This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump is appealing the E. Jean Carroll case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The move was confirmed as his lawyers filed an application to the high court asking for a 60-day extension of a deadline to file a petition.
And it comes after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider a panel ruling against Trump.
"President Trump intends to seek review by this court of significant issues arising from the Second Circuit's erroneous decision," his lawyers explained in a filing appearing on the court's public docket.
According to a report in the Washington Examiner, the fight with Carroll, who has exhibited some uniquely odd behavior as she promotes her case, is among the few disputes unresolved after a long list of lawfare cases brought by Democrat activists against Trump have faded into history.
It is a $5 million judgment based on a jury decision that claimed Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll some 30 years ago, and he defamed her by denying the accusation back in 2022.
Trump has repeatedly denied Carroll's claims, explaining that the "encounter" never happened.
The jury did not find Trump liable for rape.
Trump's appeals of the May 2023 judgment at the 2nd Circuit argued that the trial was tainted by allowing evidence that improperly influenced the jury.
The Supreme Court hasn't made an announcement on the deadline extension yet, but if granted, would allow a petition for writ of certiorari to be filed up until November 10.
Another judgment against Trump involving Carroll already is on appeal. That is an $83.3 million verdict for Trump's further statements that he never assaulted Carroll.
There are online videos revealing some of Carroll's antics, videos that the judges reviewing her claims did not allow the jury to see:
And there was the promise from a Trump lawyer that Carroll will see not a dime of the "judgments" as they were initially delivered.
Online resources explain Carroll also has made similar assault claims against other men, including then-CBS CEO Les Moonves, who, like Trump, has denied her allegations.
Carroll since has written a book about her allegations against Trump, and repeatedly has gone on television and other shows to promote her writings, and herself.
The trial judge who heard both cases, Lewis A. Kaplan, was accused of wrongdoing in his decision to allow two other people who accused Trump of sexual abuse to testify on behalf of Carroll. Trump has denied those unproven claims as well.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse announced on Wednesday they're preparing their own list of high-profile names who allegedly sexually abused them, and one of the victims indicated Donald Trump was the pedophile's "biggest brag forever" when it came to friendship, though she did not suggest the president was among the perpetrators.
"Let me announce now," said Lisa Phillips, a model brought to Epstein's Caribbean island in 2000, "several of us Epstein survivors have been discussing creating our own list of names. We know the names. Many of us were abused by them. Now together as survivors, we will confidentially compile the names we all know were regularly in the Epstein world. And it will be done by survivors and for survivors, no one else is involved. Stay tuned for more details on that."
"I'm demanding justice," Phillips added. "Congress must choose. Will you continue to protect predators? Or will you finally protect survivors?"
Another victim of Epstein's sexual abuse, Chauntae Davies, pointed out how Jeffrey would brag about being friends with fellow Palm Beacher Donald Trump.
"His biggest brag forever was that he was good friends with Donald Trump," Davies said. "He had an 8-by-10 framed picture of him on his desk, with the two of them."
"Epstein surrounded himself with the most powerful leaders of our country and the world."
"He abused not only me, but countless others and everyone seemed to look away. The truth is, Epstein had a free pass. He bragged about his powerful friends, including our current president, Donald Trump. It was his biggest brag, actually."
Davies also mentioned former President Bill Clinton, saying: "I was just one of the many young women trapped in his (Epstein's) orbit. I was even taken on a trip to Africa with former president Bill Clinton and other notable figures. In those moments, I realized how powerless I was. If I spoke out, who would believe me? Who would protect me?"
"One thing is certain, unless we learn from this history, monsters like Epstein will rise again. There are files, government files that hold the truth about Epstein … ."
When asked about the Epstein case in the Oval Office Wednesday, President Trump said: "This is a Democrat hoax that never ends."
"From what I understand, thousand of pages of documents have been given, but it's really a Democrat hoax because they're trying to get people to talk about something that's totally irrelevant to the success that we've had as a nation since I've been president."
Survivor Haley Robson addressed Trump's "hoax" comment, saying: "Mr. President, Donald J. Trump, I am a registered Republican – not that that matters, because this is not political – however, I cordially invite you to the Capitol to meet me in person so you can understand this is not a hoax. We are real human beings. This is real trauma."
