In an effort to undo what the Biden administration did while the last president was in office, the current administration is cutting deep, taking on the president's pardons.
On May 13, the newly appointed pardon attorney for President Trump stated that one of his responsibilities will be to review the pardons that former President Joe Biden granted shortly before he left office in January, as The Daily Caller reported.
“I do think that the Biden pardons need some scrutiny. And they need scrutiny because we want pardons to matter and to be accepted and to be something that’s used correctly,” Ed Martin, the pardon attorney, told reporters during a press briefing in Washington.
“So I do think we’re going to take a hard look at how they went and what they did and if they’re, I don’t know, but null and void, I’m not sure how that operates.”
Former Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney was one of several recipients of pardons awarded by Vice President Joe Biden during his final hours in office. Pardons were granted for actions that did not result in charges against the individuals in question, raising more than a few eyebrows.
Individuals "do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions," Biden remarked at the time.
In March, Trump asserted that the pardons null and void on the grounds that they were signed using an autopen, which is a tool that allows someone to sign documents using preloaded signatures.
Even if the pardons were unreasonable, Martin said he did not believe that an autopen would render them null and void during his May 13 comments.
This came just a day before Martin's departure from his position as acting United States attorney for the District of Columbia.
Following loud and persistent opposition from several senators to Martin's candidacy to permanently assume the position of U.S. attorney, Trump appointed Martin pardon attorney and head of the DOJ's weaponization working group on May 8.
When questioned later on May 13 regarding Denise Cheung's resignation as chief of the DC Criminal Division of the US Attorney's Office, Martin stated that he had requested Cheung to investigate what he deemed as extraordinary behavior, specifically the transfer of $6.7 billion from the government to a nonprofit that had been established only six months earlier.
“That’s what you’re supposed to do, is pause, just like if the Biden pardons are unprecedented in their extent,” he said. “Right back to when Hunter Biden was whatever age you say: ‘That’s uncommon. We ought to take a look at that.'”
Even Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was pardoned by the former president.
The prosecution of individuals involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, among other steps done during the Biden administration, are among the issues and arrests being examined by the weaponization working group, according to Martin.
Under his leadership, the group plans to increase its transparency regarding its progress and is considering opening a tip-sharing webpage, he said.
Sonia Sotomayor called on lawyers to resist the Trump administration, in an unusual public call to arms from a sitting member of the Supreme Court.
Without naming Trump, Sotomayor encouraged those in the overwhelmingly left-wing legal profession to "fight" back against Trump's actions.
"Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes,” she told the American Bar Association.
Since returning to power in January, Trump has aggressively targeted elite law firms such as Perkins Coie, which procured the infamous and false Trump-Russia dossier on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Trump has also sharply criticized federal judges who have blocked his agenda with a series of sweeping injunctions.
Trump's effort against Perkins Coie was shut down by a liberal judge, Beryl Howell, who mockingly compared Trump to the tyrannical Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland.
It's obvious where Sotomayor stands, not that it was a mystery before her latest comments. As Trump campaigned for the presidency in 2024, Sotomayor claimed the Supreme Court had placed him "above the law" with its ruling on presidential immunity.
Sotomayor has once again exposed the partisanship that drives her thinking, unusually referring to herself as one member of a collective ("we") that is standing against Trump.
“But right now, we can’t lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight,” she added.
Sotomayor' latest comments confirm her reputation as one of the most strident justices on the Supreme Court, which is nominally non-partisan.
Her remarks echo similar warnings from the court's newest member, Ketanii Brown Jackson, who recently complained of "relentless attacks" on the judiciary.
Sotomayor's partisan activism at an American Bar Association (ABA) event is just the latest evidence of political corruption in the legal profession.
"For me, being here with you is an act of solidarity," Sotomayor said.
The Trump administration has barred Justice Department officials from attending events with the American Bar Association, which has become notorious for its left-wing bias, as Sotomayor once again proved.
It is clear that Trump is fighting against a deeply entrenched, left-wing legal movement that wants to frustrate his second-term agenda at every turn and ultimately, negate the will of the people who elected him.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A video released by O'Keefe Media Group has disclosed images inside convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's residence on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The defendant, previously convicted of sex crimes, was in jail in New York awaiting further court action on new allegations when he purportedly committed suicide.
The video comes from OMG and reveals "the first on-site images from within the now-infamous compound since his arrest in 2019 and subsequent death."
James O'Keefe promised that there will be more video images appearing soon.
He reported the video was taken after Epstein's 2019 arrest but before authorities sealed off access to Epstein's lair in the ocean.
