This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court decision has delivered to President Donald Trump permission to move forward with layoffs at Sen. Elizabeth Warren's pet bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Board.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, through a three-judge panel, overturned a lower court's block of Trump's plan to dismantle the agency, and mass layoffs are expected to resume.
The decision was based on the fact the employee unions and groups that use the CFPB services don't have a right to bring their challenge in federal court. Instead, it is the .Merit Systems Protection Board that should be hearing the concerns.
"If the plaintiffs' theory were viable, it would become the task of the judiciary, rather than the Executive Branch, to determine what resources an agency needs to perform its broad statutory functions," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas in the majority opinion, which was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao.
The decision lifts a block that for months has prevented the planned layoffs affecting about 80% of its force.
The Hill reported Cornelia Pillard was the lone dissent.
The report explained how the bureaucracy was a target of the Department of Government Efficiency when it was being led by former White House aide Elon Musk.
It was created in 2008 as a result of that year's financial crisis and Trump tapped Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought to be acting director, where he immediately started the dismantling.
"The CFPB is now free to right-size itself in accordance with the law to best serve the American people," Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the ruling.
It had been Amy Berman, a judge whose agenda often is in conflict with the president, who originally had demanded that the firings be halted, and fired workers be reinstated. She also took over the agency to the extent that she was deciding what contracts would be pursued.
Employee unions had gone to court to fight the president's agenda to save American taxpayers money.
Trump's plan involves removing about 1,400 staffers from the agency, leaving 200 behind.
Katsas said, "We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment, which must proceed through the specialized-review scheme established in the Civil Service Reform Act."
The CFPB is an independent agency uniquely funded by transfers of cash from the Federal Reserve System.
It has worked to regulate consumer financial products and services.
However, critics have charged that it oversteps its authority.
Trump's lawyers have explained 200 staff members are all that are needed for the agency to handle its duties.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
DEI practices at U.S. schools and universities, while "diversity, equity and inclusion" may sound altruistic, almost invariably include indoctrinating students with racist and sexist ideologies, for example, blaming all whites for slavery that ended in America centuries ago.
That particular concept has resulted in the extraordinary demands by some DEI activists that whites today, who never were slave owners, pay billions of dollars in "reparations" to blacks today, who never were slaves.
That ideology also has advocated for what essentially are quotas, meaning hiring has been based on race, or sex, or orientation, rather than qualifications or abilities.
But now a federal judge says President Donald Trump's plan to eliminate those racist and sexist lessons from classrooms can't go forward.
The recent ruling from Stephanie Gallagher, a federal judge hearing a case by the activists at National Endowment for Democracy, likely will be appealed, as judges in the entry level courts to the federal judiciary often have ruled against Trump's plans to Make America Great Again, and have ended up being reversed.
Gallagher wrote, about two Department of Education memos telling schools to rid themselves of the discriminatory lessons, "It initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished."
Trump's promises to make the nation better have included removing those how-to teachings in discrimination. His plan for schools was to tell them to clean up their act, or lose federal funding.
Gallagher's claim is that the Department of Education acted unlawfully when it threatened to withhold federal funding from institutions that continued DEI schemes.
Gallagher, curiously, also is a defendant in a separate lawsuit brought by the Trump administration against all federal judges in Maryland over an order automatically blocking the immediate deportation of migrants who are challenging their removals.
Despite her clear conflict of interest, in being sued by one of the parties in a case before her, she didn't recuse herself.
It was the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association who sued over the crackdown on biased DEI teachings.
The focal point in the fight are two department memos telling schools to end all "race-based decision-making" or risk losing federal funding.
The AP said the Trump measures "had been on hold since April" because of various court rulings.
Gallagher's ruling also noted she was making no finding on the policies themselves, whether they are "good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair," but that they ran into trouble because of procedural requirements.
The Department of Education said, "judicial action enjoining or setting aside this guidance has not stopped our ability to enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level."
The guidance had been based on the 2023 Supreme Court decision barring colleges from considering race in admissions decisions.
"Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon 'systemic and structural racism' and advanced discriminatory policies and practices," explained Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of the department's Office for Civil Rights.
The goal of the guidance had been for schools to dismantle DEI offices and programming, end race-based hiring and admissions, halt racially segregated graduation and scholarships and more.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has backed off a plan to replace the police chief in Washington, D.C., after city leaders went to a Joe Biden-appointed federal judge to block the effort.
The reversal came hours after Terry Cole, a 22-year veteran of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), was named "emergency police commissioner," escalating Trump's crime crackdown in the nation's capital.
