This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – James Dennehy, the head of the FBI field office in New York, resigned his position Monday after the U.S. Department of Justice accused his office of intentionally concealing thousands of documents related to convicted Palm Beach pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
"Late Friday, I was informed that I needed to put my retirement papers in today, which I just did. I was not given a reason for this decision," Dennehy said in an email to staff.
CNBC reported that Dennehy "was given a choice to resign or be fired. He was eligible for retirement and has officially retired."
Last month, Dennehy wrote another email to his staff after the DOJ demanded a list of FBI employees who worked cases against the hundreds of Trump supporters who rallied at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
"Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our own as good people are being walked out of the FBI," Dennehy wrote at the time.
"And others are being targeted because they did their jobs in accordance with the law and FBI policy."
"Time for me to dig in," Dennehy added.
Online journalist Collin Rugg reports: "The resignation comes after AG Pam Bondi instructed FBI Director Kash Patel to launch an investigation into claims that the New York field office was hiding thousands of documents.
"Bondi said a source came forward claiming the field office had thousands of pages of docs."
Bondi said to Jesse Watters of Fox News: "I repeatedly questioned whether this was the full set of documents responsive to my request and was repeatedly assured by the FBI that we had received the full set of documents."
"Late yesterday, I learned from a source that the FBI Field Office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein."
"Despite my repeated requests, the FBI never disclosed the existence of these files. When you and I spoke yesterday, you were just as surprised as I was to learn this new information."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats since before President Donald Trump was elected a second time have claimed that his very presence in the presidential race was a constitutional crisis.
After all, their talking points portrayed him as a "Hitler" who was setting himself up for a lifetime tenancy in the White House, how he would be a "dictator," how he would destroy "democracy."
Then after he took office their rhetoric ratcheted up, as he was doing things that the Constitution allows the president to do, but they didn't like, like cracking down on illegal alien criminals, the flow of illegal drugs into America, the rampant waste fraud and corruption in the federal government.
Now, there is a real constitutional crisis, according to a new report in the Federalist, but it's not because of something Trump did; it's because of what a judge did in response to Trump's Constitution-authorized management of the executive branch.
It was Judge Amy Jackson, one of Barack Obama's choices for the federal bench, who ordered multiple individuals in the executive branch to "recognize" Hampton Dellinger as "Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel" and not "obstruct" his job.
It sets up the possibility of a constitutional crisis because Trump, in ordering Dellinger dismissed, was within the authorities the Constitution grants him, the report said.
"Consider the scenario: Donald Trump calls Hampton Dellinger, telling him 'I'm firing you again.' The president then directs other officials — not the named defendants — to process Dellinger's termination papers, to prevent Dellinger's access to federal property or his former office, and to disconnect Dellinger's cell phone and computer access," the report explained.
"As Judge Berman Jackson recognized in her accompanying 67-page opinion, federal courts lack the power to enjoin the president of the United States. So, the Obama appointee could not — and thus did not — order Trump to recognize Dellinger as the special counsel, enjoin him from firing Dellinger again, or otherwise prohibit Trump from doing anything to obstruct or interfere in Dellinger's performance of his duties. Instead, she entered that command against the five defendants in the case."
Her orders are for five people only, so that means "Trump could easily sidestep them to out Dellinger as the special counsel."
The report noted that's unlikely to happen as the Supreme Court is expected to step in.
"But the fact that scenario could play out, launching a revolving door of new defendants ordered by a federal judge to ignore the staffing decisions of the president of the United States, reveals the danger that efforts over the last month to obtain a coup by court order represents to our constitutional republic," the report said.
The facts are that Article II of the Constitution gives the president executive power.
"American voters elected Donald Trump president, giving him the executive power and the authority to delegate it, or not delegate it, as he believes appropriate. The Constitution provides some checks to that authority, for instance by requiring 'the Advice and Consent of the Senate' for certain appointments, such as 'Officers of the United States.' In contrast, Article II's silence concerning removal, 'confers upon the President an absolute and unqualified removal authority.'"
Jackson claimed Trump couldn't remove Dellinger because Congress allocated to him a five-year term.
But the Supreme Court previously has ruled that such congressional provisions cannot violate the actual words of the Constitution, in multiple previous cases.
In fact, the report said, Joe Biden in 2021 fired the head of the Social Security Administration without cause.
Two members of the Supreme Court already have pointed out that it's interference in the president's command of the executive branch for a judge to order the administration to recognize and work with someone who was fired.
