The Oversight Project government watchdog group says correspondence between then-President Joe Biden's staff and veteran Department of Justice officials indicated potential problems with his use of the autopen to sign pardons, Fox News reported. President Donald Trump's administration is scrutinizing thousands of pardons signed in the final days of Biden's presidency as some wonder if they're now null and void.
Besides the use of the autopen, Biden's pardons were unconventional in how they were structured in granting clemency to categories of criminals. In one of the emails now under review, then-Assistant Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer raised concerns among other staff members about how 2,500 pardons signed by Biden were characterized.
"[T]he White House has described those who received commutations as people convicted of non-violent drug offenses," Weinsheimer said in a January 18 email. "I think you should stop saying that because it is untrue or at least misleading," he added. Some pardons were indeed granted to criminals who should have remained behind bars.
"As you know, even with the exceedingly limited review we were permitted to do of the individuals we believed you might be considering for commutation action, we initially identified 19 that were highly problematic," Weinsheimer continued in his email. Those included Ferrone Cliaborne and Terrence Richardson, who were "sentenced to life imprisonment for drug trafficking offenses during which a police officer was killed." The DOJ had "voluminous" documentation from law enforcment and the victims' families about why they should have been let free.
Kyle Brosnan, vice president at the Oversight Project, noted that the emails between Biden staffers and the Justice Department show that it was worried about "vague" language in the blanket pardons that seemed to be "illegally delegated" to his aides. There was also the problem of exactly which criminals would be pardoned if they were convicted of multiple offenses and which warrants would apply.
"Later in the email, he was like, ‘Look, I read the statement you put out in the president's name, saying you've released a bunch of non-violent drug offenders," Brosnan recounted of Weinsheimer's email. "You've got murderers on your list today. So I'm trying to figure out what the president wants here for this funky warrant.'"
At one point, a Department of Justice official told White House staff to stop with the line about nonviolent offenders "because it was untrue or at least misleading." Meanwhile, Biden admitted that the way he went about the pardons was irregular, as he recalled in July during an interview, which Brosnan cited.
"Mr. Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people, he and aides confirmed. Rather, after extensive discussion of different possible criteria, he signed off on the standards he wanted to be used to determine which convicts would qualify for a reduction in sentence," Brosnan said of Biden's admission.
It was only people like retired Gen. Mark Milley whom aides discussed by name, while the rest were up to White House staffers based on Biden's given criteria. "Biden did not pardon individual people, but laid out categories of types of people to release and left it to the staff to figure out who meets that criteria," Brosnan said, noting that even those lists were signed off on with an autopen.
From what Brosnan and others have uncovered about the process for pardons, it's clear that Biden wasn't picking out individuals to grant clemency to as it is. However, another revelation this week gives more fuel to the fire for those who believe Biden may not have been part of the decision-making process.
Questions about his mental fitness plagued Biden's entire presidency, and now it seems that keeping Biden isolated was part of the plan to hide that fact, if what former White House spokesman Ian Sams has to say is true. Sams, who sat down for an interview with House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, said that he only spoke personally with Biden twice in his two years on the job, the New York Post reported.
“This was a huge interview today, and I think it contradicts everything that the former Biden people are saying with respect to the president’s mental fitness," Comer said. Another White House staffer corroborated Sams's assertion, noting that he mainly got his "marching orders" from communications chief Anita Dunn.
Comer believes this could point to a broader issue. "It raises serious concerns and serious questions about who was calling shots at the White House. If the White House spokesperson was being shielded from the president of the United States, who was operating the Oval Office?" Comer said.
It's likely all of these pardons will stand despite the use of the autopen and the irregularities in how they were meted out. However, it vindicates those who were sounding the alarm about Biden's mental state while in office and hints at a possible conspiracy theory coming true if Biden wasn't the one making the decisions.
A New York City judge denied President Trump's request to unseal grand jury material from the Jeffrey Epstein case, calling the request inappropriate and a distraction.
Richard Berman, a Clinton appointee, essentially accused the administration of trying to pass the buck on the Epstein files.
"The instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct," he wrote.
Berman was set to preside over Epstein's trial for sex trafficking when the financier died in his Manhattan prison cell in August 2019.
Earlier this summer, the Justice Department said it would not release further information in the case, sparking an uproar within Trump's MAGA movement.
The DOJ's memo concluded that Epstein died by suicide and that he did not have blackmail on a secret list of clients - contradicting speculation that has circulated for years about Epstein's powerful connections.
