to read “86 47,” which could be interpreted as a threat against the 47th president. Comey has since denied that he intended violence; nonetheless the Secret Service is reportedly investigating. This posting may have been a lapse of judgment on Comey’s part or something more nefarious.

Comey’s conduct in this instance, however, fits well with his previous anti-Trump behavior and demonstrably poor judgment. His judgment has been a serious concern for many of us who were proud to serve in the FBI and care about the bureau’s credibility and reputation. In his book and elsewhere, he described the sole origin of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Trump’s first presidential campaign as based on a report “from an allied ambassador” of an encounter in London between a Trump adviser and “a Russian agent.”

That’s Comey’s characterization of George Papadopoulos’ meeting with Joseph Mifsud, a pan-European academic. Mifsud told the then-Trump aide the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Comey has piously huffed that it would have been “dereliction” not to proceed with a counterintelligence investigation based on that report. But to proceed with such an intrusive investigation on so little was an abuse.

A secondhand rumor should never be enough to justify opening a counterintelligence investigation of any American, much less a presidential candidate. This off-handed conversation initiated a counterintelligence case that disrupted Trump’s first term as president. Like directors before him, Comey should have said, “We need more probable cause” before moving forward with an investigation.

In the encounter Comey cited, there was no mention of emails. Only after the WikiLeaks disclosures was an assumption made by both Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer, Comey’s “allied ambassador,” and Papadopoulos, that the “dirt” was in Hillary’s emails.

Comey’s indignant complaints about Trump are an effort to distract from the dangerous and faulty decisions made on his watch. His initiation of the counterintelligence investigation against Trump was an error of historical proportions.

Comey has tried to justify the spying — electronic surveillance — of Carter Page, a U.S. citizen, by writing that a federal judge granted “permission.” We now know the FISA Court was seriously misled by Comey’s FBI.

Comey grossly usurped the prosecutor’s role in virtually declining prosecution in the Clinton email investigation. That usurpation was spelled out in Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s memo justifying Comey’s firing. Comey also had further muddied the waters by announcing the reopening of the Clinton email investigation just days before the 2016 election.

Comey tried to deflect from his responsibility in the Russian collusion fiasco by claiming it all happened “seven layers below” him. That is simply not true. The deputy assistant director for counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, drafted and signed out the communication initiating that probe. Strzok’s texts demonstrate he answered to Andrew McCabe, who was deputy director and Comey’s direct report. It was McCabe who set up the interview to entrap General Michael Flynn, and it was Strzok who conducted the interview. These people were not seven layers down from Comey. They were his inner circle, mere steps away from him on the seventh floor of the J. Edgar Hoover Building.

It was Comey himself who wrote a memo of his initial conversation with President-elect Trump and then leaked it. He, and only he, did that. What was he thinking? Here was the FBI director trying to incriminate the president.

Throwing everyone else under the bus, Comey claimed that FBI procedures failed him. But it was Comey who signed three of the four applications for FISA coverage on Carter Page. And it was Comey who set the tone by declining to brief the Congressional Gang of Eight about this significant counterintelligence investigation. When Comey served as FBI director, he led the investigation of one or more American citizens without sufficient basis. The lack of justification for initiating these investigations is what truly matters.

The former FBI director may or may not be charged for this seashell threat on the president’s life, but James Comey will be condemned by history as the worst FBI director for the damage he has done to the FBI and our country.

Portions of this article come from the author’s book “The Fall of the FBI.”

Thomas J. Baker is an international law enforcement consultant. He served as a FBI Special Agent for 33 years in a variety of investigative and management positions facing the challenges of crime and terrorism. He is the author of “The Fall of the FBI: How a Once Great Agency Became a Threat to Democracy.”

Category:

Tagged with:

The Red Line: Democratic Officials Claim a Dangerous License for Illegality

By: Jonathan Turley | May 20, 2025

Across the country, a new defense is being heard in state and federal courtrooms. From Democratic members of Congress to judges to city council members, officials claim that their official duties include obstructing the official functions of the federal government. It is a type of liberal license that excuses most any crime in the name of combating what Minn. Gov. Tim Walz called the “modern-day Gestapo” of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The latest claimant of this license is Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers during a protest at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. McIver is shown on video forcing her way into an ICE facility and striking and shoving agents in her path.