"It's being gutted from the inside out," Robson explained, when asked about the emotional impact.
"It feels like you just want to explode inside because nobody again is understanding that this is a real situation. These women are real. We're here in person. … Please humanize us. … There is no hoax, the abuse was real."
"I would be more than happy to meet with him (Trump), and I will meet him halfway."
"We are the keys to this situation," Robson added. "We have the truth, and the FBI knows the truth, the government knows the truth. You may pull the wool over the sheep's eyes. But we are the keys. We know who was involved. We know the game. We know the players, and we are sitting here for 20 years waiting for you to get up and do something. Well, guess what? Your time is up and now we're doing it."
Anouska De Georgiou, another Epstein victim, said: "The days of sweeping this under the rug are over. We the survivors say 'no more.'"
"I'm no longer weak, I am no longer powerless and I'm no longer alone. And with your vote, neither will the next generation," she said. "President Trump, you have so much influence and power in this situation. Please use that influence and power to help us, because we need it now, and this country needs it now."
Marina Lacerda, a survivor who was named as Minor Victim One in Epstein's 2019 federal indictment, spoke publicly for the first time about the horror, noting there are many parts of her story she can't even remember.
"It's so hard to begin to heal knowing that there are people out there who know more about my abuse than I do," she said.
"The worst part is that the government is still in possession right now of the documents and information that could help me remember and get over all of this, maybe, and help me heal. They have documents with my name on them that were confiscated from Jeffrey Epstein's house, and could help me put the pieces of my own life back together. But I don't have any of it, and I know the same is true for many of these women."
Sky Roberts, the brother of well-known Epstein survivor Virgina Giuffre who died by suicide in April, laid out three demands: "Ghislaine Maxwell must remain in a maximum security prison for the rest of her life," Roberts said.
"No leniency, no deals, no special treatment. The Epstein documents must be unsealed. Every name, every detail, no more secrets, no more protection for those who preyed on the vulnerable. And finally, we demand full accountability from every enabler, every accomplice, every person in power who turned a blind eye."
The victims are urging Congress to support a bipartisan push from Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna of California to compel the U.S. Justice Department to publicly release all the Epstein files.
At Wednesday's news conference, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said she personally would be fearless in naming the names of Epstein's friends and clients on the floor of the U.S. House Of Representatives.
"Yeah, it's a scary thing to name names, but I will tell you I'm not afraid to name names," Greene said.
"And so if they want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor, I'll say every damn name that abused these women."
President Donald Trump has suffered a number of assassination attempts, some of which have come closer than others, none of which have gone unnoticed.
Most recently, Nathalie Rose Jones, 50, made egregious threats against the president and was arrested, but has been mysteriously released by a federal judge, as Breitbart News reported.
Chief Judge James Boasberg issued his ruling after U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya already ordered Jones to be held without bond while being evaluated.
Boasberg, who was appointed under the Obama administration, has a history of political beliefs that stand contrary to those of the current president.
Jones was arrested last month and released, put under electronic monitoring, and told by Boasberg to visit a psychiatrist in New York City.
Jones, who hails from Lafayette, Indiana, was arrested during a Washington D.C. protest last month, due to her public claims about harming Trump.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro spoke for the attorney’s office in the District of Columbia, saying that the individual in custody made some egregious threats against Trump, and the arrest was necessary.
“Threatening the life of the President is one of the most serious crimes and one that will be met with swift and unwavering prosecution. Make no mistake—justice will be served,” Pirro said.
She faced a multiplicity of charges, including threatening to kill, kidnap, or inflict harm on Trump.
Jonest posted about the threats in now-deleted social media content between Aug. 6 and Aug 16.
One of the posts featured Jones reportedly saying, “I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all the Affirmation present.”
Jones even went so far as to tag the White House in some of her posts, calling Trump a fascist, among other things, and attempting to gather cohorts to her cause.
Threatening the life of the President is one of the most serious crimes and one that will be met with swift and unwavering prosecution. Make no mistake—justice will be served.
We extend our deepest gratitude to our dedicated law enforcement partners, especially the Secret… pic.twitter.com/P9qT0rHg2g
— Jeanine Pirro (@JudgeJeanine) August 18, 2025
The Secret Service said that in an interview with Jones, she said, “If she had the opportunity, she would take the President’s life and would kill him with a bladed knife, carrying out her mission of avenging the lives lost during COVID.”
