Disgraced FBI director James Comey is facing a bar complaint from a conservative group over his dishonest and unethical conduct, adding new legal pressure on the Trump enemy as he fights criminal charges for obstructing Congress.
The complaint, from the Center to Advance Security in America (CASA), calls for an investigation into Comey and for him to be potentially stripped of his law licenses in New York and Virginia, the Daily Caller reported.
"Misrepresentation, honesty, and trustworthiness are all factors that the Rules of Professional Conduct expressly factor when weighing whether to discipline an attorney,” the complaint filed in New York reads.
“Comey’s actions, at a minimum, call into question all three factors. The Committee, therefore, should waste no time before investigating the allegations against Comey and, if by a preponderance of evidence is substantiated, discipline him accordingly."
As FBI director, Comey acquired a reputation for wading into politics in heavy-handed ways, drawing criticism from both parties. Democrats still fault Comey for reopening an e-mail investigation into Hillary Clinton on the eve of the 2016 election, while President Trump and his allies say Comey went easy on Clinton while simultaneously pushing a political witch hunt into Trump, the infamous "Russian collusion" hoax.
In 2019, Comey was reprimanded by the Justice Department's Inspector General for leaking sensitive memos for his own personal gain, an action that “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands of more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.”
Comey admitted to sharing the memos in order to trigger a Special Counsel probe into President Trump, who would spend much of his first White House term under a cloud of suspicion before Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that there was no evidence of Russian collusion.
The prosecution into Comey is based on his sworn testimony in September 2020 that he had never “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports," despite his self-avowed leaking.
In addition to sharing his memos through a law professor friend, Comey was also investigated, but never charged, over separate leaks through his chief of staff and an FBI lawyer, according to recently declassified FBI memos.
An ex-FBI lawyer, James Baker, said he leaked classified information to the New York Times "under the belief he was ultimately instructed and authorized to do so by then FBI Director James Comey," the memos say.
Comey, a vocal critic of Trump, has sought to dismiss the "vindictive" criminal charges against him, and some conservatives have also questioned the strength of the case.
But the known facts about Comey's conduct are damning enough to merit a bar investigation, according to the complaint, which notes the standard of evidence in bar proceedings is lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for a criminal conviction.
“Because Comey has proven willing to say false statements, under oath, during a congressional hearing, he cannot be trusted to be truthful in the practice of law,” the New York complaint reads.
"His duties of honesty and trustworthiness to the courts in which he appears are now in question. His actions, without question, constitute ‘misrepresentation,'” the complaint adds.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has called for the immediate impeachment of an anti-Trump federal judge who has been revealed to have taken part in a scheme to spy on the telephone records of a long list of sitting U.S. senators.
It is Judge James Boasberg who is the subject of criticism.
He's already, according to an analysis by experts, been revealed as a judge who made himself "like a foreign diplomat" in insisting the Trump administration following his agenda on foreign affairs.
Boasberg long has fought President Donald Trump's efforts to secure the nation's borders and remove illegal alien criminals.
He's gone so far as to try to enforce his own order despite a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning him.
He was the judge who even tried to order Trump to tell airplanes carrying illegal alien criminals, that already had left American airspace, to return to the U.S. with the criminals.
Now Cruz is calling for action regarding the political activist sitting as a judge.
The senator's comments came following revelations that the Biden administration, with Boasberg's cooperation, issued hundreds of subpoenas for telephone records of Republicans under its scheme to create a number of lawfare cases against Trump – and other Republicans.
Online commenters have suggested the investigation, run by ex-special counsel Jack Smith, was intended to create additional charges against Trump and other GOP leaders should Kamala Harris have won the 2024 election. She failed.
Cruz turned fiery during a news conference about Biden's "Arctic Fost" investigation.
"The Biden Justice Department signed off on issuing subpoenas for the phone records of at least nine U.S. senators. Twenty percent of the Republicans in the United States Senate were the target of this fishing expedition. They did so in complete contravention of the Constitution—of separation of powers, of the Speech and Debate Clause, of free speech, of basic rights of privacy," Cruz charged.
