This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Plaintiffs who sued the state of Alabama over its new law, a few years ago, that protects children from harmful drugs and surgeries, have given up.
Jonathan Scruggs, of the ADF, explained the American Civil Liberties Union and others sought the dismissal of Boe v. Marshall, where "politicized interest groups worked alongside the Biden administration" challenged the state's protections for children.
"Alabama rightly enacted a law that protects children's welfare—supporting their natural development and ensuring that children experiencing gender dysphoria have a chance for healing and compassionate mental-health support," he said in a prepared statement.
"Across the globe, we're seeing a refreshing return to sanity after radical gender ideology devastated far too many young lives. Alliance Defending Freedom has been honored to support Alabama and the leadership of Alabama Attorney General Marshall to protect children and families. We applaud Alabama and the 24 other states that are following the science, protecting children, and working to stop an unsafe medical experiment that has gone on far too long."
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said, "Three years ago, multiple sets of plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, SPLC, and some of the nation's largest law firms filed suit against Alabama to challenge our law protecting vulnerable kids from life-altering sex-change procedures. We fought back. We defeated a preliminary injunction and conducted court-ordered discovery into the so-called 'standards of care' that these groups claimed were evidence-based. What we found was devastating to plaintiffs' challenge: a medical, legal, and political scandal that will be studied for decades. Given the evidence we uncovered, it is no surprise the plaintiffs abandoned their challenge. We uncovered the truth. We exposed the scandal. We won."
A report at AL.com said the law bans transgender youth from so-called "gender-affirming care."
That's the description members of the lucrative "gender-affirming care" industry use to describe costly chemical treatments and body mutilating surgeries that are prescribed for children with gender dysphoria.
In most of those cases, the dysphoria eventually is resolved without intervention if children are left alone.
The Alabama legislature passed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act in 2022, prompting a group of parents to sue.
"The law makes it a felony for doctors to administer puberty blockers and hormones to individuals under 19 years of age. If convicted an individual could be sentenced to over 10 years in prison," the report said.
Several national campaigns, including the far-left Human Rights Campaign, the extremist Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, were representing plaintiffs.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law provided a joint statement to AL.com, stating, "We will continue fighting to ensure families across the country have the freedom to get their transgender children the proven medical care that enables them to thrive."
Liberals in Congress have been standing in strong opposition to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda ever since he took office in January, and one particularly outspoken lawmaker is ratcheting up the rhetoric and seemingly looking for a fight.
As Breitbart reports, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) essentially challenged the Trump administration border czar to seek charges against her for a February webinar in which she arguably provided advice on how to skirt Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations.
Controversial webinar unfolds
It was several months ago that the office of Ocasio-Cortez hosted the aforementioned “Know Your Rights” live webinar, providing advice to migrants on what to do if they find themselves under ICE enforcement scrutiny, as Fox News noted at the time.
Included in the presentation was information on how to respond if ICE officials appeared at migrants' homes or workplaces and warnings of potential “ruses” used to secure compliance with search demands.
The target audience was urged to record interactions with ICE and to learn the differences between types of warrants and searches conducted by the agency.
Though the congresswoman was not a direct participant in the presentation of information, she did write with regard to its content, “Our strategic advantage in this moment is our strength in numbers. It is time to use it. In nearly every way, we outnumber those who want to abuse their power and keep people in fear,” telling constituents that “if ICE comes to your workplace or home, whether you are a citizen or noncitizen -- YOU can defend your community and our constitution by exercising your right.”
The involvement of Ocasio-Cortez drew the attention of Homan, who then said during a Fox News appearance, “Is that impeding our law enforcement efforts? If so, what are we going to do about it? Is she crossing the line? So, I'm working with the Department of Justice and finding out. Where is that line that they cross? So, maybe AOC's gonna be in trouble now.”
AOC fires back
Shortly after Homan made his remarks, AOC offered a snarky retort to the border czar, saying, “Maybe he can learn to read. The Constitution would be a good place to start.”
During a town hall meeting last week, Ocasio-Cortez came back to the question of whether Homan was seriously pursuing prosecution over her involvement with the webinar.
AOC stated, “Tom Homan said he was going to refer me to DOJ because I'm using my free speech rights in order to advise people of their constitutional protections. To that I say: 'Come for me, do I look like I care?'”
She pressed her point further by declaring there to have been “nothing illegal about it, and if they want to make it illegal, they can come take me.”