Trump's lawyers already have argued that the order "manifestly violates the Constitution."
The report explains that Jackson's orders "represent a clear and intolerable interference in the president's executive authority."
A federal judge's ruling on Saturday that President Donald Trump unlawfully fired Office of Special Counsel head Hampton Dellinger last month sets up a possible Supreme Court battle over the action.
District Judge Amy B. Jackson ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction reversing the firing; Dellinger was nominated to the position by former President Joe Biden and confirmed by Congress last year to a five-year term.
Jackson believes that Dellinger's position is not fireable by the president because it needs to be independent to function as a watchdog over the president and other officials.
“The Special Counsel’s job is to look into and expose unethical or unlawful practices directed at federal civil servants, and to help ensure that whistleblowers who disclose fraud, waste, and abuse on the part of government agencies can do so without suffering reprisals,” Jackson wrote. “It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal.”
The Office of Special Counsel oversees enforcement of the Whistleblower Protection Act since its creation in 1989, and later began to oversee the Hatch Act as well.
The Hatch Act prohibits civil service employees in the executive branch from campaigning and certain other political activities.
Because Dellinger was fired via a one-sentence email that didn't give any cause, Dillinger argued in his suit, his firing violated language stating that his position can only be fired by the president for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
“That email made no attempt to comply with the Special Counsel’s for-cause removal protection,” Dellinger’s lawsuit said. “It stated simply: ‘On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Special Counsel of the US Office of Special Counsel is terminated, effective immediately.’”
Trump has argued that as president, he can fire anyone he wants in the executive branch.
He has made it a point to fire as many partisan and Democrat-appointed federal employees as he can after employees in those groups have continuously worked against him and undermined him in every way possible.
He sees Dellinger's firing as part of gutting the deep state and wants to replace him with his own appointee just like he has for every other nominated position in the executive branch.
DOJ representative Madeline McMahon said Jackson’s order was an “extraordinary intrusion” into the president’s authority and asked him to stay the order until the D.C. Circuit can rule on it, but Jackson refused.
If the case does go to the Supreme Court, it will be the first such ruling on the issue.
A previous case, Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, left out the Office of Special Counsel from the list of federal agency heads the president can fire at will, but didn't say the president could not do so.
According to reports, a judge issued an order for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to release documents linked to her interactions with special counsel Jack Smith and the dissolved House select committee that investigated the January 6 attack.
The order follows findings that Willis's office breached open records laws by initially denying the documents' existence, only to later acknowledge their presence while withholding them under claims of legal privilege.
The legal proceedings began after Judicial Watch, a government watchdog, filed a lawsuit that led Judge Robert McBurney to demand a review of the District Attorney’s files. McBurney's decision came after accusations that Willis's office falsely stated no documents related to communications with Smith or the House committee existed.
Juxtaposed against this prior stance, the DA's office now admits to possessing these documents. However, they maintain that these files are safeguarded by legal exemptions, providing grounds for non-disclosure. The judicial focus now rests on determining the most suitable procedure for handling these records.
Judicial Watch has challenged the District Attorney over this concealment. In light of these developments, its president, Tom Fitton, expressed that "Fani Willis was caught red-handed hiding records." The organization's push has intensified due to worries over the DA’s previous declarations and actions.
Judicial Watch further sought a special master to review the documents. Nonetheless, Willis opposed this approach, labeling it overly intrusive. Regardless, the debate on whether to appoint such an overseer presses on in the courtroom.
During a recent court convening, Judge McBurney proposed examining the documents himself to avoid the expense tied to appointing a special master. The judge openly criticized the DA’s office for initially claiming a lack of documentation, commenting on the suspicious nature of such assertions.
The DA's office revealed they identified 212 responsive documents, yet admitted some may lack comprehensive content. Concerns about thoroughness and the technology employed during the document search were also brought to the fore.
The attorney representing the DA's office acknowledged that emails and physical files had been reviewed but was uncertain about whether mobile phone technologies like Cellebrite were utilized in the search. This uncertainty only adds fodder for those questioning the completeness of their efforts.
Willis's office pledged to hand over the documents to the court on the condition they would not be publicly available. They argued for the private handling of these sensitive materials to adhere to legal protocols surrounding confidentiality.
Judge McBurney indicated upcoming deadlines for compliance and required a detailed survey of the search extent and methods. These include exact search terms used to facilitate a review of transparency and adherence to legal requirements.