A directive from Bondi said that Cole would take on the "powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police," and the Metropolitan Police Department was directed to "receive approval from Commissioner Cole."
The move was swiftly challenged by city leaders, who called it an illegal overreach under the Home Rule Act, which grants D.C. a degree of autonomy.
“By illegally declaring a takeover of MPD, the Administration is abusing its temporary, limited authority under the law,” D.C. attorney general Brian Schwalb (D) said on social media Friday. “This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it.”
At a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, signaled she would rule in the city's favor unless the Justice Department curtailed the scope of the order.
“In the interim, Mr. Cole is not going to be able to direct police department individuals to do anything,” Reyes said. “He’s going to have to go through the mayor.”
After Friday's hearing, the Justice Department said it would designate Cole as the DOJ's liaison for "requesting services" from the police.
To fight crime, Trump has federalized D.C.'s Metropolitan Police, and 800 National Guard troops have been deployed to patrol the streets. Cole, the current DEA director, has echoed Trump's point that violent youths are being coddled.
“It is frustrating for law enforcement because they are encountering these same violent youth criminal offenders, numerous occasions, with handguns. But this is something we cannot turn a blind eye to,” he told Fox News in an interview Tuesday.
Democrats have vehemently insisted crime is in stark decline and that Trump is creating a pretext for an "authoritarian" push.
But even some Trump critics concede that D.C. has a real problem with crime - and the police department has been accused of fudging the numbers to make crime seem less severe than it is.
The current chief, Pamela Smith, joined the Metropolitan Police as a DEI officer before getting promoted to the top job.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
First Lady Melania Trump has put Hunter Biden, the ne'er-do-well black sheep of the Biden family business schemes, famous for his taking a million dollars allegedly to try to influence his father on behalf of a Ukrainian company, his documented encounters with prostitutes, his drug career and his "art" projects with the sky-high prices, on notice for "defamatory" claims he made about her.
A report at Fox News states her litigation counsel, Alejandro Brito, has sent Biden and his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, a letter threatening a $1 billion lawsuit because of his statements, described as "false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory."
The letter demands an immediate retraction of the statements from Biden, in a video interview that was posted to Youtube days ago.
"Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer," Brito wrote.
Among Biden's claims:
"Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are, like, so wide and deep."
And "Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania, and that's how Melania and the first lady and the President met."
"These false, disparaging, defamatory, and inflammatory statements are extremely salacious and have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums," Brito wrote. "Indeed, the video has since been re-published by various media outlets, journalists, and political commentators with millions of social media followers that have disseminated the false and defamatory statements therein to tens of millions of people worldwide.
"Consequently, you have caused Mrs. Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm."
Biden, in a profanity-laced interview, later responded to the legal demand with, "F— that. That's not gonna happen."
Biden claimed his "source" for the false statements was "serial fabulist Michael Wolff," the report said.
Wolff's claims were published by the Daily Beast, which immediately took down its article and apologized to Melania Trump when confronted about them.
Brito also warned Biden not to "destroy, conceal, or alter any paper or electronic files, physical evidence" or other records relating to the false claims."
Fox reported, "The letter comes after the Daily Beast pulled the article detailing allegations by journalist Wolff that Melania Trump was introduced to her husband Donald Trump via a modeling agent connected to Epstein, after a challenge from the first lady's lawyers."
The Daily Beast even modified its story URL, so that it now reads: "thedailybeast.com/epstein-this-story-has-been-removed."
Veteran Democrat operative James Carville also made similar statements, and publicly apologized, stating, "In last week's podcast episode, we spoke with Judd Legum. After the episode, we received a letter from Melania Trump's lawyer. He took issue with our title of one of those YouTube videos from that episode and a couple of comments I made about the first lady. We took a look at what they complained about, and we took down the video and edited out those comments from the episode. I also take back these statements and apologize."
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley noted the letter charges Biden with defamation per se.
"The common law has long recognized per se categories of defamation where damages are presumed and special damages need not be proven. These include: (1) disparaging a person's professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person's business or professional reputation."
He continued, "The notice letter is ironic given Hunter Biden's scorched Earth strategy of threatening lawsuits, including defamation, against critics. It did not work. Indeed, Biden abandoned lawsuits after his pardon by his father."
And he explained, "Hunter Biden is reportedly facing financial challenges and the threat of a lawsuit cannot be welcomed news. Biden has been engaging in unhinged, profane diatribes attacking both Democrats and Republicans. The thrill of trash-talking will likely end if Hunter finds himself yet again in court."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Anthony Fauci, long a highly paid government employee charged with medical decisions who advised Joe Biden on the COVID-19 pandemic disaster that is thought to have come out of a virus lab in Wuhan, China, that was working on making diseases worse through "gain-of-function" projects, now is under investigation.