In addition to defiance with regard to Homan, AOC has ramped up her rhetoric about Trump's agenda more broadly, suggesting that his administration's removals of Venezuelan gang members has been akin to “sanctioned kidnappings.”
What comes next?
Law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley has commented negatively on the prospect of AOC's prosecution over the webinar controversy, saying that it would amount to “an assault on free speech rights,” but the administration continues to express a hardline stance against those who would willfully interfere with the work of ICE.
With the issuance of an executive order by Trump last week designed to identify and possibly halt funding to sanctuary cities that thwart local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, it is quite clear that the administration is not backing down when it comes to its enforcement efforts, and confrontations such as the one between Homan and AOC are only likely to grow.
Hunter Biden has dropped a lawsuit against a pair of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblowers who alleged he received favorable treatment from the Justice Department.
Without explaining why, Hunter apparently decided he had no choice but to voluntarily dismiss the case "with prejudice," meaning it cannot be filed again. The son of former President Joe Biden filed the lawsuit in 2023 against former IRS agents Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler.
The former first son claimed that the duo had "targeted and sought to embarrass Mr. Biden via public statements to the media in which they and their representatives disclosed confidential information about a private citizen’s tax matters.”
Shapley, Ziegler respond
In a statement, Shapley and Ziegler said Biden's reversal speaks volumes, with the pair noting, "It’s always been clear that the lawsuit was an attempt to intimidate us,” the two men said. “Intimidation and retaliation were never going to work. We truly wanted our day in court to provide the complete story, but it appears Mr. Biden was afraid to actually fight this case in a court of law after all.”
“His voluntary dismissal of the case tells you everything you need to know about who was right and who was wrong," they added.
The IRS whistleblowers went public in 2023 with claims of obstruction in the investigation into Hunter Biden's taxes. The men also claimed they faced retaliation for sharing their concerns.
The allegations fed Republican criticism of Biden's family and the "weaponization" of government in favor of Democrats. Hunter Biden would later accuse the DOJ of giving in to political pressure to file criminal charges against him, but Biden's claims of selective prosecution were rejected in court.
Biden almost received an infamously generous plea deal that later fell apart in front of a skeptical judge. He later pled guilty to felony tax evasion on over $1 million in foreign income from his business deals, only to receive a blanket pardon from his father, President Joe Biden.
Whistleblowers claim vindication
In addition to battling criminal charges, Hunter has been involved in a number of civil legal vendettas against individuals and entities who have exposed him and his business dealings to scrutiny.
Hunter Biden recently won his bid to drop a lawsuit that he started against former Trump White House aide Garrett Ziegler (no relation to Joe Ziegler), successfully pleading financial hardship.
Lawyers for Joe Ziegler and Gary Shapley declared vindication over Hunter Biden's dismissal of his case against them.
"Hunter Biden brought this lawsuit against two honorable federal agents in retaliation for blowing the whistle on the preferential treatment he was given,” the lawyers said in a statement.
“Shapley and Ziegler did nothing wrong, never had to seek a pardon, and their actions have now been entirely vindicated once again," they added.
President Donald Trump appointed Gary Shapley to serve as acting IRS commissioner in April, but he was replaced just three days later.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark case out of Oklahoma after the state's Supreme Court blocked a Catholic Church from a charter school contract.
The court cited concerns that the catholic organization violated state and federal bans on government-sponsored sectarian education, as ABC News reported.
The nation's Supreme Court's conservative majority, however, seemed ready to make way for the first-ever religious charter school in the United States, directly funded by taxpayers.
The Larger Impact
A decision that overturns the state high court would have far-reaching consequences across the country, particularly in the 45 states where over 3.8 million students attend 8,000 charter schools.
According to the Republican attorney general of the state, charter schools serve as an extension of the state government that is bound by the principles of separation of church and state because they are public institutions that are accessible to everyone and closely monitored.
The justices weighed the First Amendment's ban on state establishment of religion and protection of free exercise of religious faith for over two hours.
From The Liberal Judges
The three liberal justices on the court agreed that, as fundamentally public institutions, charter schools cannot use public funds to promote specific ideology.
"The essence of the Establishment Clause was, we're not going to pay religious leaders to teach their religion," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
According to Justice Elena Kagan, the Oklahoma statute that establishes charter schools makes it clear that the schools cannot have any religious affiliation.
"These are state-run institutions," Kagan said. "With respect to a whole variety of things, the state is running these schools and insisting upon certain requirements."
The Right Side
Conservatives insisted they saw charter schools differently, as independent contractors providing a public good rather than an official government agency.