He continued, "I want to talk to you about one of those subpoenas. One of those subpoenas went from Jack Smith to AT&T, seeking my cell phone communications. It went to AT&T, and I actually want to commend AT&T for doing the right thing. AT&T is based in Texas. AT&T looked at that subpoena, and they went to their legal counsel and said, 'What should we do with this subpoena?' And their legal counsel said, 'You cannot comply because this is protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.' And so AT&T declined to comply—did not hand over my cell phone records. Now, one might ask: ordinarily, a phone company being asked to hand over the phone records of a sitting senator would notify that senator."
But the company didn't, as Boasberg, "ludicrously" claimed, in support of a gag order, that there were "reasonable grounds" to think disclosure would lead to "destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation."
Cruz called out the judge.
"Now, I can tell you right now, there is precisely zero evidence to conclude that I am likely to destroy or tamper with evidence or to intimidate potential witnesses. Zero evidentiary basis for that. This order is an abuse of power. This order is a weaponized legal system," the senator charged.
He said the judge's actions are a textbook case of abuse.
"I am right now calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Judge Boasberg. Judge Boasberg put his robe down, stood up, and said, 'Sign me up to be part of the partisan vendetta against 20% of the Republicans in the Senate.'" Cruiz said. "That is a dereliction of duty and a violation of the judicial oath."
A pair of prosecutors have been suspended by the Justice Department after they submitted a sentencing memo containing politically charged language that appeared to blame President Trump for a threat against former president Barack Obama.
The two prosecutors, Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White, submitted the statements in a case against an erratic man, Taylor Taranto, who received a federal pardon from Trump for his involvement in the events at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.
Despite the pardon, Taranto is facing prison after he was separately convicted for making threats outside the Washington D.C. home of Obama in June 2023.
The sentencing memo filed by Valdivia and White sought 27 months in prison for Taranto and lumped him in with "thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters" who participated in the events of January 6th.
Most of the people who entered the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, were charged with non-violent misdemeanor offenses, although many were accused of crimes like assault.
Taranto, who was charged with misdemeanor crimes, allegedly entered the Capitol and scuffled with police before being forced outside, where he clashed with other protesters using a cane.
The sentencing memo noted that Taranto returned to his home in Washington State afterwards, "where he promoted conspiracy theories about the events of January 6, 2021.”
The prosecutors also tied Taranto's threatening actions outside Obama's home in June 2023 to Trump having "published on social media platforms the purported address of former President Obama" earlier that day.
Taranto was arrested after a short foot chase in Obama's Kalorama neighborhood, where Taranto tried to evade Secret Service and livestreamed himself making statements about searching for "tunnels" and "entrance points."
The police found hundreds of rounds of ammunition and two guns in his van.
Shortly after the sentencing memo against Taranto was filed, Valdivia and White were locked out of their government devices.
The memo was signed by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, a close Trump ally.
Trump pardoned nearly all January 6th defendants on the first day of his second presidential term, casting them as victims of overzealous and politically motivated prosecution under the Biden administration, which also sought to jail Trump as he campaigned for the White House in 2024.
Biden-era "weaponization" is continuing to fall under scrutiny as Senate Republicans uncover a sweeping FBI "fishing expedition" led by Trump prosecutor Jack Smith, who sought subpoenas against scores of Republicans, some of whom had their phone records collected.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court in Wisconsin has canceled a defamation trial for a Moms for Liberty activist who reacted to a school district's paid position of "social justice coordinator" with criticism.
The case on behalf of Scarlett Johnson was handled by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which took the case to the appeals level even before a trial, and obtained an order that it be dismissed.
WILL lawyer Luke Berg said, "Scarlett, like all of us, has the right to question and criticize her government. The defamation lawsuit against her was meritless and should have been promptly dismissed. We are pleased that the court agreed and that Scarlett can put this distraction behind her."
Johnson, in a statement released through her counsel, said, "Free speech belongs to every mom, dad, and citizen who demands answers and accountability from their government."
The state Court of Appeals had ruled that her statements were not defamation.
"We conclude that Johnson's statements do not constitute defamation, thus, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to enter summary judgment in Johnson's favor," the appeals court said.
