This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Prosecutors working on the obstruction and perjury charges pending against ex-FBI chief James Comey, indicted recently by a federal grand jury, are suggesting that Comey hired one of the lawyers working on his case in order to suppress evidence that lawyer might have.
It's because that lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, formerly a U.S. attorney in Chicago, may have taken part in the same 2017 media leaks that also involved Comey.
A report at the Washington Examiner said prosecutors are concerned over the "extraordinary" conflict of interest created by Comey's defense team.
There the defendant hired a potential witness against him to be on his defense team, "and help keep key evidence under wraps," the report said.
Prosecutors have informed U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff that Fitzgerald may need to be disqualified.
That would be "because of his alleged role in the same 2017 media leaks that underlie the government's case. Fitzgerald, they said, was involved in the 'improper disclosure of classified information' at Comey's direction shortly after President Donald Trump fired him from the bureau in 2017," the report said.
They asked the judge for a "filter protocol" that could be applied and allow a neutral team to review communications between Comey and others, including Fitzgerald, and decide whether it is evidence or not.
Prosecutors charged that Comey actually used Fitzgerald to "improperly disclose classified information."
The DOJ previously has confirmed that Comey leaked copies of his personal memos about what he claims to have said to President Trump to multiple other lawyers, including Fitzgerald.
The report explained, "Former DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's 2019 report described Comey's actions as a serious breach of policy, saying he 'set a dangerous example' for FBI employees by retaining and leaking government documents for 'a personally desired outcome.' The watchdog said Comey kept four of seven memos in a personal safe at home after his firing and failed to notify the bureau he had done so."
Comey allegedly used the retained government memos to help "trigger" the creation of a job for special counsel Robert Mueller.
The Examiner said, "Fitzgerald's own involvement in transmitting Comey's memos to other lawyers could make him a fact witness in the case, raising ethical questions about whether he can simultaneously defend his former client."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
During Saturday's "No Kings" protest in Chicago, a man was recorded on camera openly calling for the murder of federal ICE agents.
"You gotta grab a gun!" the individual shouted.
"We gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system. These ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out."
Now, internet sleuths are claiming the vocal supporter of lethal force is Moisés Bernal Puentes, a staff member at Wilbur Wright College in Chicago, and the case has been referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution.
An employee directory at the City Colleges of Chicago website indicates the employee is in the Adult Education department at Wilbur Wright College, and WND has reached out to school officials for comment.
On some of his social media, Puentes apparently listed his personal pronouns as "they/them."
LibsofTikTok is among those publicizing the name, and is asking City Colleges of Chicago: "Why is @ChiCityColleges employing violent lunatics who call for m*rder??"
It added: "I'm told by a source in DHS that the @ChiCityColleges staffer who called to kiII ICE agents has been referred to the DOJ. He's about to FAFO so hard."
In fact, on Monday afternoon, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the case has indeed been referred to the DOJ.
"During the Chicago NO KINGS rally this previous weekend, violent rioters called for the cold-blooded murder of ICE agents. This rioter, and his statements have been referred to the DOJ."
"There is no place in America for psychotic incitements of unlawful violence against ICE or CBP. To those who threaten violence against us: we will hunt you down, we will find you, and Justice will be served."
The Right Angle News Network on X is urging Americans to contact the college and "Ask the school if this man represents them. Moises is about to have a very bad day."
J.D. Rucker at the Liberty Daily noted: "Ash Farms, Libs of TikTok, and others on X are calling for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to find him and charge him.
"The evidence is recorded. The crime is crystal clear. He's calling for murder, declaring the means to make it happen, and identifying the targets. Should be easy."
As WorldNetDaily reported this month, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem revealed bounties of up to $10,000 have been put on the heads of federal agents, encouraging Americans to murder officers enforcing U.S. immigration laws.
"We have specific officers and agents that have bounties that have been put out on their heads. It's been $2,000 to kidnap them, $10,000 to kill them," Noem said.
"They've released their pictures. They've sent them between their networks and it's an extremely dangerous situation and unprecedented."
A disgraced Minnesota judge's petition to have his first name legally changed to "Judge" was denied by Ramsey County Judge Leonardo Castro, MPR News reported. The man, former Anoka County Judge John Dehen, retired from his position on Oct. 10 following a suspension from the Minnesota Supreme Court over misconduct.