"The argument that St. Isidore and the board has made is that it's a private entity that is participating in a state program," noted Justice Clarence Thomas. "It was not created by the state program."
A ruling by the nation's high court against St. Isidore on First Amendment grounds could have an impact on other government contracts with religiously linked organizations, according to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"I think a concern here is that religiously operated senior homes or food banks or foster care agencies or adoption agencies or homeless shelters, many of which get substantial funding from the government, would potentially … become state actors and, thus, not be able to exercise their religion," Kavanaugh said.
One of The Conservative Majority
Last year, Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case without explaining why, but veteran court watchers have noted her close ties to Notre Dame and the previous relationships she has cultivated with some of the law professors participating in the case.
If the court were to become stuck at 4-4 due to her absence, the decision of the Oklahoma state Supreme Court would remain in effect. It is generally believed that Roberts will cast the deciding vote.
"Today's oral arguments made clear that states must not treat religious individuals and institutions as second-class citizens," said Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and president of JCN, a conservative legal advocacy group.
"I expect the court will follow precedent and allow St. Isidore to offer educational choice for Oklahoma's students."
Those Opposed
Those opposed to religious charter schools expressed concern that a major court decision right now could have a long-lasting impact.
"If today's arguments are any indication, the Supreme Court may be on the verge of abandoning one of the bedrock principles of our democracy," said Rev. Dr. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a left-leaning Christian advocacy group.
"Let's be clear, this was always a test case, and today, the constitutional protections that have guarded true religious freedom for generations are at risk."
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has taken the extraordinary measure of suspending Judge Hannah Dugan, a circuit judge in Milwaukee County, amid serious allegations of obstructing justice in cooperation with a migrant.
Judge Dugan is accused of intervening against federal immigration authorities attempting to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a migrant, in her courtroom.
In a decision announced recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily relieved Judge Dugan of her duties, prompting widespread public interest. The suspension is linked to claims that Dugan interfered with federal efforts by assisting Flores-Ruiz in evading Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities. According to the court, this measure was considered necessary for public interest, casting a spotlight on the legal responsibilities of the judiciary when interfacing with immigration policies.
Controversial Courtroom Incident Described by FBI
Dugan’s alleged actions unfolded earlier this month when ICE officers arrived at her courtroom to execute an arrest warrant for Flores-Ruiz. This individual was present in court facing misdemeanor battery charges at the time. When confronted with the warrant, Dugan purportedly sought further details from the officials and advised them to speak with Milwaukee County’s Chief Judge Carl Ashley, creating an unexpected delay.
As the situation escalated, Dugan reportedly expressed frustration with the ICE request, labeling it as “absurd.” What followed is a matter of ongoing legal interpretation and public debate; Dugan ostensibly permitted Flores-Ruiz to exit the courtroom through a secondary door, effectively evading the awaiting federal officers.
Arrest Sparks Legal and Political Reactions
The events in the courtroom prompted federal authorities to arrest Dugan last Friday, charging her with both obstructing criminal proceedings and concealing an individual intended for detention. These charges suggest a deliberate attempt to impede existing immigration policies attributed to former President Trump’s administration.
The arrest of such a high-profile judicial figure has elicited a variety of responses from both legal professionals and government figures. Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly confirmed the arrest, stating that it serves as a stark reminder that, in her words, “no one is beyond the reach of the law.” This arrest underscores the tension between federal immigration enforcement and local judicial conduct.
Judge Dugan’s attorney, Craig Mastantuono, has spoken out following her arrest. He emphasized that Dugan deeply disagrees with the charges, articulating her profound regret over the situation. In his view, the move was unwarranted by legitimate public safety needs, hinting at broader implications for the interpretation of judicial discretion.
Backdrop of Immigration Policies and Legal Authority
The occurrence in Dugan’s courtroom is just one of many incidents stirring debate over immigration enforcement and local authority roles. Flores-Ruiz, whose presence in the U.S. allegedly contravenes immigration laws, found himself central to this confrontation between local courts and federal directives. The incident gained further attention when reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, putting a spotlight on the mechanisms through which local and federal agendas collide.
Judge Dugan’s situation remains precarious as she faces suspension, impending legal challenges, and broad scrutiny. The central issue in this clash revolves around the capacity and limits of judicial discretion when faced with immigration detention requests. The interpretation of these limits is crucial, especially given the politicized atmosphere regarding enforcement policy, particularly during and following the Trump administration.