And authorities are trying to document the connection between government funding for the EcoHealth Alliance, and its subsequent funding of gain-of-function work at Wuhan, and the evidence that COVID came out of the Wuhan work.
And then analyze Fauci's statements to Congress that the U.S. never funded any of that type of work.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in an interview, said the work is focusing on gain-of-function research, at Wuhan, and if and how it was U.S.-funded.
"We are working on that," Gabbard said, in a transcript by the Independent Sentinel.
The report said, "Dr. Anthony Fauci used tax dollars to indirectly fund the Wuhan lab's gain of function research. He is under investigation for perjury, for lying about it. The evidence is smoking gun level. However, he was pardoned by Joe Biden Autopen as Joe was going out the White House door. But there is some question if that is legal."
Gabbard was asked: "Let me ask you specifically, because we already know that Eco-Health Alliance was partnering with this Wuhan lab to create, to do a gain and function reset, right? We just have never been able to have somebody say. And it was that exact experiment that led to this covid bug, but have we gotten there? What's the new thing that you're digging in on?"
She answered, "We are, we are working on that with Jay Bhattacharya, and look forward to being able to share that hopefully very soon."
Interviewer Megyn Kelly said, "OK, that specific link between the gain of function research and what we saw with covid-19. I mean, that would be extraordinary. Because just so the audience knows if that's true, if it was Peter Daszak's research with the Wuhan so called bat lady, that caused this pandemic, then we did fund it. Then Anthony Fauci helped fund the pandemic."
"Things that he denied over and over and over to Senator Rand Paul's questioning. That's right, under oath. It under oath, exactly so it is, is it any wonder that he sought a preemptive pardon for anything during a certain period of time by President Biden before he left office," Gabbard said.
Gabbard warned it's not just the past, but such gain-of-function work continues to bio labs all over.
"Who knows what kinds of pathogens are in these labs, and if released could create another COVID-like pandemic. And for that, I was called a Russian asset. You're, you know, trumpeting Putin's talking points, all of this nonsense, simply for speaking the truth and stating facts that, by the way, are still on U.S. Embassy Ukraine's website today, about how the U.S. has funded these bio labs in Ukraine."
Gabbard said, "But in order, to my point, in order to prevent another covid-like pandemic, or another major health incident that could affect us in the world, we have to end this gain of function research and provide the evidence that shows exactly why and how it's in our best interest, the American people's best interest, to bring about an end to it."
Fauci, at the height of the COVID pandemic, boasted, in a warning to those who had differing opinions, that if they were arguing with him, they were arguing with "the science."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge in Baltimore decided, effectively, to overrule a jury's verdict of guilty for a man who brutally attacked and permanently injured two senior citizens advocating for life, and gave him a pass to go home as his trial ended.
That's despite the fact that Patrick Brice, a "pro-abortion zealot," was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree assault and two counts of reckless endangerment, and the possible sentence ranged up to 10 years in prison.
After all, he was on video, without provocation, slamming Richard Schaefer, 84 at the time of the attack, into a concrete planter, knocking him to the sidewalk unconscious, suffering cuts, bruises and head trauma, and then attacking Mark Crosby, 73 at the time, who rushed to help Schaefer.
Brice turned on him, punching him in the face, knocking him to the ground and kicking him in the head.
Both men suffered grave injuries, with Crosby sustaining facial fractures, broken fingers, head and neck injuries and permanent vision loss in one eye.
According to the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Schaefer, the assaults were "a calculated act of violence by a younger man against two elderly citizens exercising their constitutional rights."
So charges were brought and the jury convicted.
Then, however, Yvette M. Bryant, the Baltimore judge in the case, stepped in.
In a move that prompted outraged headlines, she gave him a pass to go home, a "slap on the wrist."
She actually ordered him to a year of home detention, three years of probation and anger management lessons.
"No prison time. No real deterrent. Brice left the courthouse and went home the same day," the ACLJ reported.
It's a reminder, the legal team explained, "We must continue the work of defending pro-life advocates."
The report said, "We witnessed a stunning example of how violent attacks on peaceful pro-life advocates are too often minimized or excused."
Explained the ACLJ, "The leniency in Brice's case is even more jarring when compared to how peaceful pro-life advocates have been treated under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Just months ago, 23 pro-life activists – many elderly, some grandparents – were serving lengthy federal prison sentences for non-violent demonstrations before being pardoned by President Trump. Their 'crimes' consisted of peaceful protest and prayer in defense of unborn life. No violence, yet they were sentenced to hard jail time."