"The footage shows Epstein's kitchen in what has been identified as the island's 'main mansion.' The footage depicts a minimalistic room with white walls, stainless steel appliances, and few decorations.
"Among them is a large, framed photograph: a nude infant sitting in a sink, holding what appears to be a phallic-shaped object," he reported.
O'Keefe noted, "Federal agencies have yet to bring full transparency to what happened on Jeffrey Epstein's island. Despite repeated calls for accountability, crucial evidence remains hidden and many questions left unanswered. The Department of Justice has consistently declined to comment, citing it as an ongoing investigation."
Significantly, he said, "None of the criminals in the most powerful institutions in America are held to account for anything."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sonia Sotomayor has a well-established reputation for being a leftist on the Supreme Court, supporting all manner of Democrat causes and opposing President Donald Trump.
But her comments now have moved into new territory, territory in which she is advocating for lawyers to stand up and fight.
Carefully, she did not identify Trump by name, but during a recent address, she left no doubt in the minds of many against whom she advocates opposition.
"Right now we can't lose the battles we are facing," she told a meeting of the leftist American Bar Association.
She was talking to the ABA's Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section, and NBC said she considered her appearance there an "act of solidarity."
Trump, meanwhile, has opposed liberal activists in the judiciary and even has advocated that there be another endorsement organization specified so that law schools would not have to work through the ABA for their graduates' authorizations.
She said, without identifying specific "battles," said, "In all of the uncertainty that exists at this moment, this is our time to stand up and be heard."
"If you're not used to fighting losing battles, don't become a lawyer. Our job is to stand for people who can't do it themselves," she said.
The comment comes amid an extended war against Trump that is being assembled by district court judges across the nation, many of whom have issued nationwide injunctions halting the president's executive actions and imposing restrictions on his executive branch agenda.
The topics on which judges have bashed back have included deporting illegal aliens, limiting American citizenship for babies born to foreigners in the U.S. illegally, a long list of environmental rules, his plans to cut waste, fraud and corruption from the government, his plans to eliminate federal bureaucracies and jobs, and much more.
Actually, according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but has represented members in court in constitutional disputes, Sotomayor previously has been scorched for "making public comments that some viewed as overly political or partisan."
That topic included her demands that law students organize to support abortion rights, a subject that has been before the court many times, and undoubtedly will appear there again.
Turley noted Sotomayor's blasts "presumably" targeted President Trump.
"Sotomayor made a number of inspiring comments to encourage lawyers to pursue justice despite the odds or challenges," Turley explained.
And they "appeared to veer into more partisan territory."
Her reference to "we" was a surprise, he said, and many viewed it as a rallying call for "the left."
He explained, "Clearly, such comments are subject to different interpretations. Newspapers like the New York Times made the obvious connection, stating that it was made 'against the backdrop of immense stress on lawyers and the legal system from the Trump administration,'"
Leftist lawyer Marc Elias, a key part of the fabricated 2016 conspiracy theory assembled by Democrats that alleged "Russia collusion" against Trump's campaign, then credited Sotomayor with "solidarity" to leftist ideals.
"She understands that while we must bring difficult cases and be willing to lose, we must always fight to win. And by lending her voice in 'solidarity,' she affirmed that it is 'our time to stand up and be heard,' he said.
Turley noted that Sotomayor previously lobbied publicly for abortion, telling students, "You know, I can't change Texas' law, but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like. I am pointing out to that when I shouldn't, because they tell me I shouldn't. But my point is that there are going to be a lot of things you don't like," and require public action.
Turley admits he's often been critical of members of the high court for appearing before "ideologically supportive groups."
And he calls this circumstance the "rise of the celebrity justice."
He said her calls to "fight this fight" were injudicious.
"The court is set to hear a number of key cases on the Trump policies, including a key argument next week on the rapidly expanding number of national injunctions imposed by district courts. This is not the time to be seen as speaking in 'solidarity' with one side," he said.
Brianna Lynn explained at The Federalist the dangers of Sotomayor's argument for the benefit of one side.
"The fact that you have a sitting Supreme Court justice [Sonia Sotomayor] saying we have to 'Stand up' and 'Fight this fight' … is reinforcing the criticism that judicial overreach is occurring and that the judiciary is being used as a political weapon rather than the judiciary being used as a neutral arbiter of the law."
She continued, "And the fact that [Justice Sotomayor] said that we have to fight for 'lost causes' — the role of a lawyer is to zealously advocate for a client, of course. But the role of a judge is to zealously advocate for the Constitution, and those aren't always the same thing."
President Donald Trump has made no secret of his plans to dramatically downsize the federal workforce, though his efforts have faced an onslaught of pushback in the courts.