To quiet backlash from the right, the Trump administration started seeking the release of grand jury materials, but the requests have been shot down repeatedly.
The denial from Judge Berman marks the third time that the DOJ's grand jury push has been shut down.
Berman said that the government did not provide sufficient justification for releasing sensitive grand jury material that is normally kept confidential.
The judge said the grand jury evidence could expose victims to harm if released, and the material in the government's possession would be more instructive.
"The Government's 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials dwarf the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials," Berman wrote.
Democrats have made releasing the Epstein files a priority, seizing on the issue to cast suspicion on Trump and his administration. But Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have also demanded transparency, while drawing attention to Epstein's Democratic connections like Bill Clinton.
According to House Oversight chairman James Comer (R-KY), the Justice Department had agreed to begin sharing the Epstein files with Congress on Friday, August 21.
“We’re going to review (them) and we’ll work as quickly as we can. You know, this is sensitive information. We want to make sure we don’t do anything to harm or jeopardize any victims that were involved in this, but we’re going to be transparent. We were doing what we said we would do. We’re getting the documents, and I believe the White House will work with us,” he told reporters Friday on Capitol Hill.
President Trump is continuing to ramp up pressure on the Federal Reserve, ordering one of the central bank's board members, Lisa Cook, to resign over alleged mortgage fraud - but she's refusing to leave.
A prosecutor in Trump's Justice Department, Ed Martin, is looking into the matter after it was flagged by a federal housing regulator.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, "Cook must resign now!"
The mortgage fraud concerns were shared by the director of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, William Pulte, in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The letter alleged that Cook "has falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, potentially committing mortgage fraud under the criminal statutes."
In particular, Pulte said Cook had falsified the “residence statuses for an Ann Arbor, Michigan-based residence and an Atlanta, Georgia-based property.”
Cook, a Biden appointee on the seven-member Fed board, said she is taking the matter seriously, but she will not be pressured into stepping down based on an allegation. Her term ends in 2038.
“I learned from the media that FHFA Director William Pulte posted on social media that he was making a criminal referral based on a mortgage application from four years ago, before I joined the Federal Reserve. I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet," Cook said in a statement.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Trump is looking at firing Cook for cause.
Critics of Trump have accused him of threatening the stability of the financial system by attempting to strip the central bank of its traditional independence, but Trump and his allies have accused the Fed of playing politics with monetary policy.
Trump has threatened to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom Trump has nicknamed "too late" over his failure to lower interest rates despite cooling inflation.
Trump has a rolling shortlist of candidates to replace Powell, who has said more time is needed to tell how Trump's tariffs will impact prices. On the other hand, recent signs of a slowing labor market could convince the Fed that a rate cut is needed to juice the economy.
In a letter to Powell, prosecutor Ed Martin urged him to fire Cook "before it is too late!"
"After all, no American thinks it is appropriate that she serve during this time with a cloud hanging over her," Martin wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A panel of appeals court judges, only a day after being accused publicly of "navel-gazing" for their lengthy delay in giving President Donald Trump relief from what has been confirmed as a politicized and biased "fraud" penalty of half a billion dollars, has canceled that threat.
The Washington Examiner confirmed the five-judge panel of the appellate division in New York threw out the judgment delivered by Arthur Engoron, a judge at the entry court level who has been openly derisive of Trump.
The ruling said his judgment was unconstitutional and violated the U.S. Constitution, which bars excessive fines.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who had campaigned for office on the promise to "get" President Trump, without citing any evidence of wrongdoing, then created "fraud" claims against him. She alleged that he was guilty over the valuation of his properties in connection with various loans.
Testimony during the trial showed that the banks that loaned Trump money were happy with the transactions, that all the loans were repaid in full, they made money from the deals and they would like to do them again.
Despite the evidence, Engoron, without a jury, claimed Trump was guilty and owed in excess of $300 million in penalties. That grew to more than half a billion dollars with interest, a threat Engoron made against the president that now has vanished.
Reports confirmed the ruling is a major loss for James, who ironically now is under investigation herself for fraud.
She's accused of misrepresenting her residences in order to obtain preferential mortgage loan treatments, including once when she allegedly characterized her father as a "spouse" and represented a five-apartment building she owns as having four apartments because that would give her a better interest rate.
"While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment," Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote.