Concerns linger among Judicial Watch representatives, emphasizing distrust in the DA's evidence collection processes due to their previous actions. Attorney John Monroe of Judicial Watch voiced skepticism by emphasizing the lack of confidence in the comprehensiveness of the document search.
Following judicial advice, skepticism is set to remain a guiding principle for ensuring accountability. Judge McBurney himself advised Monroe to maintain his cautious stance, underscoring the vital role of skepticism in this matter.
As proceedings continue, the intricacy of balancing public transparency with legal exemptions remains focal. The court and involved parties aim to establish a factual backdrop, facilitating informed decisions free from allegations of concealment.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats and other leftists frantically have been filing lawsuits against President Donald Trump over his agenda to cut fraud, waste and corruption in government spending, sometimes gaining from leftist judges delays in his plans.
But now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has intervened in one case, setting a startling precedent for the lawfare that's being waged against Trump.
Roberts simply ordered a halt to the lower court's ruling until he, or the full Supreme Court, makes a decision.
He ordered, "that the February 25, 2025 orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-00400 and 1:25-cv-00402, are hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Friday, February 28, 2025, by 12 p.m. (EST)."
At issue was a claim from District Judge Amir H. Ali that he could order Trump to issue payments under various U.S. Agency for International Development schemes that Trump had halted.
A report at Fox News said the lower court judge demanded the federal government pay some $2 billion to contractors who operate in the "foreign aid" realm.
The ruling came down after the Trump administration asked the high court to block the cash handouts.
The Trump administration argued that Ali's demands left the government facing "an untenable payment plan at odds with the president's obligations under Article II to protect the integrity of the federal fisc and make appropriate judgements (sic) about foreign aid – clear forms of irreparable harm."
Deep State operators in the government have been stunned by the rapidity and depth to which Trump's Department of Government Efficiency has reached, putting funds that were intended for leftists' favorite agendas and organizations at a halt.
Fox reported, "The Trump administration said it was eliminating more than 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. assistance around the world, putting numbers on its plans to eliminate the majority of U.S. development and humanitarian help abroad."
The administration already has released lists of wildly egregious spending projects that were under the sponsorship of USAID, many promoting far-left social ideologies.
Trump has, in fact, essentially gutted USAID entirely, move a few responsibilities and staff members to the State Department and eliminating the rest of the funding, and canceling the jobs of those who were handing out those funds.
Fox explained, "President Donald Trump and ally Elon Musk have hit foreign aid harder and faster than almost any other target in their push to cut the size of the federal government. Both men say USAID projects advance a liberal agenda and are a waste of money."
Chief Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration's request Wednesday to delay a deadline and continue withholding nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, The Hill reported. A lower court ordered the payments to resume.
President Donald Trump has attempted to slash waste and fraud in the federal government. This has come with many cuts, including for projects that fall under the U.S. Agency for International Development.
However, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled Tuesday that billions of dollars in payments must resume to USAID and the State Department. Roberts' ruling allows the spending freeze to stand, which is necessary considering the logistical nightmare of forcing payments while audits are underway.
"This new order requiring payment of enormous sums of foreign-assistance money in less than 36 hours intrudes on the prerogatives of the Executive Branch. The President’s power is at its apex—and the power of the judiciary is at its nadir—in matters of foreign affairs," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris noted in the emergency petition to the Supreme Court.
Trump imposed a foreign aid freeze as one of his first executive orders after taking office. Prior to Roberts' intervention, the Trump administration was prepared to disobey the midnight Tuesday deadline.
The administration blew through another Rhode Island court's order to unfreeze funds, and all of this has outraged the left. "The lengths to which the government is going to flout a court order, all for the goal of ending life-saving humanitarian assistance, is staggering," a statement from the plaintiffs' attorney, Allison Zieve, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, said.
Roberts, who is in charge of emergency petitions, chose not to have the full court weigh in on the matter. Now, the plaintiffs in the case say they must cease operations without the fresh injection of taxpayer dollars.
"After flouting the district court’s temporary restraining order for a full twelve days in letter and in spirit — requiring the district court to not once, not twice, but three times order compliance — Defendants bring this premature appeal in a last-ditch effort to evade the order of an Article III court," another attorney, Stephen Wirth, wrote. The plaintiffs claimed "time truly is of the essence" in this matter.
However, the Justice Department noted that there are other ways to access funding to run their programs. This fight for taxpayer dollars, even as the Trump administration still uncovers waste and abuse, has demonstrated the depth of the problems.