This was not a major incursion, but these state and federal officials joined a mob in briefly overwhelming security and breaching the fence barrier after a bus was allowed through the entrance. Federal officials were able to quickly force back the incursion.

McIver and House Democrats insisted that McIver’s forcing her way into the facility might be trespass and assault for other citizens, but she was merely exercising “legislative oversight.” Rep. Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) declared “You lay a finger on someone – on Bonnie Watson Coleman or any of the representatives that were there – you lay a finger on them, we’re going to have a problem.”

Rep. Eric Swallwell (D., Cal.) promised more such actions: “I promise you there’s gonna be more un-noticed visits by my colleagues where they show up and they better be let in.”

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) even ominously warned the federal government that Democrats would bring down the house if it tried to charge McIver: “It’s a red line. They know better than to go down that road.”

Well, the red line was crossed in a big way after Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba charged McIver with a felony under Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1). The ACLU called the charge “authoritarianism” and insisted that these state and federal politicians “have every right to exercise their legally authorized oversight responsibilities for expanded immigration detention in New Jersey.”

The problem with the oversight claim is that McIver’s status as a member of Congress does not allow her access into closed federal facilities. Congress can subpoena the Executive Branch or secure court orders for access. However, members do not have immunity from criminal laws in unilaterally forcing their way into any federal office or agency. If that were the case, Rep. Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez would not have posted images of herself crying at the fence of an immigrant facility, she could have climbed over the fence in the name of oversight.

Conversely, Republicans in the Biden Administration could have simply pushed their way into the Justice Department to seek the files on the influence-peddling scandal.

Yet, the point of the claim is less of a real criminal defense and more of a political excuse.

It is the same claim being heard this week from Worcester City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj who was shown in a video shoving and obstructing ICE officers attempting to arrest a woman on immigration charges. Two other individuals (including a Democratic candidate for a school board) were arrested, but not Haxhiaj who claimed that she was merely protecting “a constituent.” After the melee, the city manager issued an order preventing city police from assisting in any way in the carrying out of such civil immigration enforcement efforts by the federal government.

Even judges are claiming the same license. In Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with obstructing a federal arrest of an illegal immigrant who appeared in her courtroom. Dugan heard about agents waiting outside in the hallway to arrest the man and went outside to confront the agents. She told them to speak to the Chief Judge and that they needed a different warrant. The agents complied and the Chief Judge confirmed that they could conduct the arrest. In the interim, however, Dugan led the man out a non-public door and facilitated his escape (he was arrested after a chase down a public street).

Judge Duggan also claimed that she was carrying out her duties even though her hearing was over, the charges were not part of state matter, and the arrest was being carried out outside of her courtroom. She was declared “a hero” by Democratic politicians and pundits.

As Democratic leaders like Walz engage in rage rhetoric and paint Republicans (and federal law enforcement) as Nazis, political violence is on the rise across the country. Many of the people burning Teslas and engaging in such crimes claim the same type of license that the ends justify the means. That includes affluent professionals who are now shoplifting from Whole Foods as a “protest” against Jeff Bezos meeting with Trump.

When the Administration sought to investigate those burning Teslas and dealerships, Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.) denounced it as a “political weaponization” of the legal system. The comments suggest that such arson is somehow a form of political expression on the left.

House Minority Leader Jeffries was correct that a “red line” was crossed but not the one that he was thinking of in threatening consequences for any charges. The red line is the one separating political expression and criminal conduct.

Border Czar stressed repeatedly to political leaders that they can protest and refuse to help but “you can‘t cross the line” into obstruction and interference with their operations.

If oversight means that members can force their way into any federal facilities, we would have 535 roaming inspectors general who could wander at will through the executive branch.

Rep. McIver would be better to claim a different type of oversight, in allowing her passion to briefly overwhelm her judgment in rushing into the facility.

In the end, however, McIver and Duggan may have a license of a different kind.

Both have the advantage of being charged in liberal districts where they would appear before sympathetic jurors. They need to just convince a single jury to engage in “jury nullification,” to vote based on the cause, not the crime, in the case.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

A shorter version of this column appeared in the New York Post.