Engoron also had set himself up as the expert on real estate values, insisting that Trump's exotic Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida would be worth about $20 million, when real real estate experts said it would be worth 25 times that.
The remaining injunctive demands from Engoron now can be appealed by Trump to the New York Court of Appeals.
Trump has charged that the case is a political attack by Democrats, like multiple other lawfare cases he faced, from Democrat prosecutors, in recent years, including wild claims he was engaged in an organized crime operation in Florida. Those other lawfare cases now have gone away.
WND had reported only a day earlier that the appeals court was under fire.
They apparently had become "lost in navel-gazing," instead of delivering justice, according to new charges from constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.
Legal commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano at the time Engoron delivered his ruling said that the judge's agenda no more or less than "government theft."
He said the case involved no crime or harm.
Engoron openly was antagonistic to Trump during the trial, and he claimed that Trump committed fraud in the way he valued his billions of dollars in property.
Napolitano said Engoron's decisions violated all the ordinary rules of American jurisprudence.
He found, "The government created a phantom harm by arguing to the court that Mr. Trump's corporation was not fully accurate in its loan applications and thus was charged a lower interest rate on the loans than it should have been charged had it been accurate, and thus, it earned more income on its use of the money it borrowed than would have been the case had it scrupulously reported the value of its pledged assets. And thus — somehow — the government ought to be able to confiscate the excess income plus interest. This, of course, defies the principles of no damages without breach of a duty and no damages without caused harm, which have been the bedrock of American tort law. It also redefines fraud."
Engoron's rulings essentially ignored what should have been a deciding factor in the case, that the banks involved "did their own due diligence on the value of the assets."
"The government won't say how it was harmed by Mr. Trump's commercial loans because it wasn't harmed by them. The government lawyers made a fanciful argument to the effect that if Mr. Trump had borrowed less because the buildings pledged as security were worth less than he claimed, the banks would have had more reserves available to lend to others. That is nonsense," Napolitano said.
Now Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and popular commentator for multiple forums, cited a report from the Wall Street Journal that the appellate judges hearing the case have let it drop into "some judicial black hole."
"This should not be a close case and certainly should not take this long. The case against Trump was raw lawfare, and the entire trial by Justice Arthur Engoron made a mockery of the court system, particularly his ridiculous half-a-billion-dollar judgment," he explained.
"Yet, weeks turned into months and then into years as the appellate court seemed lost in navel-gazing. There was also a concern over passive-aggressive delays; the long appeal is not only preventing Trump from moving this case toward the Supreme Court but keeps him trapped in an appellate amber."
Turley had warned, "It is distressing to hear that some of these judges may be striving to preserve this nonsensical opinion where Trump was hit with half a billion dollars in a case where no one lost money and the banks wanted renewed business with his company. Affirming the decision would be the final nail in the coffin for the New York legal system, which was turned into a farce by New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Engoron."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was only minutes after a panel of judges on a New York appeals court ruled that Attorney General Letitia James and Arthur Engoron, a trial court judge, violated the U.S. Constitution by trying to penalize President Donald Trump with a $500 million penalty that he responded on social media:
"A GREAT WIN FOR AMERICA!" he said.
But he wasn't done:
TOTAL VICTORY in the FAKE New York State Attorney General Letitia James Case! I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State. Others were afraid to do business there. The amount, including Interest and Penalties, was over $550 Million Dollars. It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before. This was a Case of Election Interference by the City and State trying to show, illegally, that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely CORRECT and, even, PERFECT.
ADVERTISEMENTEvery single Dollar was thrown out, even the penalties imposed on us by the Corrupt Judge, one of the most overturned in History, Arthur Engoron. I wasn't given a Jury and, during the course of the Trial, which lasted a long time, was not given one Ruling in my favor by this Political Hack, but worse than him, if that's possible, was Letitia James, a Corrupt and Incompetent Attorney General who only brought this Case in order to hurt me politically. She is a Trump Deranged Lunatic!
They made me bond the outrageous sum, which never happened before, and which cost me Millions of Dollars a month. It should have never been allowed to happen, and everyone knew it! Importantly, the Vote was 5 to 0. I am so honored by Justice David Friedman's great words of wisdom, which should be read by everyone. I would also like to thank the Court for having the Courage to make this Decision, which is already going down as one of the worst business persecutions in the History of our Country.