Dehen filed for the name change in August, requesting that his given name be changed instead to Judge John Dehen. The case was assigned to Castro, who slammed the petition made "in bad faith and with the intent to mislead" the public.
"To permit a former district court judge, who has been suspended for abusing his position of authority, to regain the title he was stripped of, would make the administration of justice a practical mockery. The Applicant is not replacing his first name of John with Judge but is requesting that Judge be added before John so he can be addressed as 'Judge John Dehen,'" Castro said in his order.
"By using the name ‘Judge,’ the Applicant would be holding himself out as a judge, a position he held for 15 years, but no longer holds," Castro added. The judge also denied Dehen's request to keep the filing private, though his home address was redacted.
Last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Dehen for nine months and censured him after Dehen was accused of a "pattern" of prejudice, KSTP-TV reported. The recommended punishment from the state panel was originally a six-month suspension, but Minnesota’s high court felt his misconduct warranted a more severe penalty.
Some of the misdeeds Dehen was accused of included holding a remote hearing from the passenger seat of his moving vehicle, attempting to rehire his court reporter with double the salary he state allows, and injecting his opinions about illegal immigration to "influence his decisions" in guardianship cases for troubled youth.
"His actions wasted precious judicial resources and disrespected the rule of law and the administration of justice that he took an oath to uphold," the order from the Supreme Court charged. It also said Dehen "damaged the professional function of the Judicial Branch" and that he "exhibited little if any remorse" for doing so.
For his part, Dehen's testimony before the state panel included an admission that he had "poor judgment" when he decided to hold a hearing from his vehicle, but he would not budge on the guardianship decisions. Dehen claimed those were "merely an error of law" rather than ideological influences.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed, instead finding that Dehen had weaponized his official position and that the only remedy was to censure the judge. The high court said it had a duty to "fulfill our obligation to ensure that the misconduct is not repeated again, and to deter others from similar behavior."
In 2022, Dehen was disciplined privately after making threats during proceedings in a small claims lawsuit, MinneapoliMedia reported. Later, he was accused of using immigration status and lack of English proficiency while ruling on guardianship hearings.
“Just because you’re an immigrant doesn’t mean you’re eligible for an at-risk status,” Dehen told the initial panel investigating earlier this year. In at least three cases, other judges have either overturned Judge Dehen’s findings or ordered him removed entirely from at-risk juvenile cases.
Petitions in Minnesota for guardianship assignments for at-risk youth are seldom denied. In the county Dehen was presiding, he was responsible for all of them.
“He does what he wants to do and doesn’t accept disagreement,” Eric Magnuson, the former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court who anrgued the state’s case angainst Dehen, said. That hasn’t worked out so well for Dehen after all.
Dehen seems to do whatever he wants, perhaps believing that his position as judge gives him the cover to do so. Unfortunately for him, that’s not the way it works, and the judge will have to deal with the consequences of his actions.
Buckle up, folks—newly released documents from the House Oversight Committee are pulling back the curtain on Jeffrey Epstein’s shadowy world, and the details are as murky as a swamp on a moonless night.
The committee dropped a bombshell on Friday, releasing flight manifests from Epstein’s private jet alongside a transcript of a late September interview with former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, who brokered the infamous 2008 plea deal for the disgraced financier, Fox News reported.
Let’s rewind to 2008, when Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, negotiated a deal that saw Epstein serve just 13 months in jail, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to victims instead of facing federal charges.
Acosta’s reasoning? He claimed the case had serious flaws, with many victims unwilling to testify and others offering inconsistent accounts, which could have torpedoed a trial.
“Many victims refused to testify. Many victims had changing stories,” Acosta told the committee, painting a picture of a prosecution on shaky ground.
But let’s not sip the Kool-Aid just yet—while Acosta’s concerns about a weak case may hold water, it’s hard to ignore how this deal let a billionaire skirt the full weight of justice, sending a troubling message about who gets a pass in our system.
Fast forward to the latest release, and those flight manifests are raising eyebrows with names like Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Walter Cronkite, Richard Branson, and even former President Bill Clinton, who flew multiple times, including a 2002 trip with Secret Service in tow.
Before the outrage machine revs up, let’s be clear: none of these individuals are accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein’s crimes, and the manifests alone prove nothing beyond a shared ride.