Category:

Tagged with:

“A Modest Request”: The Supreme Court Hears Challenge to National or Universal Injunctions

By: Jonathan Turley | May 15, 2025

Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear three consolidated cases in Trump v. CASA on the growing use of national or universal injunctions. This is a matter submitted on the “shadow docket” and the underlying cases concern the controversy over “birthright citizenship.” However, the merits of those claims are not at issue. Instead, the Trump Administration has made a “modest request” for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation.

The case is the consolidation of three matters: Trump v. CASA out of Maryland; Trump v. Washington out of Washington State, and Trump v. New Jersey, out of Massachusetts. These cases also present standing issues since the Administration challenges the argument that there is a cognizable “injury” to individuals who may travel to the states bringing the actions.

However, the main question is the scope of injunctions.

As I have previously written, district court judges have issued a record number of injunctions in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama. However, when Trump came to office, he faced 64 such orders in his first term.

When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.

Yet, when Trump returned to office, the number of national injunctions soared again in the first 100 days and surpassed the number for the entirety of Biden’s term.

This is a rare argument. First, it is a shadow docket filing that usually results in summary decisions without oral argument. Moreover, this matter came after what is commonly viewed as the final day for oral arguments. The Court granted a rare late oral argument, reflecting that multiple justices view this matter sufficiently serious to warrant a break from standard operating procedures.

Rather than arguing a “question presented” on birthright citizenship, the Administration is solely looking for limits on the district courts as appeals continue on the “important constitutional questions” raised by birthright citizenship.

The Administration argues that the Constitution does not give judges the power to issue universal injunctions and that courts are limited to addressing the cases before them in a given district. The Administration acknowledges that class actions can create the basis for universal injunctions, offering a moderate resolution to the Court. In such cases, if the parties can meet the standard for a national class, they can seek a national or universal injunction.

In today’s arguments (which I will be covering for Fox and on X), we can expect to hear from justices who have previously been critical of universal injunctions, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who, in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, called them “legally and historically dubious.”

Likewise, Justices Gorsuch and Alito have criticized such injunctions. In a prior dissent to an emergency filing in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Alito was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in stating that the government “has a strong argument that the District Court’s order violates the principle that a federal court may not issue an equitable remedy that is ‘more burdensome than necessary to’ redress the plaintiff’s injuries.”

Many of us will be watching three members the most closely: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. Roberts is the ultimate institutionalist, and we should see in his argument how he views the impact of such injunctions on the court system as a whole. He is very protective of the courts’ inherent authority but may also have misgivings about the scope of these orders.

During the Biden Administration, Justice Kagan has previously criticized universal injunctions. In an interview at Northwestern University Law School, Kagan flagged the “forum shopping” by litigants in filing cases before favorable courts:

“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right. In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Justice Barrett previously joined with Kavanaugh in stating that the power of district courts to enter a universal injunction “is an important question that could warrant our review in the future.”

The argument today will start at 10 am and I will be doing a running review of the arguments on X.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will argue the government’s case.

Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, will argue for the state and local governments and Kelsi Corkran, the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, will argue for the private individuals and groups.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Category:

Tagged with:

Federal Judge Rules Against Student Who Wore a “Let’s Go Brandon” Shirt

By: Jonathan Turley | Jonathan Turley.org | May 14, 2025

Read https://jonathanturley.org/2025/05/14/federal-judge-rules-against-student-who-wore-a-lets-go-brandon-shirt/more at

We previously discussed how schools were making students remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon.” I have argued that the shirts should be treated as protected speech. However, United States District Court Judge Christopher Boyko just delivered another blow to free speech in rejecting a claim for such protection, at least as the basis for injunctive relief, in Conrad v. Madison Local School Dist—Bd. of Ed.