As the clash between a sitting judge and immigration enforcement authorities unfolds, questions about accountability, judicial independence, and the role of the judiciary in such matters take center stage. Public perception may play a pivotal role in determining future outcomes for Dugan, as constituents often weigh in on the linkage between local judges and federal immigration agendas.
Public Perception of Judicial Accountability
As the legal proceedings against Dugan continue, many observers see this case as emblematic of the ongoing national discussion concerning how local authorities should interact with federal immigration mandates. The arrest, suspension, and examination of Dugan’s actions juxtapose the duties of faithfully executing judicial roles with the compassion and judgment that presence on the bench demands.
For now, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has made clear its decision to suspend Dugan, showcasing that their immediate concern is the perceived public interest implicated by her alleged actions. The near future, however, will reveal the deeper ramifications of this judicial suspension, as debates about the boundary of local judicial authority amid federal immigration actions remain fervent.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The "rights" ideology for the LGBT community started out with homosexuals demanding they be left alone to live their chosen lifestyle.
Soon that was expanded to demand that they be treated as a privileged part of society, and their "rights" protected.
It expanded quickly to encompass lesbians, bisexuals and more, even transgenders, and the requirements for the rest of society soon were that those outside the community had to not just tolerate and respect them, but promote their ideologies.
Words were created, like "homophobia," for those who didn't accept the same-sex beliefs.
Even "minor-attracted" individuals, or pedophiles, have been demanding recognition and rights.
Now it's moved to the next level, according to a report in the Daily Mail.
It's because of a ruling from a Quebec Superior Court that found that it would be "unconstitutional" not to provide "legal rights" to so-called multi-parent families.
Sometimes they are called "throuples," where three people are in a "relationship."
Polygamy and polyamory are the defining ideas.
Involved in the case were several groups of people: a man and two women who share children, a lesbian duo and a male sperm donor, and a trio where the husband had a baby with his wife's friend.
"In these times when the right to equality is savagely attacked, it feels good," said Marc-Andre Landry, a lawyer who fought for the change.
The report noted the law only applies to parental "units" that were set up before the conception of a child, not residences occupied by step-parents or others.
The movement so far has had a limited impact in the United States, where most states allow recognition of only one or two parents.
The report noted that the Quebec government now will have to amend its law to reflect the change, although an appeal still could develop.
Technically, polyamory and bigamy still remain illegal in Canada, following a 2011 court ruling that affirmed the limits. That was based on the fact the potential harm to women and children outweighed concerns over "personal freedom."
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the judge accused of helping an illegal alien evade an arrest by immigration agents.
The state's highest court - which is dominated by liberals - relieved Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, 65, of her duties as she fights federal obstruction charges.
"It is ordered … that Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C. Dugan is temporarily prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the state of Wisconsin, effective the date of this order and until further order of the court,” the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote.
Activist judge suspended
The judge is accused of helping a Mexican citizen, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade an arrest on April 18. The man, who was previously deported from the United States, was in Dugan's courtroom to face charges of criminal battery.
Federal agents with the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) planned to arrest Flores-Ruiz in a public hallway after his court appearance.
According to an FBI affidavit, when Dugan learned of ICE's presence, she became "visibly angry, commented that the situation was 'absurd,' left the bench, and entered chambers."
Dugan and another judge then confronted the federal agents in the hallway and told them to leave. Dugan argued with the agents over the arrest warrant and told them to report to the chief judge's office.
When Dugan returned to her courtroom, multiple witnesses, including the court's bailiff, observed the judge direct Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a non-public "jury door." The man and his lawyer started heading for the public courtroom exit when the judge said something like, "Wait, come with me."
The FBI affidavit notes the "unusual" nature of her intervention, since "only deputies, juries, court staff, and in-custody defendants being escorted by deputies used the back jury door."
Dugan also adjourned the hearing without the knowledge or participation of the prosecutor, who was in court that day with the victims.
"In the public interest"
Flores-Ruiz was able to exit the building, but agents caught him after a brief foot chase down "the entire length of the courthouse."
Judge Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest and obstructing or impeding a proceeding.
Many see the judge's alleged conduct as part of a troubling pattern of judicial activism.
Democrats have condemned Dugan's arrest as an act of authoritarian retribution, but the liberal Supreme Court of Wisconsin is taking the allegations against her seriously.
“In the exercise of (the) constitutional authority and in order to uphold the public’s confidence in the courts of this state during the pendency of the criminal proceeding against Judge Dugan, we conclude, in our own motion, that it is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties,” the court ordered.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Faces hearing where she could lose her $200,000-a-year job
A possibly "brutal" punishment is looming for yet another judge accused of helping an illegal alien escape, according to a new report.