Still, the optics aren’t great—hobnobbing with a predator like Epstein, even unknowingly, fuels public skepticism about elite circles and their accountability, a concern that resonates deeply with those fed up with two-tiered justice.
During the interview, Acosta didn’t shy away from defending his 2008 decision, arguing it was better than the alternative of Epstein walking free, which he claimed Florida’s state attorney was ready to allow.
“Simply put, the Palm Beach state attorney’s office was ready to let Epstein walk free, no jail time,” Acosta insisted, framing his plea deal as a necessary compromise to ensure some punishment.
Call it pragmatism or a cop-out, but Acosta’s stance highlights a frustrating reality: sometimes the system’s flaws force prosecutors into deals that leave a bitter taste, especially when a billionaire’s resources can tilt the scales.
Acosta also took a swipe at Epstein’s defense team, alleging they danced dangerously close to unethical behavior, though he emphasized he pushed back against their tactics.
Looking back as U.S. Secretary of Labor in 2019, Acosta acknowledged the cultural shift in how victims are treated, admitting that today’s standards might have led to a different outcome in handling such a high-profile case.
While it’s refreshing to hear some reflection, it’s cold comfort for those who see the Epstein saga as a glaring example of how wealth and influence can undermine justice—a sentiment that fuels distrust in institutions and skepticism of progressive narratives about systemic fairness.
Former Republican New York Rep. George Santos received an early Christmas present this week after he found out the remainder of his sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump.
According to the Daily Caller, Trump made the bombshell revelation this week that he commuted Santos' prison sentence. Earlier this year, Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison "after pleading guilty to 23 federal charges related to wire fraud and identity theft."
Santos has seldom been heard from after he was essentially booted out of Congress, except for making headlines a few weeks after he was thrown out.
Before he was thrown out of Congress by his Republican colleagues, Santos had served nearly a year in Congress.
President Trump had quite a bit to say about the situation in a Truth Social post this week.
"George Santos was somewhat of a 'rogue,' but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison. I started to think about George when the subject of Democrat Senator Richard 'Da Nang Dick' Blumenthal came up again. As everyone remembers, 'Da Nang' stated for almost twenty years that he was a proud Vietnam Veteran, having endured the worst of the War, watching the Wounded and Dead as he raced up the hills and down the valleys, blood streaming from his face," Trump wrote.
"He was 'a Great Hero,' he would leak to any and all who would listen — And then it happened! He was a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD. He never went to Vietnam, he never saw Vietnam, he never experienced the Battles there, or anywhere else. His War Hero status, and even minimal service in our Military, was totally and completely MADE UP," Trump continued.
That's when Trump revealed that Santos had been "horribly mistreated" in prison, having served several long stretches in solitary confinement.
"This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN! George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time and, by all accounts, has been horribly mistreated."
"Therefore, I just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY. Good luck George, have a great life!"
Users across social media had plenty to say about Trump commuting Santos' remaining prison sentence.
BREAKING: President Trump commutes George Santos’ sentence, sending him home from prison immediately.
“I signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY. Good luck George, have a great life!” pic.twitter.com/3FxipT10c4
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 17, 2025
"Great! It was the right thing to do. Violent criminals are walking around free with no bail and this guy got a very harsh sentence for what he did. He's been mistreated in prison and President Trump did the right thing," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Another twist in the saga. Let's see how this plays out now."
President Donald Trump's plan to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago was largely backed by Republicans and reasonable people on both sides of the aisle who know it's necessary to bring down soaring crime rates, but the move was blocked by a Democrat-appointed judge.
According to the Daily Caller, President Trump and his administration are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved and approve the deployment of National Guard troops to the crime-torn city.
The request to the high court came a day after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stop a lower court's decision in halting the deployment of troops to the city.
Solicitor General John Sauer laid out the argument for troops and federal officers to be deployed to Chicago, citing safety concerns especially for those stationed at federal facilities.
In the application to the Supreme Court, Sauer wrote that letting the lower court's order stand will "immediately increase the risk that federal personnel in Chicago may be seriously harmed by violent anti-ICE agitators."
He then argued on behalf of the Trump administration that any block of the deployment of federal officers and troops puts lives in danger every single day.
“[The ruling] deprives DHS officers of the protections that the President sought to give them from ongoing violence, prevents the Guard from ensuring the enforcement of federal law, and puts lives and property in danger,” Sauer wrote.