After her arrest on Aug. 16, during a protest at Dupont Circle, she admitted to making the threats against Trump, but denied wanting to hurt the president at that time.
For once, a federal appeals court has sided with President Donald Trump in his efforts to claw back taxpayer dollars sent to leftist groups.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals approved the plan for EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to rescind $16 billion appropriated by former President Joe Biden in his lame duck days for basically a "slush fund" for "green" climate projects, reversing a lower court block on the action.
Zeldin first announced the freeze on $20 billion back in February, and it was immediately challenged by the groups who would have benefitted from the funds.
At the time, Zeldin compared Biden's appropriation to “throwing gold bars off the Titanic” and said there wasn't enough oversight on how the money would be spent.
“The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” Zeldin said. “The American public deserves a more transparent and accountable government than what transpired these past four years.”
After the lower court said Zeldin had not given enough substantiation of his allegations against the nonprofits, the appeals court ruled 2-1 that Zeldin could terminate the grants and contracts.
The court also said that the nonprofits had no standing to challenge the termination of contracts, and that their arguments needed to go before a federal claims court that specifically hears contract disputes.
If the nonprofits take their claims to that court, there's still a chance that Zeldin could be forced to honor the contracts.
This was considered a loss for the groups, who were seeking immediate access to the money.
Another path the groups could take is to appeal the D.C. court's decision to the Supreme Court, but there's no guarantee the high court will even take the case.
The D.C. appeals court is by no means conservative, so its ruling cannot be seen as partisan.
While Trump is not necessarily against green energy, he doesn't think the federal government should be subsidizing it and propping it up to try to reduce fossil fuel use.
With $37 trillion in debt and counting, there's no way we need to be giving billions more to green energy groups.
Let them stand on their own two feet in the market and see what happens.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani Willis, who is suspected of coordinating with Democrats and officials in Joe Biden's leftist administration to assemble what essentially was an organized crime claim against President Trump, now has been ordered to hunt harder for records of her work.
That case turned into a massive embarrassment for her, and the entire Fulton County prosecutor's office, as she was revealed to have had an ongoing affair with a man she hired to assemble the anti-Trump case for her.
Further, appeals court judges threw her, and her office, off the case, and it's been dying in the clerks' offices since.
Now a report at Fox News explains that Willis has been ordered by a court in her state to do a "new search for records related to her criminal case" against Trump.
The court had found that her search methods were inadequate.
It is government watchdog Judicial Watch that has been insisting she come clean on her work, specifically whether and how much she coordinated her case with the January 6 select committee, a partisan panel assembled by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to publicize accusations against Trump over the January 6, 2021, protest turned riot at the Capitol.
Willis also is suspected of coordinating her lawfare against Trump with Jack Smith, a special counsel who was entrusted by Democrats with two lawfare cases against Trump. Both of his failed.
The order is just another in a string of setbacks for Willis, who was ordered a few months ago to pay some $22,000 in legal fees to Judicial Watch after she declined to fully respond to the organization's opening records requests.
Judicial Watch spokesman Tom Fitton, according to the report, said his group has been digging into Willis' communications "because he believes the district attorney improperly coordinated with the federal government to charge Trump over the 2020 election."
"The lawsuit is about any collusion and collaboration with Congress and the Justice Department, Jack Smith, and we haven't seen the documents, but they show that there has been because their very existence shows that they were talking to them," Fitton said.
Fitton said the coordination among the various Democrat operatives would show Willis' indictment was a "political operation," not any "honest" process.
The judge's new order noted Willis failed "to address searches of devices belonging to former Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade and chief investigator Michael Hill, both of whom were integral to the investigation into Trump's alleged subversion of the 2020 election in Georgia."
The judge noted he found "omissions" in Willis' statements.
Willis charged Trump and 18 co-defendants in August 2023 with racketeering and other violations over the 2020 election, but the case fell apart because of plea deals and dismissed charges. Ultimately, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis from the case, finding her private romantic relationship with Wade presented a conflict of interest. The case has been shelved indefinitely since the ruling, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A virulently anti-Trump federal judge has ordered a woman who was jailed for her deranged social media posts about her desire to kill President Donald Trump released from jail.