Sadly, there are other Cases against me that are equally disgraceful, including those headed up by Corrupt Judges, like Juan Merchan, whose daughter collected Millions of Dollars in Fees from Crooked Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, while her father shockingly REFUSED TO RECUSE himself from a vicious and corrupt trial, which is also under Appeal, one in which every Legal Pundit in New York said, "THERE WAS NO CASE!" — Even Editorial Boards said, "DO NOT DO THIS!"
Judge Merchan gave me an unprecedented Gag Order, not letting me talk about him or his daughter, or the fact that the Appellate Judges thought he should not be doing the Case, but he did it anyway. Many Lawyers said that his daughter and him created the Greatest Conflict of Interest they had ever seen. Judge Lewis Kaplan, the other remaining Case, whose wife, family, and friends attended his two trials, is as mean and nasty as anyone I have ever met. That Case, also on Appeal, should also never have been brought, and he should be admonished for Abuse, and every other thing that can be thrown at a Corrupt Judge. He loved the publicity, and would not let us present the irrefutable evidence that we wanted to present. This Clinton appointed Judge should not be allowed to get away with this SCAM…."
He added, "These were all Political Trials in an effort to destroy my viability as a Presidential Candidate before, during, and after the Election. They were strongly coordinated with the Biden/Harris Campaign, and will go down in History as among the most Corrupt Cases ever brought. These two Cases are even more ridiculous than the Corrupt Letitia James Case, and will be found out to be so in the very near future. All of these Judges should be ashamed of themselves for allowing them to happen. They are Political Hacks who did everything possible to hurt me as a Candidate. This was an attack by the Biden/Harris Administration on their Political Opponent, ME. It is such an Honor to have withstood it, thrived, and even become President of the United States despite the horrible things that were done to me. I'd like to thank and congratulate my son Eric Trump, and all of the many people in the Trump Organization, that fought so strongly for Justice. My Legal Team refused to give up against heavy odds. This is a Great Day for New York City and State!"
The decision said the penalty violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on excessive fines. The remaining injunctive comments by the judge now can appealed further by Trump.
James had campaigned for office on the promise to "get" President Trump, without citing any evidence of wrongdoing, then fabricated "fraud" claims against him. She alleged that he was guilty over the valuation of his properties in connection with various loans.
Testimony during the trial showed that the banks that loaned Trump money were happy with the transactions, that all the loans were repaid in full, they made money from the deals and they would like to do them again.
Despite the evidence, Engoron, without a jury, wildly claimed Trump was guilty and owned in excess of $300 million in penalties. That grew to more than half a billion with interested, a threat Engoron made against the president that now has vanished.
Reports confirmed the ruling is a major loss for James, who ironically now is under investigation herself for fraud.
She's accused of misrepresenting her residents in order to obtain preferential mortgage loan treatments, including once when she allegedly characterized her father as a "spouse" and represented a five-apartment building she owns as having four apartments because that would give her a better interest rate.
Trump has charged that the case is a political attack by Democrats, like multiple other lawfare cases he faced, from Democrat prosecutors, in recent years, including wild claims he was engaged in an organized crime operation in Florida. Those other lawfare cases now have gone away.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump on Thursday renewed his call for freedom for "Patriot" Tina Peters, a former Colorado county elections official jailed by the leftists in the state on their charges of election interference.
She was indicted, convicted, and jailed for allegedly releasing one inactive password to an elections system several years ago.
However, the Democrat government there handed a free pass to Jena Griswold, the Democrat secretary of state in the one-party government after she oversaw her office's publication online of hundreds of current passwords.
Griswold earned the backing of the Democrat political machine in her failed attempt to remove President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, a move that was approved by her own all-Democrat state Supreme Court but reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continuing the "torture" of Peters will bring bad things to Colorado, Trump promised.
"FREE TINA PETERS, a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians, including the big Mail-In Ballot supporting the governor of the State. Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW. She did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election. She is an old woman, and very sick. If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!"
While Peters was convicted under state law, and Trump cannot pardon her in that case, the president does have the power, through the executive branch control of the federal government's grants, allocations of federal resources and much more, to make her jailors uncomfortable.
The Gateway Pundit noted she was sentenced to nine years in prison last October after she was accused of breaching the Mesa County election systems and leaking Dominion voting machine passwords.
The report said, "But Peters contends that her office had the Dominion machine passwords, which is what Maricopa County successfully argued when they were subpoenaed for Dominion passwords during the Arizona Election audit in 2021."