He added, "It also places the Seventh Circuit in the untenable position of controlling the military chain of command and judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers, including the decision about which military forces the President can deploy."
The Daily Caller noted:
Saur noted the Ninth Circuit blocked a lower court order in June preventing Trump from sending troops to Los Angeles. He also highlighted that lower courts are currently considering a similar injunction blocking Trump from “federalizing the Oregon National Guard to address violent opposition to federal immigration officers in Portland."
Sauer added, "In recent weeks, federal officers in Chicago have been threatened and assaulted, attacked in a harrowing pre-planned ambush involving many assailants, rammed in their government vehicles, shot at with fireworks and other improvised weapons, injured and hospitalized, and threatened in person and online—including by a $10,000 bounty for the murder of a senior federal official."
The appeals court panel was quick to shoot down the request to overturn the lower court's ruling.
The court wrote that there is "insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws."
"Political opposition is not rebellion," the panel added.
"A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A bi-vocational pastor has been fired from his position at a Louisiana library for rejecting orders to violate reality and address a woman as a man.
And Liberty Counsel, which has taken up the case on behalf of Luke Ash, has suggested officials at the Baton Rouge Parish Library fix the problem quickly, before it gets expensive.
It sent a demand letter, explaining under the First Amendment the state "may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees."
Then too, both the First Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution recognize and protect "religion" and religious "free exercise." And the organization's "inclusion policy" does not override those protections for Pastor Ash to speak or not.
"[The] Library has no compelling government interest in requiring employees to speak pronouns that do not accurately reflect biological sex, when employees are not required to speak at all; nor in requiring employees to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs," wrote Liberty Counsel.
Explained Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, "The East Baton Rouge Parish Library acted unlawfully in firing Pastor Luke Ash for the U.S. Constitution and Louisiana law protect his right to uphold his beliefs and refuse false pronouns. The library also violated Title VII for not even considering a religious accommodation for Pastor Ash. There is no compelling interest in requiring Pastor Ash to lie or affirm false sex-based pronouns. Employers cannot force people to choose between their faith and their livelihood. The library has a chance to reinstate Pastor Ash and rectify this potentially costly mistake."
The legal team pointed out the library's actions also raise concerns about the state constitution, the Louisiana Protection of Religious Freedom Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The letter calls for reinstatement, back pay and a revised pronoun policy.
The library has insisted that employees have a "right" to choose their pronouns, which would require others to mouth their support for radical gender agendas.
Ash's religious beliefs explain he must speak truth.
A report at the Washington Stand said such a demand letter typically is precursor to a lawsuit.
"Ash serves as pastor of Stevendale Baptist Church in Baton Rouge and, until this July, also worked at the Baton Rouge Parish Library. When introduced to a new coworker, a biological female who wanted to be referred to using masculine pronouns, Ash continued using female pronouns, in accord with his Christian beliefs on sex and gender," the report said.
Former Trump White House adviser John Bolton surrendered at a federal courthouse on Friday after FBI investigators caught him leaking classified information.
Bolton allegedly leaked seven documents while working for Trump at the White House and leaked another shortly after the president fired him in September 2019, ABC News reported.
The longtime Trump critic pleaded not guilty to 18 felony counts and denounced the indictment as a sham, echoing Democrats who have accused Trump of "weaponizing" the law to target his political foes.
Bolton had a brief and rocky tenure as Trump's national security adviser during the president's first White House term.
A Republican fixture in Washington, D.C. foreign policy circles for decades, Bolton's aggressive personality and hawkish views clashed with those of the commander in chief, who would denounce Bolton as a reckless "warmonger" after firing him. After departing the White House, Bolton published a tell-all book that led to a reprimand from a judge for compromising national security.
In August, Bolton fell under scrutiny again after federal investigators raided his Maryland home and Washington, D.C. office. Many Democrats reflexively denounced the raid as an intimidation tactic, but few Democrats rushed to Bolton's defense after the charges were unveiled.
The indictment accuses Bolton of using a personal e-mail account to send over 1,000 pages of top secret and other classified information in "diary-like entries" to members of his family.
Prosecutors also say that Bolton unlawfully retained physical documents inside his home and also kept copies on his personal devices. Some of the information Bolton transmitted, which included sensitive details on "future attacks, foreign adversaries, and foreign-policy relations," was allegedly exposed by Iranian hackers.