Instead of being behind bars, Nathalie Rose Jones has been told to be on electronic monitoring and to see a psychiatrist.
Those instructions come of James Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington who has held an agenda against President Trump dating to the Russiagate conspiracy theory that was launched by Democrats against Trump in the 2016 election.
Boasberg, at that time, was part of the effort by the Barack Obama administration, on behalf of now twice-failed presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, to spy on and undermine Trump.
Lately, he has run an agenda opposing Trump's efforts to secure America's borders and remove illegal alien criminals from U.S. shores, wildly insisting that two jets loaded with those individuals that already were on deportation flights in international airspace to turn around and return the criminals to America, without acknowledging whether the jets even had enough fuel to do that.
Now the New York Post has reported that Boasberg "released" Jones, "a 50-year-old Big Apple resident, under electronic monitoring on Aug. 27 and ordered she see a psychiatrist once back home.
"A New York City woman locked up for making deranged social media posts threatening to kill President Trump was quietly released by an Obama-appointed judge last week," the report confirmed.
It was only two weeks ago that Jones allegedly traveled from New York to Washington, D.C., with the intent of killing Trump, the report said.
Then U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro announced her arrest saying, "She was working to have [Trump] eliminated. She's now in custody, she will be prosecuted to the fullest extent to the law."
The Gateway Pundit explained, "Now this woman has been quietly released by Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg. That would be the same Judge Boasberg who has repeatedly interfered in efforts to deport illegal alien criminals."
Just days earlier U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya denied Jones bond over the persistent threats on Trump's life she issued over social media earlier this month, the report said.
"Officials were aware of concerning posts starting on Aug. 2 and Jones herself told Secret Service agents in an Aug. 15 interview that she would 'carry out the mission of killing' Trump with a 'bladed object' if she was given the chance," the report said.
At her arrest, authorities explained she was taken into custody for her plan to "sacrificially kill" President Donald Trump.
The woman, originally from Lafayette, Indiana, made her statements on Facebook and Instagram.
"I literally told the FBI in five states today that I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present," Jones is accused of writing in an Aug. 6 Facebook post.
In an Aug. 14 Facebook post, Jones allegedly urged U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "please arrange the arrest and removal ceremony of POTUS Trump as a terrorist on the American People from 10-2pm at the White House on Saturday, August 16th, 2025."
During a Secret Service interview, she indicated if she had the opportunity, she would "carry out her mission of killing" the president at "the compound" with a "bladed object."
Boasberg also has been criticized for publicly suggesting, during a judicial conference, that Trump would not follow his orders and that would create a constitutional crisis.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained she ordered a complaint filed over the "misconduct" by Boasberg, for "making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration."
"These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary," she confirmed.
A DOJ official confirmed, "Judge Boasberg first tried to persuade Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration would not follow court orders, despite having no basis for his belief. Then he acted on his baseless belief again and again in litigation over which he was presiding. Judge Boasberg violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including the requirement that he 'promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'"
WorldNetDaily has reported it was the Federalist that obtained access to comments Boasberg made at a recent judicial conference undermining the president.
He disparaged the president, even though he's required to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche later described Boasberg as a "threat to the rule of law" for using his own agendas in his court rulings to try to control the decisions of the Executive Branch.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court has affirmed that the administration of President Donald Trump does have the authority to claw back billions of dollars handed out by the Joe Biden administration as his single term in office closed down.
One government official described how the cash handouts to favored Democrat interests amounted to dumping "gold bars" off the Titanic.
The Washington Examiner reported the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned a decision by Trump-opposing Judge Tanya Chutkan that the clawbacks couldn't happen.
The new ruling now allows Trump's Environmental Protection Agency to slash billions of dollars in grants that green groups were expecting under the Biden handout program.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao said the clawbacks could go forward; Cornelia Pillard dissented.
The ruling said Chutkan "abused" her discretion by issuing an injunction preventing EPA from rescinding the billions in handouts.
Further, they said the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed in their case because it belonged in the Court of Federal Claims, rather than the district court, the report said.
"Moreover, the equities strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multibillion-dollar fund," the ruling said.