In just the past few days, an ex-judge in New Mexico and his wife were arrested for harboring illegal aliens, and a Wisconsin judge was suspended from her duties and arrested for enabling an illegal alien criminal to avoid arrest by waiting ICE agents.
Now a Daily Mail report reveals a hearing is scheduled for a Boston judge, being paid more than $200,000 a year by taxpayers, who is accused of letting "a twice-deported illegal immigrant slip out a side door of her courtroom to avoid ICE agents."
The report said Shelley Joseph, being paid to be a Boston Municipal Court judge, is facing removal from the bench when a hearing is held on June 9 over the April 2018 stunt.
"She has been accused of allowing Jose Medina-Perez, an illegal immigrant originally from the Dominican Republic, walk out a back door of the Newton District Courthouse to avoid getting arrested by the ICE agents on duty," the report said.
She was indicted by former U.S. Attorney Andrew Leiling, but those charges were dropped when she agreed to refer herself to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct and that organization, in a report called "scathing," determined she committed "willful judicial misconduct."
She further failed "to cooperate and be candidate and honest" with investigators.
The report said the hearing will be an opportunity for lawyers for the judge, and lawyers for the commission to present evidence to a hearing officer who has the authority to take away her job.
Medina-Perez was arrested for drug possession and being a fugitive from justice and went to a Newton District Court hearing on April 2, 2018. The commission found Joseph found out that ICE agents were on hand, and had a "civil immigration detainer" to take custody of the illegal alien.
"The defense attorney for Medina-Perez allegedly colluded with the trial court officer to let his client sneak out a 'sally-port door' in the lockup downstairs to avoid the ICE agents, the commissioners said," according to the report.
Part of the evidence is that Joseph ordered a clerk to shut down the courtroom recording system and she held an off-the-record discussion with the lawyers in the case.
On the record, she then granted a defense request to let Medina-Perez "go downstairs" to a lockup, but he fled through a sally-port door.
WND has reported on the two other judges caught in recent cases.
Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a warning.
"No one's above the laws in this country," she said. "And if you are destroying evidence, if you're obstructing justice, when you have victims sitting in a courtroom of domestic violence and you're escorting a criminal defendant out a back door, it will not be tolerated, and it is a crime in the United States of America. Doesn't matter who you are, you're going to be prosecuted."
The latest arrest was of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, who was taken into custody by the FBI for allegedly hiding a previously deported illegal immigrant in her jury room in order to stop him from being arrested by ICE, and on Tuesday was relieved of her official duties.
Fox News reported Dugan was charged with obstruction.
In an interview on "American Reports," Bondi explained how the Trump administration will handle judges who obstruct and block federal efforts to secure the border and remove illegal aliens.
"We are going to prosecute you, and we are prosecuting you. I found out about this the day it happened," she said.
"We could not believe, actually, that a judge really did that. We looked into the facts in great depth… You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she's protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime."
Dugan is accused of protecting illegal alien Eduardo Flores-Ruiz after his criminal court hearing before Dugan just days ago.
"Dugan demanded that the (federal) officers proceed to the chief judge's office and – after his hearing ended – escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a restricted jury door, bypassing the public area where agents were waiting in order to help him avoid arrest, per the complaint," the report said.
Bondi pointed out then Flores-Ruiz fled on foot, creating a threat to the public.
The earlier arrests were of ex-New Mexico Magistrate Judge Joel Cano, and his wife, Nancy Cano.
They allegedly harbored suspected Tren de Aragua terror group member Cristhian Ortega-Lopez.
Karen Read's legal team encountered a legal setback when the Supreme Court chose not to review an appeal seeking the dismissal of charges related to the retrial of her murder case. Such a refusal was made without any comments from the court.Karen Read's trial continues as the Supreme Court denies her appeal for dismissal of charges relating to the alleged killing of John O'Keefe in Massachusetts, according to Newsweek.
This development follows previous events where the first trial concluded in a mistrial, as jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The charges against Read include second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene after a fatal collision. The tragic incident in question involves the 2022 death of John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer and Read's boyfriend, allegedly caused by Read.