WILL reported, "The initial lawsuit involved a defamation claim for run-of-the-mill social media posts on X and Facebook. The posts in question criticized a school district for having a 'social justice coordinator,' and described people who hold such positions as 'woke,' 'white savior[s]' with a 'god complex,' 'woke lunatics,' and 'bullies.'"
WILL pointed out such comments are pervasive on social media and in fact were more restrained than a lot of online speech.
The plaintiff who sued previously had held that title.
"WILL stepped in to file an early appeal to avoid a costly and non-sensical defamation trial for First Amendment protected speech. We argued, and the court agreed, that for statements to be actionable for defamation, they must be 'provably false.'"
The court returned the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss.
The ruling pointed out, "The terms 'god complex,' 'woke,' and 'white savior' are vague and do not have a clear meaning or definition. For example, some Americans define 'wokeness' as 'being informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices;' other Americans use it to mean 'being overly politically correct and policing others' words.' We are not persuaded that the terms are definitive enough to allow a jury to determine whether these terms are true or false.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The state Supreme Court in Texas has issued a critical decision that protects religious freedom in the state.
Leftists had demanded that to be "neutral," the state's judges were required to participate in the LGBT ideology by performing "weddings" for same-sex duos, and more.
But now with a simple rule change statement, the state's highest court has killed that agenda.
A report at the Washington Examiner explains the justice on the bench said that judges who "publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief" are not breaking any court system rules.
That comment was added to the state's judicial conduct code.
The move amended Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. It was filed with the secretary of state and sent to the governor and other officials.
The problem had been highlighted by a fight for religious freedom conducted by Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley. She declined to perform same-sex weddings, instead referring people to another authority within walking distance, and who would perform the event in the same time frame and at the same price as Hensley.
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct has accused her of violating the rules, and she sued, explaining there were a number of constitutional and legal protections for her to live by her Christian faith.
The commission had claimed her adherence to her faith showed a "bias" against some Texans.
"For providing a solution to meet a need in my community while remaining faithful to my religious beliefs, I received a 'Public Warning.' No one should be punished for that," Hensley said.
The commission ultimately withdrew its admonishment to Hensley when the state Supreme Court confirmed her lawsuit had legal standing, but it has not yet been resolved.
Another case involved Jackson County Judge Brian Umphress, the Examiner noted.
"The North Texas judge says his religious beliefs constrain him to only officiate heterosexual weddings. He is also challenging the commission's application of Canon 4 that was used against Hensley, contending it is unconstitutional and expressing concern that he could face the same sanctions," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
"Prince" Andrew of England, King Charles' brother, no longer is "Prince."
He's just Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
That official announcement from the "Royals" in England is the latest fallout over Andrew's links to Jeffrey Epstein, the New York billionaire and convicted sex offender who died in a city jail awaiting more charges.
It is Virginia Guiffre, who died weeks ago, who had confirmed several times that she was trafficked as a teenager to Andrew by Epstein.
Andrew earlier gave up his various "honors" but that apparently was not enough.
In a "Royal Communications" the crown released a "statement."
"His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.
"Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has nowt been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.
"Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse."
The 76-year-old king released the changes for his brother, 65.
A report from the Daily Mail revealed, "Andrew is said to have not objected."
But the report noted his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, will keep their titles.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The top legal officers from 24 states are urging the Supreme Court to fix the nation's birthright citizenship problem.
The 14th Amendment, created after the Civil War, was intended to protect the newly freed slaves and their children, but was not intended to give U.S. citizenship to every baby of every illegal alien or foreign visitor to America, President Trump has argued.
He's now being joined by attorneys general from 24 states.
The arguments were filed by attorneys general Jonathan Skrmetti, R-Tenn., and Brenna Bird, R-Iowa, and in a brief asked the Supreme Court to support Trump's argument that American citizenship isn't actually automatic for any newborn born of illegal alien parents or visitors to America.
Trump make that clarification by executive order when he took office in January, "discarding ridiculous left-wing arguments about 'birthright citizenship' — which have allowed illegals to stay in the United States with anchor babies for decades."
But leftist officials in Washington, Illinois, Oregon and Arizona sued.
A report at the Federalist noted, "If the Supreme Court ends up taking the case and rules in line with the true understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause, the Trump administration could start turning the corner on removing the true number of illegals in the country."