Chutkan had wanted the green groups to be given access to the cash.
A report at RedState said the disputed amount involved in this case totaled about $16 billion.
"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has again handed the administration a win with a 2-1 decision handed down late Tuesday morning in a case involving EPA grants. Remember the stories about the gold bars being (figuratively) pitched overboard in the waning days of the Biden administration? Yep, those are the funds at the heart of this litigation.
"But in issuing the decision, Judge Rao hearkened back to the hubbub over the 'gold bars' story: The sheer scale of the grant program and the method of allocating billions of dollars drew public attention and criticism. The record includes a widely publicized video in which an EPA employee was recorded describing how 'until recently' his role was to make sure proper 'processes are in place to … prevent fraud and to prevent abuse,' but after the election of President Donald Trump, EPA was 'just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and … stop it all,'" the report said.
The employee compared the situation to "throwing gold bars off the Titanic."
"As Rao rightly notes, there is a proper jurisdiction for claims of the nature brought by these grantees, and that is the Court of Federal Claims — and even that court may not issue injunctive relief," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge who previously tried to foil President Donald Trump's fight for national border security and integrity and against riots promoting illegal aliens in the country, and was reversed by an appeals court, is trying again.
It is Charles Breyer who is the judge who, when Trump ordered National Guard troops to deter anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement rioting in California, ordered Trump to stop giving orders and let leftist Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom do it.
He was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered that constitutional precedents call for courts to be "highly deferential" to the president on some issues.
Breyer's latest move against Trump, according to a report from Fox News, is to claim that Trump acted unlawfully when he sent thousands of National Guard troops, and a handful of Marines, to address those anti-ICE riots that California authorities and leaders had allowed to develop.
Breyer's claim is that Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which dates to the 1800s and says the military cannot ordinarily be used for domestic law enforcement.
Fox reported, "The judge said his order only applies to California, but he noted the administration's warnings about sending the National Guard to other blue cities across the country amount to 'creating a national police force with the President as its chief.'"
Breyer had made similar comments during a three-day trial last month.
At the time, he insisted, "What limiting factors are there to the use of this force?"
Trump had activated 4,000 National Guard troops in June to address support for federal authorities in California as they pursued arrests of criminal illegal aliens, over the objections of state officials including Newsom.
Most of those operations already have concluded.
Newsom screamed on social media, "LOSES AGAIN. … The courts agree — his militarization of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL."
An appeal is more than probable which could result in the 9th Circuit reviewing – even overturning – Breyer again. The issue could even end up at the Supreme Court.
According to the Washington Examiner, Breyer's claim now is that the Trump administration cannot send National Guard members to protect law-enforcement officers carrying out federal law.
Breyer claimed, "There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence. Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal judges are getting better at stopping jet flights returning foreigners to their home.
This time, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ordered jets not to take off that were part of a program by the administration of President Donald Trump to repatriate children from Guatemala to their home country, and families.
Earlier, Judge James Boasberg infamously ordered several jets carrying illegal alien criminals being deported to turn around mid-flight, without acknowledging the fact they might not have enough fuel for a return flight.
The Trump administration did not comply, as the flights already were in international airspace and Boasberg, about whom ethics complaints already have been filed, had no jurisdiction there.
This time, the judge ordered the flights not to take off, leaving some children sitting in the aircraft on the runway.
A report at RedState explained the Trump administration was sending illegal alien Guatemalan children back to their home country, after requests by Guatemala and their parents.
That wasn't good enough for Sooknanan.
She issued a temporary restraining order halting the repatriation efforts "even as kids were already sitting in their seats."
The Trump administration had hoped to reunite nearly 700 kids with parents or guardians in Guatemala.
The judge stepped into the program and shut it down after "charter buses had already rolled up to planes in Harlingen and El Paso and, in some cases, children were seated on board awaiting departure," the report said.
Drew Ensign, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, said, "These are not removals under the statute. These are repatriations. All of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return."
And Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, wasn't pleased with the court's decision to deny the children to opportunity to be reunited with family.
Sooknanan claimed her order was justified because the plan to return the children was happening in the "wee hours" of a holiday weekend.