Supreme Court's Job: Understanding the Impact
The appeal presented by Read’s defense to the Supreme Court highlighted alleged discrepancies in the initial trial. They argued that after the trial, several jurors approached the defense team claiming they had unanimously decided to acquit on certain charges. However, this information was not disclosed before the mistrial, prompting the legal team to argue that retrying the charges could be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The attorneys representing Read, Michael Pabian, and Martin G. Weinberg underscored the novelty of the situation in their petition. They articulated that it is rare for jurors, including four in this instance, to directly communicate with defense counsel post-trial, asserting that the jury had acquitted Read. The defense argued that the significant strength of this evidence supported their plea for dismissal rather than weakening it.
Judge Lara Montecalvo of the First Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in March that there was no act in the trial that could be classified as an acquittal. This ruling provided a legal basis for the resumption of Read's retrial on the pertinent charges.
Disputed Testimonies Fuel Ongoing Trial
As the retrial gets underway in Massachusetts, testimony continues to unfold. Central to the retrial is the examination of witness statements and evidence, including testimony from Ian Whiffin. He analyzed the phone records of key witness Jennifer McCabe, who had become a focal point of the trial.
A critical and controversial aspect of McCabe’s testimony involves the timing of her internet search on “how to die in the cold.” This detail is heavily scrutinized and remains a contentious issue. The timing and motivation behind this search are likely to play a pivotal role in shaping the trial's outcome.
The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks, during which Read faces serious consequences if found guilty.
She could potentially face life imprisonment, underscoring the gravity of the charges and the significance of each piece of evidence and testimony presented.
Civil Lawsuit Put on Hold Amidst Trial
While the criminal proceedings continue, a related wrongful death lawsuit instituted by O'Keefe's estate against Read has been placed on hold. This decision to pause the civil lawsuit is due to the ongoing criminal case, highlighting the complexity and interconnection of legal matters surrounding this incident.
The Supreme Court, omitting to comment on its refusal to hear the appeal, leaves Read's defense without recourse at the highest legal level in the United States.
Read’s legal team, through their petitioning, had hoped to leverage the apparent juror unanimity to secure her dismissal on retrial, but now must focus efforts on defending her within the ongoing trial in Massachusetts.
As the legal proceedings evolve, the outcome of this high-profile case remains uncertain. The complexities of the legal system and the intricacies of trial protocols will continue to play a significant role in the case's trajectory.
Longtime Trump foe Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) reacted furiously to President Trump suggesting the Democrat should go to prison - as Trump orders a fraud investigation into notorious Democratic fundraiser ActBlue.
A signed memorandum from Trump directs attorney general Pam Bondi to probe possible fraudulent contributions to ActBlue, which has faced scrutiny for its lax standards.
ActBlue investigation
ActBlue weakened its donation standards twice in 2024, encouraging its staff to "look for reasons to accept contributions.”
A White House fact sheet noted that ActBlue only recently started to require donors to provide credit card security codes, known as CVVs. The administration also pointed to a House Republican investigation that uncovered a concerning pattern of fraudulent activity involving foreign and domestic donors.
"Over a 30-day window during the 2024 election cycle, ActBlue detected 237 donations from foreign IP addresses using prepaid cards," the White House said.
Trump's memorandum directs Bondi "to investigate and take appropriate action concerning allegations regarding the use of online fundraising platforms to make 'straw' or 'dummy' contributions and to make foreign contributions to U.S. political candidates and committees, all of which break the law."
Jailtime?
In a Truth Social post targeting ActBlue's "illegal SCAM", Trump singled out Schiff and suggested he should go to jail.
"The USA is wise to these scoundrels and crooks. Also, why did the Auto Pen give Schiff a Pardon?" Trump wrote. "Biden knew nothing about it. Who operated the Auto Pen? That is the biggest question being asked in D.C. They almost destroyed our Country. They should all be in jail!!!"
Schiff, along with other January 6th committee members, received a pre-emptive pardon from Joe Biden that was signed with an autopen.
“Donald Trump is back to attacking me today because the economy has been in a tailspin under his economic mismanagement," Schiff wrote on X.
"And so have his poll numbers. And the last thing he wants — is people holding him accountable. Attack me as you much as you like, Mr. President, I’m not backing down.”
Trump antagonist
Schiff gained notoriety as a Trump antagonist during Trump's first term, when Schiff led the first impeachment effort against Trump and pumped the baseless "Russian collusion" narrative linking Trump to the Kremlin.
Last year, Schiff leveraged his ties to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and his reputation as a Trump critic to win a seat in the U.S. Senate.
While Trump says the investigation into ActBlue is about election integrity, Democrats have decried the probe as an authoritarian act of retribution against Trump's enemies and "our democracy."