This legal win comes after another good week for the Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, Fox News reported. DOGE is already responsible for rooting out hundreds of millions in government waste and is seeking to save even more.
Their efforts have survived several legal challenges, including being allowed to proceed with mass firings of federal workers. The organization is also allowed to audit several federal agencies after judgments in favor of DOGE failed to block access.
Notably, DOGE has also uncovered a mysterious $4.7 trillion in payments from the Treasury, as its account on X, formerly Twitter, explained. "The Treasury Access Symbol (TAS) is an identification code linking a Treasury payment to a budget line item (standard financial process)," the post said.
"In the Federal Government, the TAS field was optional for ~$4.7 Trillion in payments and was often left blank, making traceability almost impossible. As of Saturday, this is now a required field, increasing insight into where money is actually going," it added.
DOGE's mission is a great one, and it appears to be rolling along smoothly even in the face of opposition. This latest decision to freeze payments was another good one from the courts and great news for the Trump administration.
Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Boggs has announced his resignation, effective at the end of March, citing pressing personal and family obligations, the Washington Examiner reported.
The unexpected departure presents Governor Brian Kemp with the opportunity to appoint a new justice, marking his fifth appointment to the state's highest court.
Boggs, who was originally appointed to the Georgia Supreme Court in 2016, has served with dedication for nearly a decade. He was reelected twice during his tenure and was elevated to the position of chief justice in 2022.
His decision to step down arises from the need to address growing responsibilities at home, as shared in his announcement.
The chief justice reflected on his experienced gratitude, stating, "I consider it my greatest honor to have served as Chief Justice." He expressed appreciation to both former Governor Nathan Deal and the citizens of Georgia for entrusting him with such a significant role.
Boggs revealed his personal motivations for resigning, highlighting a shift in his family dynamics. "My wife recently retired from full-time teaching," he noted, "and we have increasing family and personal obligations at home in South Georgia." This shift, he explained, necessitated his difficult decision to leave the esteemed position.
By stepping down at the end of March, Boggs allows for a seamless transition as Governor Kemp prepares to appoint a new justice who will fulfill the remainder of Boggs’s term, which extends until 2030.
The upcoming appointment by Kemp will not be his first; the governor has previously named Justices Verda Colvin, Shawn Ellen LaGrua, Carla McMillian, and Andrew Pinson to the court. This bolstering of the judiciary under his tenure highlights Kemp's visible influence on the legal landscape of the state.
The process in Georgia paves the way for the governor to appoint interim justices when vacancies arise. This empowers governors to shape the state’s judicial tone, even though justices must still face voters at the end of their terms to maintain their positions. In Boggs’s case, his successor would need to campaign for reelection come 2030.
Kemp has spoken well of Boggs, acknowledging his career's impact. The governor lauded Boggs for his commitment to "uphold the fair and equal justice that defines our courts" and anticipates that the justice’s influence will linger beyond his tenure.
In tandem with Governor Kemp's approaching decision, the process to appoint a successor to lead the court begins. The new chief justice will be chosen by a majority vote among the sitting justices, continuing the tradition of the court.
The situation in Georgia mirrors a recent event in Michigan, where a resignation allowed Governor Gretchen Whitmer to bring in a new justice, resulting in a liberal supermajority on the state's supreme court. Such scenarios underscore the delicate balance and potential for change within state judicial systems.
As Justice Boggs prepares for his family’s next chapter, Georgia’s courtroom readies itself for change. The stability of a judicial career managing pivotal cases, balanced with the unpredictability of appointments following resignations, adds layers to the legal landscape in the Peach State.
While the exact timing of Governor Kemp’s announcement for Boggs’ replacement remains uncertain, those interested in the judiciary observe attentively. Georgia stands on the brink of a significant transition in its legal community, with Kemp poised to further cement his legacy in its highest court.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Tennessee has won a key First Amendment fight, with a result from the U.S. Supreme Court that it is not required, under the Constitution, to allow drag shows when children are present.
"Free speech is a sacred American value, but the First Amendment does not require Tennessee to allow sexually explicit performances in front of children," Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said on social media. "We will continue to defend TN's law and children."
A report from Fox documents how the Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to the state law.
The Tennessee Adult Entertainment Act, passed in 2023, does not allow "adult-oriented performances" in public spaces, or anywhere where minors may see them.
A lower court judge had claimed the law was "unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad" and had halted its enforcement.