During her sentencing, Matthew Barrett, the judge handling her state case, attacked her political speech, and denied her bond.
Peters' legal team has appealed her case to federal court, challenging the First Amendment violations and asking them to decide whether Tina Peters is being unlawfully imprisoned for her political speech.
Trump recently has added to his agenda of making America great again the discontinuation of "Highly Inaccurate, Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper."
The Post Millennial reported what Peters actually was accused of was providing someone with a security pass to review her county's elections system after she developed suspicions about the veracity of the voting system's conclusions.
Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser, another activist Democrat, has asked the judge to dismiss Peters' petition to be released on bond pending the appeals process. Weiser, while claiming "No one is above the law," also has been completely inactive regarding any charges against Griswold for her involvement in released passwords.
KREX television in Colorado said Trump already demanded Peters' release in May, writing, "Tina is an innocent Political Prisoner being horribly and unjustly punished in the form of Cruel and Unusual Punishment."
The Department of Justice already has warned Colorado it is examining its prosecution, because there are "reasonable concerns" with the state's attack on Peters.
WND previously reported that Peters "was a conservative in the far-left state, where the all-Democrat state Supreme Court partisanly tried to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Where virtually all of the top state leaders in the governor's office and legislature are virulently anti-Trump."
Further, it's where "leftists in population centers like Denver and Boulder openly advocate for Americans' rights to be violated in order to protect illegal alien criminals. Where abortion was made a state constitutional "right" and the state constitution's protection for voters against massive overtaxing plans routinely is undermined. For example, Democrat lawmakers, faced with constitutional limits on raising 'taxes,' routinely hike them anyway and then simply call them 'fees.' For example, state residents who license vehicles and pay taxes have to pay a 'fee' for roads and bridges. Visitors to the state using the same roads and bridges don't pay that 'fee.'"
Complete Colorado noted at the time there are multiple "missteps" by Griswold that now could come under review.
Colorado Republican Party Chairwoman Brita Horn said, "Our secretary of state gaslights voters with her 'Gold Standard' narrative while she oversees leaked passwords. She has no one to blame but herself and her irresponsible team for the investigation. We need the truth about what happens in her department, and in our elections."
Previously, Griswold earned infamy among elections officials by sending postcards to some 30,000 non-residents, telling them how to register to vote.
In what may end up being related, Judicial Watch said Griswold's office gave out incorrect numbers for those removed from the state's registration lists due to address changes. The watchdog organization wanted its lawsuit over the dispute reopened because of the wrong numbers, but a leftist judge in the left-leaning federal court system in Colorado refused permission.
Even earlier, Trump pointed out, "Radical Left Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser ignores illegals committing Violent Crimes like Rape and Murder in his State and, instead, jailed Tina Peters, a 69-year-old Gold Star mother who worked to expose and document Democrat Election Fraud. Tina is an innocent Political Prisoner being horribly and unjustly punished in the form of Cruel and Unusual Punishment. This is a Communist persecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020. The same Democrat Party that flies to El Salvador to try to free an MS-13 Terrorist, is cruelly imprisoning, perhaps for life, a grandmother whose brave and heroic son gave his life for America. Colorado must end this unjust incarceration of an innocent American. I am hereby directing the Department of Justice to take all necessary action to help secure the release of this 'hostage' being held in a Colorado prison by the Democrats, for political reasons. FREE TINA PETERS, NOW!"
Twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton could be in jeopardy of losing her license to practice law after an ethics complaint was filed against her in Arkansas, Fox News reported. The organization Democracy Restored is going after the former Secretary of State because of her role in perpetuating the Russiagate scandal against President Donald Trump.
The complaint published on Wednesday asks the Arkansas Bar Association to make a "formal review of the conduct of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Esq., a licensed attorney in the State of Arkansas, in connection with her actions during the 2016 presidential campaign." The filing cites the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and asserts she violated the rules against "Dishonesty" and "Prejudice to the Administration of Justice."
This comes after the Senate Judiciary Committee released recently declassified documents from the Durham report outlining her role in the fake scandal cooked up against Trump during his first run for president. A since-debunked dossier that turned out to be linked to the Clinton campaign suggested that Trump was colluding with the Kremlin to win the 2016 presidential election.
The Trump administration continues to dig into the origins of this scheme that seems to have Clinton's fingerprints all over it. On Tuesday, the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard removed security clearances from 37 intelligence officials involved in the scheme against Trump, including former and current intelligence agents.