When Bolton reported the hack of his e-mail to the FBI in 2021, he failed to mention that he had used the account to send classified information, prosecutors say.
Bolton appeared to be aware that his clandestine actions could get him in trouble, telling one relative whom he sent a file, "None of which we talk about!!!", to which the person responded, "Shhhhh," the AP reported.
Bolton faces eight counts of unlawful transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information.
According to Bolton's lawyer Abbe Lowell, Bolton shared "unclassified" information with his immediate family only, and the FBI knew all about it in 2021. "Like many public officials throughout history," Lowell said, "Bolton kept diaries -- that is not a crime."
The prosecution of Bolton comes within weeks of indictments being brought against New York attorney general Letitia James and former FBI director James Comey, both Trump antagonists who have been accused of weaponizing the power of government in their own ways.
Unlike Comey and James, Bolton may have difficulty winning sympathy from the liberal media.
Even the left-leaning Associated Press acknowledged that the case against Bolton "was already well underway by the time Trump took office" and that it appears to be more "conventional" than the cases against James and Comey.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A stunning statement from the British royal family on Friday revealed that Andrew, the younger son of Queen Elizabeth, is giving up any and all use of any and all of his royal titles or honors.
The statement left unclear whether the honors were being stripped from him, or whether he was just relinquishing using them.
According to reports he will give up using Duke of York and the Order of the Garter, after the scandal over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein revived.
The statement said, "In discussion with the king, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of his majesty and the royal family. I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life. With His Majesty's agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me. As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me."
His connections to Epstein, who died in jail several years ago while awaiting further sex charges, erupted into the headlines when Virginia Giuffre in 2014 alleged that, as a 17-year-old, she was sex trafficked to him.
The scandal's staying power prompted him to resign from public roles in May 2020, and his honorary military affiliations and royal charitable patronages were removed by the Queen Elizabeth in 2022.
Giuffre sued, and settled out of court for millions.
His nephew, the other "bad boy" of the royal family, Harry, gave up all his family duties when he and his actress wife moved to California years ago.
His titles, reports have suggested, are in jeopardy when his older brother, William, eventually assumes the crown.
Charles, Andrew's older brother, now holds that position.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
WND reported a week ago that there was a campaign under was to seek the disbarment of Jack Smith, the one-time Joe Biden-picked special prosecutor who ran multiple lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, which eventually failed.
Now that request has formally been submitted.
It is the New York Post that has confirmed a letter from elected officials, led by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accuses Biden's DOJ of having "spied on duly elected members of Congress."
It demands that Smith be investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility.
"As part of Jack Smith's weaponized witch hunt, the Biden DOJ issued subpoenas to several telecommunications companies in 2023 regarding our cell phone records, gaining access to the time, recipient, duration, and location of calls placed on our devices from January 4, 2021, to January 7, 2021," Blackburn charged.
The letter continued, "We have yet to learn of any legal predicate for the Biden Department of Justice issuing subpoenas to obtain these cell phone records."
Other lawmakers joining the demand were Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Penn.
Smith is accused of using his power as a government appointee to infringe on the constitutional rights of elected officials and "trampled on this separation of powers principle that underlies our system of government."
The lawmakers continued, "This is especially true given the invasion of our privacy was directly connected to our core legislative functions protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of our Constitution. To the best we can tell, Smith's team went on this fishing expedition for one simple reason: we are Republicans who support President Trump."
They asked for Smith to be referred for disbarment to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility and the New York Attorney Grievance Committee, since he is licensed to practice law in both states.
They charged that the scheming from Smith and his team "harkens back to a dark chapter in American history that we have not seen since the days of J. Edgar Hoover, and the completely corrupt investigation and prosecution by the FBI and DOJ of the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. We must ensure that we never return to these disgraceful eras."
The other found lawmakers targeted by Smith's spying included Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.
Commentators have speculated the spying was done by Smith as part of a scheme to possibly file additional legal cases against Trump should Kamala Harris win the election, and the lawmakers' telephone data would be used as evidence.
Harris, of course, lost in a landslide.
Blackburn previously sent letters to Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile asking why the phone carriers let "this invasion of privacy … occur wholly unchallenged."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chief of the Senate Judiciary Committee, described the scandal as "arguably worse than Watergate."