But here, "a man brutally beat two elderly pro-lifers and will serve his 'sentence' from the comfort of his own home. The double standard is unmistakable: Peaceful pro-life expression is met with the full weight of federal prosecution, while pro-abortion violence is downplayed and excused."
The reason?
"This is the abortion distortion in action – the bending of rules, the selective application of justice, and the diminished seriousness assigned to crimes committed against those who speak up for life. If the roles were reversed – if two elderly abortion supporters had been beaten unconscious outside a pro-life pregnancy center – would the outcome have been the same? Experience suggests otherwise," the ACLJ said.
A lawyer for Crosby said the judge "was plainly wrong" and "should have known better."
Multiple reports noted that the judge gave the convict nothing more than a "slap on the wrist."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court is being urged to protect the single, statutory "Election Day" in America, and to let stand a lower court's ruling against a state that wanted to count ballots that arrive too late.
"Congress statutorily designated a singular 'day for the election' of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this 'day for the election' is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi's statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court's contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings," explained the decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now, according to Judicial Watch, the Supreme Court should let that stand.
Extended periods for voting have become a common goal among Democrats and in Democrat states across the nation, including such accommodations as early voting, voting by mail, counting mail ballots after election day, even for weeks.
Critics of such plans warn such openings simply create more opportunities for fraudulent ballots that could impact an election result.
Judicial Watch said it has, on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the court to let the 5th Circuit decision stand.
Judicial Watch said, "[T]he Court of Appeals correctly applied existing Court precedent to find that the Receipt Deadline is inconsistent and conflicts with the Election Day statutes, and is preempted by them. Petitioner [MS secretary of state] has not demonstrated any reason why the Court's intervention is needed now. Modification of the Election Day receipt deadline allows states to 'engage in gamesmanship, experiment with deadlines, and renew the very ills Congress sought to eliminate: fraud, uncertainty, and delay.'"
Judicial Watch initially filed the civil rights lawsuit in February 2024 on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, challenging the same Mississippi election law permitting absentee ballots to be received as long as five business days after Election Day. The suit was consolidated with one filed by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and others.
The 5th Circuit "agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day." It then declined to change its decision.
Judicial Watch informs the Supreme Court, "In reversing the district court on the merits, the [Fifth Circuit] panel faithfully followed this Court's precedent … [T]his Court found that the Election Day statutes preempted a Louisiana law that allowed congressional candidates to be elected in October…. In interpreting the meaning of 'day of the election' within the Election Day statutes, this Court found that '[w]hen the federal statutes speak of 'the election' of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder.' … Accordingly, the 'day of the election' 'may not be consummated prior to federal election day.'"
Also in the fight is an Illinois claim to be able to extend "Election Day" for several weeks, a fight in California over its decision to make "Election Day" seven days long, and more.
"Counting ballots received after Election Day is a flagrant violation of federal law and encourages fraud and voter distrust," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Let us hope that the Supreme Court will decline to hear Mississippi's senseless attempt to overturn a historic decision that sensibly concluded that counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a 2-1 ruling Wednesday, the D.C. Court of Appeals has ruled that President Trump can move forward with slashing billions of dollars slated for foreign assistance via USAID, reversing a lower court's preliminary injunction.
Roughly $2 billion had been held back from the U.S. Agency for International Development as part of the work of DOGE, the Department of government Efficiency.
As Fox News reports, the lower court judge had required the Trump administration to resume its payments on nearly $1.98 billion in owed funds for USAID projects previously approved by Congress, after the Trump administration froze them earlier this year. The issue has been held up in federal court for months.
Writing for the majority, Judge Karen L. Henderson, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, said that the plaintiffs lacked the proper cause of action to sue the Trump administration over its decision to withhold the funds, or what is known as impoundment.
Henderson said the plaintiffs "may not bring a freestanding constitutional claim if the underlying alleged violation and claimed authority are statutory."
"Nor do the grantees have a cause of action under the APA because APA review is precluded by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)," she added
Henderson was joined in the majority opinion by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee.
Fox noted that it was not immediately clear whether the plaintiffs in the case would seek to have their case reviewed en banc— or by the full panel for the Democrat-majority U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi responded on X, "In a 2-1 ruling, the DC Circuit lifted an injunction ordering President Trump to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars on wasteful foreign aid projects."