The government watchdog group is seeking to revoke Clinton's law license following what it believes to be blatant misconduct on her part. "Within this release, there is an annex, which suggests that Clinton approved a plan created by one of her advisors to release false information with the purpose ‘to smear’ her political opponent during a presidential campaign and distract from the news surrounding her own legal accusations," the filing said.
"This revelation demands an already overdue inquiry into Clinton’s fitness as a member of the Arkansas Bar," the complaint added. What began as Clinton's "opposition research" from April 2016 was "unverified" and "unvetted" but still treated as serious allegations by the intelligence community.
The complaint maintains that the purpose of this false information was "to injure her political opponent" and that Clinton "personally signed off on an effort to amplify this bad intelligence to the media and federal law enforcement." Democracy Restored believes that this is reason enough to initiate action against Clinton.
"If there is one political scandal synonymous with the 2016 election, it is Operation Crossfire Hurricane," one of the organization's directors told Fox News in a statement. "Former Secretary Clinton's utilization of a bunk dossier by a foreign ex-spy to harm a political opponent violates basic ethical norms as well as the Arkansas bar's own rules of conduct for attorneys," the representative added.
"The Arkansas bar needs to take a serious look at former Secretary Clinton's involvement in this scandal and take appropriate action." Though no criminal complaint has been filed against Clinton, Democracy Restored asserts that there is evidence she was involved in "a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."
Even if Clinton was responsible for the investigation, as the organization is charging, it's clear that she would not have been able to do anything about it without the involvement of the intelligence community. Last month, Gabbard found that outgoing President Barack Obama and his intelligence officials created the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment "that they knew was false, promoting the contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, as though it were true," Gabbard said.
"The documents we released shows how they did it: manufacturing findings from shoddy sources, suppressing evidence that disproved their false claims, disobeying IC tradecraft standards, and withholding the truth from the American people. In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people and worked with their partners in the media to promote this lie to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump," Gabbard charged.
"This kicked off what would essentially be a years-long coup against President Trump, which included federal investigations, two impeachments, FBI raids on his home, arrests of senior officials, smears and harassment of President Trump and his family, and more. The American people deserve the truth, accountability, and justice," the DNI chief charged.
"The integrity, and therefore the future of our democratic republic demands it," Gabbard added. She would later strip the involved intelligence officials of their clearances, but it's difficult to imagine that such an egregious abuse of power was contained to just a few dozen people.
If Clinton was behind the Russia collusion hoax that nearly derailed Trump's first presidential term, she should be worried about losing more than just her license to practice law. Nevertheless, it is a good place to start as the dominoes fall in this outrageous scandal.
One of President Trump's most notorious foes, Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) is starting a legal defense fund in response to mounting pressure from the Trump administration.
"It's clear that Donald Trump and his MAGA allies will continue weaponizing the justice process to attack Senator Schiff for holding this corrupt administration accountable," said the senator's spokeswoman Marisol Samayoa. "This fund will ensure he can fight back against these baseless smears while continuing to do his job."
Schiff has long embraced the role of Trump enemy, going back to the president's first term, when Schiff rose to prominence by smearing Trump repeatedly as a Russian asset.
Indeed, Schiff has been at the center of just about every anti-Trump spectacle: in addition to the Russian collusion hoax, Schiff played a key part in Trump's first impeachment and also sat on the January 6th committee, which accused Trump of "insurrection" over a protest at the U.S. Capitol.
After years of anti-Trump activism, Schiff was elected to the U.S. Senate last year in Democrat-run California.
Trump's return to power has turned the tables, with Schiff now facing a federal investigation for mortgage fraud, as well as renewed scrutiny over his role in the Russiagate saga.
A whistleblower complaint recently made public by FBI director Kash Patel alleges that Schiff, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, selectively leaked classified information - a serious crime - to dirty up Trump and discredit his shocking 2016 victory against Hillary Clinton.
Schiff insists the claims are a smear from a disgruntled employee who was fired by the committee. The whistleblower said they were fired for not going along with Schiff's scheme.
The White House called Schiff a "fraud" and "corrupt politician" when asked about his legal fund by Fox News Digital.
"Adam Schiff is a sleazy and corrupt politician who betrayed his oath to the Constitution by prioritizing his selfish and personal animosity toward the President over the interests of the American people. No amount of money can shield Adam from the truth that he is a fraud," White House spokesman Harrison Fields told Fox News Digital.