"The idea that citizenship is guaranteed to everyone born in the United States doesn't square with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment or the way many government officials and legal analysts understood the law when it was adopted after the Civil War," Skrmetti said. "If you look at the law at the time, citizenship attached to kids whose parents were lawfully in the country. Each child born in this country is precious no matter their parents' immigration status, but not every child is entitled to American citizenship. This case could allow the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the States and our nation."
Leftists at entry level courts in the federal judiciary have sided, so far, with the citizenship-for-all agenda. They issued nationwide injunctions, a move that already has been rebuked by the Supreme Court.
But those justices have yet to rule on the merits of the "birthright" dispute.
The Federalist said, "The brief shows the history surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment and its Citizenship Clause from the 1860s through the early 1900s, laying out the proper understanding of the clause before it was twisted by opportunistic leftists who wanted to destroy the country by importing culturally unrecognizable people who refuse to assimilate."
The report said, "'Birthright citizenship' incentivizes illegal immigration, which inherently takes a toll on states both through sapping government resources meant for Americans and degrading culture and community."
The state attorneys charged, "Recent years have seen an influx of illegal aliens — over 9 million — overwhelming our nation's infrastructure and its capacity to assimilate. Conferring United States citizenship requires a more meaningful connection than mere presence by happenstance or illegality. That connection, originalist evidence repeatedly instructs, was parental domicile."
Opponents of Trump's executive order claim a federal court case from 1898 supports their argument, but it likely doesn't.
In that case a baby was born in American of two Chinese nationals, and was declared a citizen, because the parents were in the United States legally, not illegally.
Key is that the amendment applies citizenship to those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
In fact, Congress in 1866 excluded from citizenship children of "persons temporarily resident" so that those who did not "owe a complete, permanent allegiance" to the U.S. would not benefit.
The report explained, "In 19th century lectures on naturalization and citizenship, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman Miller explained that 'if a stranger or traveller [sic] passing through, or temporarily residing in this country, who has not himself been naturalized, and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.'"
States joining included: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A town in South Carolina is changing its ordinances and has agreed to pay damages for its scheme to censor a Christian resident's statement of faith.
It is First Liberty Institute that battled in court on behalf of Ernest Giardino, and reached the settlement.
While the town of Chapin will pay "nominal damages" for its actions, it also will be held to account for lawyers' fees.
It is a consent order, adopted by a federal court, that now enjoins Chapin and its officials from enforcing an ordinance that kept Giardino from holding religious signs on public ways in the town without a permit.
The two sides "agreed on the contents of the order" after town officials moved to change their ordinance.
"Mr. Giardino just wants to share his Christian faith with others," said Nate Kellum, lawyer for First Liberty Institute. "We commend the town for revising the ordinance language so Mr. Giardino can live out his faith in the public sphere."
The legal team explained, "A Chapin police officer prevented Ernest Giardino from holding a religious sign on a public way at the intersection of Old Lexington Road and Chapin Road on June 20, 2024, reading 'Trust Christ He paid the price' on one side and 'He Saved Others—Jesus—He'll Save You' on the other. The officer informed him that he needed Chapin's permission to share his message with a sign."
He soon was told that city requirements demanded a two-week notice for him to proclaim his beliefs, and then limited him to 30 minutes, including that he would need to change sidewalk corners every 15 minutes.
When the dispute arose, First Liberty Institute filed a case in federal court.
At the time, Kellum said, "No one should be forced to ask the government's permission to express their faith in a public space. The First Amendment is his permit. Like any citizen in any city in America, Mr. Giardino is free to peacefully share his religious beliefs on a public sidewalk."
The case challenged the constitutionality of the town's agenda. It's because the town rule regulating "demonstrations" is written vaguely enough to allow officials to claim that a man holding a sign is, in fact, a demonstration.
It accused the town of violating the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as the state's Religious Freedom Act.
The case filing charged, "Through signs, Giardino can convey his message without causing anyone to stop or speak with him. Individuals in vehicles can read the statements on his sign as they drive by him. Giardino typically holds a sign in a public space for over one hour and in the late afternoon during rush hour and/or after schools have let students out, to maximize the number of people who can view the messaging on his sign. He does not use amplification or project his message orally to share his religious beliefs. He remains silent when he holds a sign, only speaking with individuals who approach him for conversation."