In the prior Michigan case with the sweater shown below, Judge Paul Maloney in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools (W.D. Mich.) ruled that a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt could be the basis for punishment:

A school can certainly prohibit students from wearing a shirt displaying the phrase F*** Joe Biden. Plaintiffs concede this conclusion. Plaintiff must make this concession as the Supreme Court said as much in Fraser … (“As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, ‘the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket [which read {F*** the Draft}].’”) The relevant four-letter word is a swear word and would be considered vulgar and profane. The Sixth Circuit has written that “it has long been held that despite the sanctity of the First Amendment, speech that is vulgar or profane is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection.” …

If schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane. Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting. School administrators could prohibit a shirt that reads “F#%* Joe Biden.” School officials have restricted student from wearing shirts that use homophones for profane words … [such as] “Somebody Went to HOOVER DAM And All I Got Was This ‘DAM’ Shirt.” … [Defendants] recalled speaking to one student who was wearing a hat that said “Fet’s Luck” … [and asking] a student to change out of a hoodie that displayed the words “Uranus Liquor” because the message was lewd. School officials could likely prohibit students from wearing concert shirts from the music duo LMFAO (Laughing My F***ing A** Off) or apparel displaying “AITA?” (Am I the A**hole?)…. Courts too have recognized how seemingly innocuous phrases may convey profane messages. A county court in San Diego, California referred an attorney to the State Bar when counsel, during a hearing, twice directed the phrase “See You Next Tuesday” toward two female attorneys.

Again, I strongly disagreed with that decision. However, it has now been replicated in Ohio.

In his complaint, C.C. details how he was wearing a shirt with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” on November 25, 2024, underneath a flannel shirt. He alleges that teacher (and registered Democrat) Krista Ferini was bothered after spotting the shirt and ordered him to “button that up. I know what that means.” C.C. did so, but later, he was in a classroom that lacked air conditioning, so he took off his flannel shirt. That is when allegedly Ferini proceeded to write him up for the infraction. Principal Andrew Keeple then instructed C.C. to wear the flannel the rest of the day and never to wear the shirt to school again.

C.C. defied that order and wore the shirt again in January of 2025. While no one else complained, Ferini was reportedly irate and again wrote up C.C. Keeple declared that C.C. had once again violated the school’s dress code and that the shirt constituted a vulgar expression even though it contained no vulgar terms. He stated that further discipline would follow if C.C. continued to wear the shirt.

On March 24, 2025, C.C. wore the t-shirt again. While no one complained, he received a detention from Keeple. C.C. was disciplined on two other occasions for wearing the shirt.

The court ruled:

“While this case presents serious questions of student free speech versus a school’s interest in protecting students from vulgar and profane speech, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his high burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by clear and convincing evidence. While the D.A. case was on summary judgment and presented facts that are different than those before this Court, Defendant’s burden on summary judgment was a preponderance standard which is a lesser burden than Plaintiff’s here. Moreover, that case presented fact issues going to the reasonableness of the school’s interpretation. Here, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff acknowledges in his Verified Complaint that “Let’s Go Brandon” is a euphemism for F*#% Joe Biden. “In school speech cases where a school limits or restricts a student’s expression, courts must determine whether the school’s interpretation of the expression is reasonable.” “The student’s expression must be considered in the proper context but the student’s motivation or subjective intent is irrelevant.”

Given the strong interests of both sides, the unique characteristics of speech in a school setting, the finding by at least one court in this circuit that the school’s interpretation of the phrase as vulgar was reasonable, and the acknowledgment in this case by Plaintiff that the phrase is a vulgar euphemism, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to support injunctive relief. This does not mean Plaintiff cannot win on the merits of the claim as discovery will likely provide clearer evidence on the reasonableness of the interpretation. But given the high standard for injunctive relief, the Court finds against Plaintiff….”

“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”

“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.

This teacher was clearly put out over the political messaging of the shirt. However, we should encourage students to be politically aware and expressive. Moreover, if schools are allowed to extrapolate profane meaning from non-profane language, it is hard to see the limits on such censorship.

So, what if students now wear “Let’s Go Krista” shirts? How many degrees of removal will negate the profane imputation. Does that mean that the use of “let’s go” in any shirt is now prohibited?

C.C. and his family should continue to litigate and, if necessary, appeal this worthy case in the interests of free speech for all students.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Education, Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Elon Musk Reveals: 100,000 Federal Employees Found Claiming Unemployment Benefits

By Erica Carlin | May 13, 2025

In a stunning interview that’s lighting up conservative media, tech titan Elon Musk sat down with Lara Trump on her hit Fox News program My View and pulled the curtain back on what could be one of the most explosive government fraud scandals in modern U.S. history. Musk revealed that approximately 100,000 federal employees have allegedly been illegally collecting unemployment benefits while still on the federal payroll—a massive violation that took place right under the nose of the Biden administration.