In remarks last week at the Kennedy Center, Trump urged his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to hold Schiff and other Democrats accountable for the Russia hoax.
"I'm looking at Pam because I hope something's going to be done about it," Trump said.
"These people put our country at great danger. And Adam Schiff, it was all made up. It was a hoax."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A legal analysis of the political agenda adopted by James Boasberg, the anti-Trump judge working in the courts system in Washington, D.C., reveals how he abandoned his role as a "judge" and made himself "like a foreign diplomat" by "attempting to influence how the Trump administration conducted foreign affairs."
That's according to an appeals court judge whose comments were cited by Thomas Jipping, senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, and John Osorio, a research associate, online.
The fight is over President Donald Trump's agenda to secure American borders and remove illegal alien criminals invited in by the open borders policies of Joe Biden during his years in the White House.
Boasberg has fought Trump's agenda, even to the point of trying to enforce his own order that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned.
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.
The analysis notes Trump is backed by the Constitution, which gives him authority over matters involving international relations, the Alien Enemies Act that allows the president to apprehend and remove the natives, citizens, or subjects of a hostile foreign government if that government attempts or threatens an 'invasion or predatory incursion' against the U.S. and the Immigration and Nationality Act that lets the secretary of state designate as Foreign Terrorist Organizations groups that engage in terrorist activity and threaten the safety of Americans or the United States.
The drama developed over recent months as State designated eight transnational gangs and cartels FTOs, including Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang, Trump then cited the AEA and TdA's links to the "narco-terrorism" of regime chief Nicolas Maduro.
The administration took into custody dozens of TdA agents, with deportation plans to El Salvador.
Their lawyers went to Boasberg and called for him to protect their criminal clients.
On that day, "between 5:25 and 5:45 p.m., two flights with a total of 137 suspected TdA members left Texas, bound first for Honduras and then El Salvador. At 7:25 p.m., Boasberg certified a class of all individuals covered by the proclamation and issued a TRO prohibiting the government from 'removing' them for 14 days. On Mar. 28, he extended that order for another 14 days," the analysis said.
The Supreme Court then vacated both of his orders, prompting Boasberg to launch contempt proceedings against the government because he claimed "removing" meant turning over custody to another government, which actually happened after his order and the planes landed.
"Boasberg's shocking ultimatum to the executive branch was this: Return the deportees to U.S. soil or identify the officials who ordered the deportation so they could be prosecuted. He set a hard deadline of Apr. 23," the analysis confirmed.
"But wait—hadn't the Supreme Court already vacate Boasberg's TRO? How can someone disobey an order that, in effect, Boasberg had no authority to issue?"
Soon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was ruling.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao sided with the government.
Rao took the high road, to Boasberg's low, warning he was intruding "upon the powers committed to the Executive Branch."
"This case is highly unusual, and I have found no other like it, perhaps because no district court has threatened criminal contempt against Executive Branch officials as a backdoor to coercing compliance with an order that has been vacated by the Supreme Court," she said.
Boasberg's politics, she wrote, were "untenable" and described his order "coercive."
WorldNetDaily has reported on Trump's criticism of Boasberg.
On social media, he said, "People are shocked by what is going on with the Court System."
"I was elected for many reasons, but a principal one was LAW AND ORDER, a big part of which is QUICKLY removing a vast Criminal Network of individuals, who came into our Country through the Crooked Joe Biden Open Borders Policy!
"These are dangerous and violent people, who kill, maim and, in many other ways, harm the people of our Country. The Voters want them OUT, and said so in Record Numbers.
"If it was up to District Judge Boasberg and other Radical Left Judges, nobody would be removed, the President wouldn't be allowed to do his job, and people's lives would be devastated all throughout our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
He's also called for Boasberg's impeachment.
Trump also reposted a message by Mike Davis, the former chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and founder and president of the Article III Project, which defends constitutionalist judges and the rule of law.
Davis urged Trump: "Please revoke Judge Boasberg's security clearance. He has demonstrated he cannot be trusted with keeping secrets."
Davis also noted:
Here is the fatal flaw with DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg's order:
Even if these designated foreign terrorists are entitled to individual court review before their deportation, which is disputed, the DC court is not the proper court.
Judge Boasberg did not, and does not, have the power to do what he is purporting to do. For this reason alone, everything he is doing is lawless. But it is much worse; it is also dangerous.