Miller said, "Cleaning up the mess that Biden made was never going to be easy—his dereliction of duty (or purposeful malfeasance) led to millions of illegal aliens flooding our borders. Now the mainstream press and the Democrats cry foul and shriek 'cruelty' at any efforts to rectify the situation, when in reality it was they themselves who created this humanitarian disaster."
It is Boasberg whose antics have prompted accusations that he is a threat to the rule of law.
The DOJ has filed a complaint warning that he is undermining the nation's judiciary.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has explained the complaint over "misconduct" by Boasberg, a federal judge who once wildly ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to turn around airplanes that already were in international airspace to return the illegal alien criminals they were deporting to America, involved his "making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration."
These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary," she confirmed.
A DOJ official confirmed, "Judge Boasberg first tried to persuade Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration would not follow court orders, despite having no basis for his belief. Then he acted on his baseless belief again and again in litigation over which he was presiding. Judge Boasberg violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including the requirement that he 'promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'"
Boasberg has fought the administration's agendas, including that for securing the borders and deporting illegal aliens, especially criminals, for months.
WND has reported it was the Federalist that obtained access to comments Boasberg made at a recent judicial conference undermining the president.
He disparaged the president, even though he's required to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche later described Boasberg as a "threat to the rule of law" for using his own agendas in his court rulings to try to control the decisions of the Executive Branch.
A report at the Washington Examiner said Blanche was responding to Boasberg's comments and said, the judge was in "serious breach of the judicial oath and a threat to the rule of law."
"This memo confirms that at least some federal judges were predisposed against the Trump administration," Blanche wrote. "Every litigant, regardless of politics, is entitled to a fair forum."
The report noted, "Other senior DOJ officials, including Chad Mizelle, called the report 'very troubling' and said it 'perhaps explains the completely lawless order issued by Judge Boasberg (which was unsurprisingly stayed by the D.C. Circuit).'"
The judge's misbehavior was revealed by the Federalist which confirmed investigative reporter and senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland uncovered the fact that Boasberg, based in Washington, D.C., complained to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that his colleagues were "concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
Boasberg is the chief judge in the judicial district and has been at center of a judicial campaign to prevent Trump's agenda to secure the American borders and deport illegal aliens, those who are in the United States illegally, and often have committed subsequent crimes.
Further, Boasberg also was at the center of activism during President Trump's first term when Trump was under attack in the fabricated Russiagate conspiracy theory launched by the Hillary Clinton campaign and others with lies about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Cakes are back on the menu at the Supreme Court, as a Christian baker tries to get out from under a concerted all-of-government attack on her in the state of California.
The high court already previously has ruled on the cakes from Jack Phillips, of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, scolding the state for its "hostility" to Christianity and barring the state from punishing him for rejecting demands he violate his faith by promoting the LGBT ideology with his artistry.
The arguments being made by Cathy Miller, of California, essentially are the same.
A report from Becket, which is representing Miller along with LiMandri & Jonna, and the Thomas More Society, explains Miller has asked the high court to protect her right to create custom-designed wedding cakes that reflect her faith.
The government in the state of California was weaponized against her when she told a same-sex duo that her faith did not allow her to personally promote their ideology by designing their "wedding" cake.
That was almost a decade back.
Since then, multiple agencies, courts and officials have attacked her for harming "the dignity of all Californians" with her beliefs.
Working out of her Bakersfield shop, she meets with each couple for over an hour and explains the religious and symbolic meanings of a wedding cake's components before accepting a commission.
She's developed written standards for her work, such as that she will not design custom bakery items that depict gory or pornographic images, celebrate drug use, or demean others.
Her case developed when she told a same-sex duo she could not work on their cake, but would refer them to another bakery.
Confirming the "tolerance" of the LGBT community, she was "flooded with angry social media posts, death threats, and harassing emails and phone calls," the report confirmed.
Even when a state court holding a trial ruled for her, concluding she served and employed "people of all sexual orientations" and her intent was only to follow her Christian beliefs, the state declined to admit defeat, convincing a leftist appeals court to resume attacking her.
"For eight long years, California has treated Cathy like an enemy – dragging her through court, smearing her name, and trying to force her to violate her faith," said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. "Enough is enough. We're asking the court to put a stop to this bullying campaign and let Cathy design in peace. Justice demands no less."