The bombshell came during a frank discussion about government waste and inefficiency; a topic President Donald Trump has long campaigned against. Musk, who has become increasingly vocal about his concerns with federal overreach and corruption under Democrat leadership, didn’t mince words.

“We’ve actually found there’s a lot of people who are federal government employees,” Musk told Lara Trump. “These folks are still working—getting paid by the taxpayers—and drawing unemployment. That’s fraud. It’s criminal.”

The revelations come from an internal watchdog group linked to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a nonpartisan group that has become more prominent as Republicans call for stricter accountability and oversight in federal agencies. Musk noted that the team uncovered shocking evidence of widespread abuse of unemployment insurance systems—evidence pointing directly to massive failures in Biden-era oversight mechanisms.

When pressed by Lara Trump for clarification, Musk confirmed the scale of the problem: “While they’re federal employees? Yes. Wow. And this appears to be at least 100,000 people.”

That number is staggering—and if even partially accurate, it means American taxpayers have been robbed of hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of dollars by their own federal workforce. And yet, no federal agency has come forward to admit fault or announce investigations. The Department of Labor has stayed silent. The Biden administration has stayed silent. And the left-wing media? Predictably, they’ve buried the story.

This scandal underscores exactly what President Trump has warned about for years: an entrenched, bloated bureaucracy riddled with inefficiency, corruption, and total lack of accountability. It’s yet another reason why Americans put Trump back in office in 2024—to finish what he started and drain the swamp once and for all.

Conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill are already demanding answers. House Oversight Committee members are reportedly reviewing the DOGE report and considering subpoenas if the Department of Labor and other relevant agencies continue to stonewall.

Senator Josh Hawley and Representative Jim Jordan have called for a full federal audit of the unemployment insurance system, particularly the funds dispersed during the COVID-era stimulus expansion under Biden, which was rife with unchecked claims and botched oversight.

“We knew there was fraud in the unemployment system,” said Rep. Jordan. “But this kind of institutional rot—100,000 federal employees committing fraud—this is an indictment of the entire administrative state under Biden.”

Let’s be clear: knowingly collecting unemployment while still employed is criminal insurance fraud. Depending on the state and the amount involved, these violations can be prosecuted as misdemeanors or felonies. In some states, convicted individuals face prison time and fines exceeding $50,000.

And yet, despite this being black-and-white fraud, no action has been taken. No charges filed. No agencies named. No heads rolling. Why? Because this appears to be yet another example of the unaccountable deep state shielding itself—a recurring theme under Biden’s weak leadership.

The federal unemployment insurance system is supposed to be a carefully monitored joint effort between state and federal agencies. But under the Biden administration, that system appears to have become a piggy bank for insiders, with zero transparency and minimal enforcement.

Musk didn’t reveal which agencies were implicated or exactly how long the fraud has been ongoing. But the scale of the allegation—and the fact that such a massive breach of public trust has gone unnoticed or ignored—points to a far deeper crisis within the federal bureaucracy.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, unemployment benefits were expanded dramatically under Biden, including through the disastrous American Rescue Plan. As fraud exploded, federal oversight collapsed. Billions of taxpayer dollars vanished into a black hole of bogus claims, phantom businesses, and identity theft rings. And now, it appears even government employees may have gotten in on the grift.

Lara Trump, a rising star in conservative media and a sharp political voice in her own right, didn’t let the moment pass. Her interview with Musk was direct, revealing, and offered the kind of unfiltered truth Americans no longer get from the legacy media. She echoed what millions of hardworking Americans are feeling: disgust, frustration, and a renewed sense of urgency to hold the government accountable.

This scandal isn’t just about fraud—it’s about trust. It’s about whether the federal government exists to serve the people or enrich itself. Under President Trump, waste, fraud, and abuse were investigated and prosecuted. He signed executive orders to root out inefficiency and cut red tape. He empowered inspectors general, slashed bloated budgets, and made bureaucrats actually do their jobs.