President Donald Trump's Department of Justice sent a memo to employees on Tuesday requiring that "preferred pronouns" be deleted from email signatures, Breitbart reported. This is to comply wth the president's executive order "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
The use of preferred pronouns has proliferated throughout the government and corporate America over the last several years. It was a way to signal to the world that an employee was woke enough to accept that some people could choose to identify as a gender that is different from their biological sex.
Setting the record straight on this fallacy was part of Trump's campaign promise to roll back the madness, which allowed men who identify as women to participate in sports with females and enter their private spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms. The DOJ's edict this week is a bonus from that move back to normalcy.
"Extraneous content, such as preferred pronouns, motivational quotes, and GIFs, shall not be used in the signature block. The official Department logo may be added to the signature block at the employee’s discretion, directly below the last line in the block," the memo from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said.
A copy of the memo was shared with X, formerly Twitter, by Washington Times reporter Alex Swoyer. The news outlet broke the story about the change at the DOJ after obtaining a copy of the memo that was sent to employees.
Trump DOJ directs employees to cease using preferred pronouns starting August 25 @WashTimes @DAGToddBlanche pic.twitter.com/LUfWSGIsY6
— Alex Swoyer (@ASwoyer) August 12, 2025
"In pursuit of its law and order agenda each day, the Department deals with facts. To maintain the public trust, the Department’s communications must therefore reflect reality," the memo pointed out to employees.
It further noted that communications must be "oriented towards the mission of the department," whether they are sent internally or externally. "Signature blocks should not include extraneous and declarations, and certainly should not include content at odds with announced administration policies," Blanche's memo said.
The employees were given until August 25 to comply with the new rules set forth by the memo. This is a positive move for the government and for the restoration of sanity, which Trump has ushered in with his executive order and his presidency.
The 2024 presidential election gave voters the choice to return to normalcy after years of gender identity nonsense, among other social ills imposed on them by Democrats. Like many things Trump promised during his campaign, the president delivered with his executive order in January stating that there are only two genders, and that they are "not changeable and are grounded in fundamental incontrovertible reality."
The order noted that pretending there was anything other than male and female was destructive. "The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself," the order said.
"This unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts." Trump's order recognized that deviating from this was dangerous to women.
"Invalidating the true and biological category of ‘woman’ improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept. Accordingly, my Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male," the order declared.
This was a crucial step to restoring sex-segregated spaces that are necessary to the protection of women and girls, and Trump wasn't afraid to stand up to the woke mob to do it. This order has also empowered the DOJ to make a minor but equally significant change to email signatures that will surely outrage the woke Democrats.
The longtime enemy of President Donald Trump and even longer career politician, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) suffered a reputational blow this week.
As it turns out, Schiff, who previously reported to work in the House of Representatives, may well have been trading in information, not to the benefit of the American people, according to Fox News.
A Democrat whistleblower told agents at the FBI that Schiff authorized a classified information leak related to the Russia collusion story.
The story was part of the investigation into Trump and Russia, and sometime in 2017, Schiff allegedly signed off on the leak to discredit Trump, according to newly released documents.
According to an FBI 302 interview report, the whistleblower was a state intelligence staffer, affiliated with Democrats, who described himself as a friend to Schiff, and former House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (CA), a Trump-aligned Republican.
The staffer said he believed the leak to be "unethical," "illegal," and “treasonous,” but said that he was assured there was nothing to worry about because Schiff thought the Constitution protected him from repercussions.
Kash Patel confirmed on Monday that he had handed over the documents to Congress, which were obtained and recently reviewed by reporters.
“We found it. We declassified it,” Patel said. “Now Congress can see how classified info was leaked to shape political narratives – and decide if our institutions were weaponized against the American people.”
Officials have stated that the Department of Justice (DOJ) wasn’t interested in pursuing Schiff when the allegations were brought in several years ago.
The department allegedly cited the same argument made by Schiff, that he would be shielded by the Constitution’s speech and debate clause.
.@AdamSchiff never misses a camera to spew his tired leftist talking points, gaslighting Americans with the same old script.
His desperation is palpable—likely because he knows they're closing in.
Orchestrating the Russia hoax and doubling down with nauseating vitriol,… pic.twitter.com/OJkrYN7Jix
— Erica 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@EricaRN4USA) April 23, 2025
The whistleblower spoke to the FBI most recently in 2023, and told agents at a field office that he was personally in a meeting with Schiff when the leak of classified information was authorized.
"When working in this capacity, [redacted staffer's name] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF," the interview report said.
"In this meeting, SCHIFF stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to [the] President of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP.”