Judge Boasberg ran to his courtroom to hold a Saturday hearing, even though he was not even serving as the emergency judge that weekend. (How did he get this case?) He publicly exposed an ongoing U.S. military, intelligence, and law-enforcement operation with an American ally dealing with the most vicious terrorists (Tren de Aragua) and international gang member (MS13) in the Western Hemisphere.
That public exposure put American and allied lives in grave danger.
Stunningly, Judge Boasberg even ordered the President to turn around planes full of terrorists over the Gulf of America, without knowing the fuel levels, the security footprint back in America, or other crucial operational details.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained the complaint over "misconduct" by Boasberg 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.'"
The Washington Examiner said the official complaint, for "misconduct," against Boasberg charged him with those "improper public comments" about the administration.
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.
Boasberg also was part and parcel of the Russiagate conspiracy theory, advancing permissions for the Barack Obama regime to spy on political opponents.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A law firm in Des Moines, Iowa, is being accused of trying, on behalf of teacher Erin Slifer, to intimidate a student's mother who objected to "controversial curricula and instructional materials" introduced by the teacher at Belmond-Klemme Community School.
The legal team at BolesWitoskyStewart Law had written to parent Elayne Casalins threatening her for her comments to the school board about "a matter of public concern namely controversial curricula and instructional materials" at the school attended by her 12-year-old son.
The threats came in a "cease-and-desist" letter in which Slifer's lawyers refused even it identify what they claimed was defamatory about their client.
"On behalf of Mrs. Casalins, we reject the legal arguments and demands in your letter, and we see it as little more than an attempt to intimidate Mrs. Casalins into giving up her First Amendment rights to speak and to petition her local school board regarding a matter of public concern," explained a letter from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.
Further, "By choosing controversial curricula and instructional materials for public school students and not giving notice to parents so that they might opt their children out of the controversial curricula, Ms. Slifer injected herself into a public controversy. As pointed out above, both the Iowa Legislature and the Belmond-Klemme School Board have acknowledged that this is a controversial topic and the school board held a public meeting under a published school board policy to discuss it. By choosing controversial curricula and instructional materials in a system that makes such a decision a matter of public concern, Ms. Slifer became a limited purpose public figure. Thus, the doctrine of defamation per se does not apply as a matter of law."
WILL explained Casalins first addressed her concerns about offending material with the teacher, then the school principal, then the superintendent.
"She went to the school board because no action was taken after she explained her concerns to the teacher, principal, and superintendent. She then spoke at a June 19, 2025, Belmond-Klemme Community School Board meeting to make objections to the instructional materials used in her son's classroom and the lack of notice she was given as a parent," WILL reported.
She documented a teacher made the students watch the PG-13 movie "Till" without any parental notice or consent — even though many students, including her son, were only 12 years old. She further reported that there was a discussion of Black Lives Matter, racism, and police brutality all without parental notification or consent, WILL reported.
Her concerns were the possible violations of state law in the use of the curricula, that she was denied her right, protected by state law, to object, and more.
The teacher then contacted the law firm and it sent the mom a letter with the threats, demanding she not participate in any "public discussion regarding this matter of public concern."
"Mrs. Casalins had and continues to have a First Amendment right, and the right under Iowa law, to speak on this critical subject and to petition her government (the school board) for relief. We think it is crucial for parents to be free to direct their children's upbringing and education and not be prevented from doing so by threats of a claim for defamation," said Cory Brewer, WILL lawyer.
Casalins said, "As a new American citizen, I have constitutional rights that make this nation the envy of the world. There is no better place to live your life and raise a family, and we moved to Iowa to live in a state that upholds these fundamental American values. I was shocked to receive such a threatening letter from a law firm representing a public employee, my son's teacher. But I will continue to tell my story and speak out for my son and the rights of parents across the country."
WILL also pointed out that the teacher's lawyers declined to "set forth the words spoken by Mrs. Casalins at that meeting that you allege were false and constituted defamation per se."
"There was nothing in her presentation that was defamatory towards anyone, much less defamatory per se with respect to Ms. Slifer," WILL informed the lawyers.
Further, WILL pointed out that in one of the cases cited by the teacher's lawyers as precedent for their threats, the plaintiff who complained about someone else's statements actually lost the case.
"Mrs. Casalins had and has a First Amendment right to speak on this subject and to petition her government (the school board) for relief. Ms. Slifer may not lawfully interfere with those rights through your letter," WILL stated.