That ruling then was reversed by an appellate court, a ruling that now stands as the Supreme Court did not intervene.
The law makes violators subject to prosecution for a Class A misdemeanor, with a second or third offense a felony.
"I'm proud that the United States Supreme Court has upheld yet another Tennessee law protecting our children. SB 3 ensures that Tennessee children are not exposed to sexually explicit entertainment," explained Jack Johnson, the state Senate majority leader Jack Johnson.
The state also has another fight pending before the Supreme Court, its law prohibiting transgender medical "treatments" for minors.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
"Phase One" of the Epstein files are being released today but America still apparently won't have much of the story of the convicted sex offender whose friends included Bill Clinton and Bill Gates, among many others.
That's because Attorney General Pam Bondi, who released that "Phase One" to reporters on today, confirmed to FBI chief Kash Patel that minions in that agency still are withholding documents from her.
The ongoing process to unveil the evil that was behind Epstein and his circle of friends and their behavior toward young girls that Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of trafficking, however, has convinced an adviser to President Trump that more prosecutions are coming.
Initially expected were lists of flight logs, passengers aboard Epstein's "Lolita Express" and more.
But there also were predictions of some 200 or 250 trafficking victims, and there would need to be discretion in revealing any of that information.
Habba, an adviser to President Trump, was asked if there would be criminal cases coming.
"Absolutely. I think it would be negligent for us not to. You have to hold individuals who are indeed rapists accountable. We have to have them tried, in my opinion."
She continued, "Nobody should be just dismissed. You have to have your time in court, and your case will be heard. But to hide lists, to protect political friends, all of that – we don't have time for that."
The Daily Mail reported she said the information being made available was "incredibly disturbing."
The circus around Epstein, who apparently killed himself while awaiting sex charges in New York several years ago, has seen only one person convicted so far, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a prison term for sex trafficking charges, after she recruited young girls for Epstein's ring.
Binders labeled "Phase One" were distributed Thursday, but the contents were not yet posted online.
The report said, "Habba said that the information in the documents will reveal the extent of the scandal is 'far worse' than was expected after Bondi revealed on Wednesday that there are 250 victims whose identities she needs to protect."
The Gateway Pundit reported Habba, in an interview with Piers Morgan, explained patience will be required.
"I don't see how it's not shocking that so many individuals were hidden, kept secret, and not held accountable. Let's talk about the reverse. I believe in accountability, so now we have to go through the process. I won't say they're guilty until they have their time in court. But again, now it's time for accountability," she said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Testimony delivered to Congress confirms the U.S. Department of Justice under Joe Biden deliberately skewed the application of federal law to target pro-life activists.
The confirmation comes from Peter Breen, the head of litigation for the Thomas More Society law firm that represented some of those pro-life Americans.
The Biden administration misused the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act to prosecute, convict, and jail those people.
His testimony came before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight regarding the Biden administration's attacks specifically on 23 pro-life protesters.
President Donald Trump pardoned them when he took office.
Breen charged, "The Biden DOJ engaged in a systematic campaign to abuse the power of the federal government against pro-life advocates, while that same DOJ ignored hundreds of acts of vandalism and violence against pro-life churches, pregnancy help centers, and other advocates."
The topic of the hearing was, "Entering the Golden Age: Ending the Weaponization of the Justice Department," and it also featured statements from Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant director of the Criminal Investigations Unit, Jonathan Fahey, a legal partner at Holtzman Vogel, and Brendan Ballou, a federal prosecutor, according to a report from Fox News.
"They should not have been prosecuted," President Trump had confirmed. "Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this."
Breen added, "On behalf of our clients and the pro-life movement as a whole, we are thankful to President Trump for his recent pardons and to the members of this House who supported that effort. Those pardons sent a powerful message to the country, and especially to the millions of Americans in the pro-life movement, that the federal government should not be weaponized against Americans because of their sincere beliefs in the sanctity of human life."
Biden's campaign against the pro-lifers included claims that they "used force and physical obstruction to execute a clinic blockade."
Pro-life forces now are urging Congress to repeal the FACE Act, since it infringes on the First Amendment and restricts the freedom to protest.
"Of course, we urge Congress to repeal the FACE Act, which is selectively and illegally enforced by pro-abortion presidential administrations. But in the immediate term, Congress has several other concrete steps it can take, working with the new administration to define the proper scope of the laws and to defend the rights of pro-life Americans," Breen explained.