The filing reveals Giardino tried to obtain relief from the town without legal action, but was told by one official the town believes its local requirement "supersedes the Constitution because it's a local ordinance."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Zohran Mamdani, making headlines as he leads candidates to be New York City's next mayor, daily is embroiled in controversy.
For issues such as his communist ideologies. He claims they're "democratic socialist," but he insists on supporting the "seizure of the means of production," the abolition of private property and centralization of the means of communication and transport in "the hands of the state."
And his own mother's description of him as "not an American at all."
And taking money from foreign supporters, which is illegal, and has now generated two criminal referrals against him.
A report at the Independent Sentinel said the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, a campaign finance watchdog, filed the referrals claiming Mamdani got illegal cash from foreigners.
The report said the campaign claimed those issues were resolved.
But still there remain questions about some $13,000 he got from 170 donors "from outside the U.S.," the report said.
"These are not isolated incidents or clerical errors," charged Dan Backer, of the foundation.
He told Fox News Digital, "This was a sustained pattern of foreign money flowing into a New York City mayoral race which is a clear violation of both federal law and New York City campaign finance rules. Mamdani's campaign was on notice for months that it was accepting illegal foreign contributions, and yet it did nothing meaningful to stop it."
Mamdani's campaign claimed 31 donors have "proven" their citizenship while the other 139 have had donations refunded.
The accusations charge that the campaign may have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, under which foreigners are not allowed to support with their cash U.S. election candidates.
Backer said, "The law is crystal clear that foreign nationals may not participate in American elections, and that includes making contributions. Yet Mamdani's campaign repeatedly accepted donations from individuals abroad."
A Fox News report said the donations totaling about $13,000 from outsiders had been confirmed through a review of finance reports just days ago.
CRF sent the criminal referrals to Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg this week.
The referral seeks an investigation into possible violations of federal law.
When the campaign insisted it was returning illegal donations, the foundation charged that "returning questionable donations doesn't cure the violation."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A woman in Columbine Valley, Colorado, just south of Denver, has beaten a citation delivered by a traffic-camera-citing cop with her own indisputable evidence. And she got a congratulations from the police chief for her detective work, but still hasn't gotten an apology for the wrongful accusation.
The charge against Chrisanna Elser came from Officer Jamie Milliman, of the Columbine Valley Police Department.
He was so overconfident that his tracking of Elser's vehicle on traffic cameras proved his case he refused to show her the video evidence.
"You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to," he snarked at her.
She then spent days collecting evidence, mailed it to the chief, Bret Cottrell, who responded via email: "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons we issued."
The officer had claimed to Elser that a conviction was a "lock" because he doesn't "make stuff up."
According to the Colorado Sun, the officer's wrongful allegations were based on Flock cameras, which record traffic, and Ring doorbell cameras.
Milliman had accused Elser of stealing a $25 package from a doorstep in nearby Bow Mar.
"You know we have cameras in that town. You can't get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing," Milliman boasted.
According to the Colorado Sun, the officer's wrongful allegations were based on Flock cameras, which record traffic, and Ring doorbell cameras.
Milliman had accused Elser of stealing a $25 package from a doorstep in nearby Bow Mar.
"You know we have cameras in that town. You can't get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing," Milliman boasted.
Elser, fighting the obstinacy of the officer, assembled snapshots from her Google timeline, a phone tool that tracks her stops, statements from people she met that day, and more. She collected surveillance images from the locations she stopped. And dashboard video from her car.
Flock is one of the big spy camera operations in the country, providing its "evidence" to multiple police agencies. However, civil liberties advocates argue its operations threaten privacy and can be abused.
She eventually obtained access to the victim's doorbell camera, which showed the thief running away, not getting into her vehicle.
She said problems, after her exoneration, still are alarming. "We had to basically exonerate ourselves," she charged. "It's fortunate that we have our own footage to fight back something like this.
"It's a little upsetting that everyone knows that the answer to be, you are innocent until proven guilty. It seemed to be the other way around that it was guilty until you prove yourself innocent," she warned.