Now, in his second term, Trump and his America First team are poised to go even further. From firing corrupt bureaucrats to streamlining the federal workforce, Trump’s plan is to clean house—permanently.

If the Biden-era bureaucracy allowed 100,000 federal employees to collect unemployment fraudulently while working, then this is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s time for a full reckoning.

RedState will continue to follow this developing story closely and keep readers updated as more facts emerge. But one thing is clear: this is not a glitch—it’s systemic abuse, and only bold leadership like President Trump’s can restore integrity to our government.

Erica Carlin

Erica Carlin is an independent journalist, opinion writer and contributor to several news and opinion sources. She is based in Georgia.

Category:

Tagged with:

Today’s FOUR Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco

Branco Cartoon – Gavel n’ Sickle

A.F. Branco | on May 8, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/branco-cartoon-gavel-n-sickle/

Judicial Tyranny — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Radical left-wing Judges are purposely interfering with the executive branch’s ability to exercise the will of the people.

President Trump Issues a Grave Warning as Radical Judges Shamelessly Sabotage His Immigration Agenda and the Supreme Court Sits on Its Hands

By Cullen Linebarger – The Gateway Pundit – May 04, 2025

President Trump was in an understandably foul mood early Saturday morning as the radical-left judges continued to sabotage his immigration agenda. That’s because he knows America’s future is bleak if this continues and the Supreme Court continues to do nothing.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, a federal judge on Thursday issued a permanent injunction and barred the Trump Administration from using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to remove Venezuelan gang members and transport them to El Salvador.
US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, called the President’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act “unlawful.” According to Judge Rodriguez, the AEA only applies when the US is at war and under an armed attack… READ MORE

Branco Cartoon – Team Player

A.F. Branco | on May 9, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/branco-cartoon-team-player-2/

Thom Tillis the RINO — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Senator Thom Tillis has voted for Democrats Blinken, Garland, and Yellen, but can’t bring himself to vote for Trump’s pick for U.S. Attorney, Ed Martin. Folks are smelling a RINO doing his part to sabotage the MAGA movement.

Senator Thom Tillis Gloats in Response to Trump’s Comment on His Opposition to Ed Martin

By Cristina Laila – The Gateway Pundit – May 7, 2025

Senator Thom Tillis gloated in response to President Trump’s comment on his opposition to Ed Martin.
During a swearing-in ceremony at the White House on Wednesday, a reporter asked President Trump about Senator Tillis’ decision to come out against Ed Martin.
On Tuesday Senator Tillis, who voted to confirm Biden’s radical pick for Attorney General Merrick Garland, told reporters that he opposes the nomination of Ed Martin for DC US Attorney.
Tillis made a shocking admission to reporters. He actually said he would support Ed Martin for any district except where January 6 happened… READ MORE

Branco Cartoon – Out Of Control

A.F. Branco | on May 11, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/branco-cartoon-out-of-control/

AG Ellison For Men in Women’s Sports — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

A.F. Branco Cartoon: AG Ellison is carrying the torch to allow biological males to compete against girls in school sports.

Jim Schultz: AG Ellison’s war on common sense an attack on Minnesota’s daughters

By Jim Schultz – AlphaNews.org – May 8, 2025

Ellison sued the federal government to ensure that biological males can compete against girls in school sports. This is not where the public stands.
If you want to understand just how disconnected Minnesota’s leadership is from ordinary citizens (and even from basic reality), look no further than Attorney General Keith Ellison. On April 22, Ellison announced he is suing the federal government, not to fight violent crime or recover the $250 million stolen from taxpayers in the Feeding Our Future scandal, but to ensure that biological males can compete against girls in school sports.
That’s right. With Minnesota facing the threat of crime, rampant fraud in public programs, and skyrocketing costs burdening every family, Ellison has made it a priority to ensure boys can take spots on girls’ teams. It’s absurd… READ MORE

Branco Cartoon – Winners and Losers

A.F. Branco

on May 13, 2025 at 5:00 am

Trump Winning, Dems Losing — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Trump is bringing in the wins every day, with trade deals, ending wars, and boosting the economy, while the Democrats keep doubling down on stupid