In a noteworthy setback for Trump and broader GOP desires for greater government efficiency, a federal judge last week put a temporary pause on an administration move that would have laid off tens of thousands of employees, as Fox News reports.
The decision at issue was handed down by California-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, and it resulted in a 14-day stop on a wave of planned layoffs at multiple government agencies.
Illston's ruling came on the same day she heard arguments on the request for injunctive relief, and in it, the judge declared that the Trump move lacked necessary involvement from Congress, as NBC News noted.
“The President has the authority to seek changes to the executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch,” Illston wrote.
The judge continued, “Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation -- as he did in his prior term of office.”
Illston added, “Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime.”
The judge's order puts a block – at least for now – on cuts planned by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Personnel Management, as well as the Transportation, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
Reductions were planned across 21 distinct departments and agencies, and as such, Illston's ruling represents a significant setback for Trump's downsizing agenda.
The restraining order will be in place for two weeks, and it embodies Illston's stated belief that no statutory authority exists that would provide the aforementioned administration arms to force other government agencies to initiate mass layoffs of this nature.
“Such action is far outside the bounds of any authority that Congress vested in OPM or OMB, and, as noted, DOGE has no statutory authority whatsoever,”' she determined.
Whether Illston's block will endure for the stated time period remains to be seen, as administration lawyers filed an appeal of the ruling late on Friday, seeking review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The coalition of unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments opposing the Trump workforce reduction move issued a statement reacting to the ruling, saying, “The Trump administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation,” adding, “We are gratified by the court's decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds.”
Illston, a Bill Clinton appointee, has scheduled further arguments in the dispute on May 22, and precisely where this case will go from there, only time will tell.
Former New York Republican lawmaker George Santos, who faces seven years in prison after he was sentenced recently in the wake of being hit with 24 charges of fraud and identity theft, wasn't shy about begging President Donald Trump for help.
According to the New York Post, the disgraced former lawmaker, who became the sixth-ever lawmaker to be kicked out of the House of Representatives by his colleagues, used his time during an interview with Piers Morgan to ask Trump for a pardon or clemency.
Santos even choked up during his request, which was presumably even more of a turn-off for Trump.
The disgraced lawmaker admitted he wasn't an "altar boy" but insisted that he deserves leniancy because he's not a "hardened criminal."
Santos held nothing back during his interview with Morgan in asking Trump for assistance before he's required to surrender to the feds on July 25.
“I’ll take a commutation, clemency, whatever the president is willing to give me,” Santos said on “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” while adding he was “not entertaining a pardon” until recently.
While clearly holding back tears as he looked into the camera, Santos added, "President Trump, I’d appreciate if you can give me a consideration."
The outlet recalled his crimes:
While running for Congress in 2022, the Republican candidate had defrauded dozens of donors — including some family members and friends — and later filed false campaign finance reports to juice his contribution figures.
The Post reported:
Last month, Central Islip federal Judge Joanna Seybert sentenced Santos, 36, to seven years and three months behind bars and ordered him to pay $373,000 after he pleaded guilty in August to charges of wire fraud and identity theft.
Santos was indicted on the charges back in 2023, and was ultimately hit with a total of 23 charges. Still, he remained in his elected office despite widespread calls from the Republican Party to step aside.
The disgraced lawmaker didn't listen and was ultimately voted out of the lower chamber, making history in the worst and most embarrassing possible way.
Social media reacts
Users across social media blasted Santos for having the audacity to ask for help from Trump at this time.
George Santos is officially asking President Trump for a pardon.
Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/qDU1LfoYRz
— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) May 10, 2025
"You do the crime, you do the time!" one X user wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'Federal law is clear. Religious liberty is not optional – it's protected'
A teenager employed by a major corporation under a special high school training program has been fired for observing the Sabbath and attending church.
And the legal team at the American Center for Law and Justice is coming to his defense.
The organization reported this fight is over "Eli," who as a teen was "unjustly fired by General Electric for going to church to observe a Sabbath day."
Eli was described as a devout Christian who has faithfully observed a weekly Sabbath for as long as he can remember.
"He informed his employer of his sincerely held religious practice and repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation: to have his Sabbath day off from work. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are legally required to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs unless doing so would pose an undue hardship," the ACLJ report said.
GE claimed the case involved "an undue hardship" but was unable to identify what that hardship would be.
"GE told Eli, in no uncertain terms, that if he did not show up to work on Saturdays, the day of his Sabbath, he would be fired. Eli remained true to his faith – and GE followed through on its threat and fired Eli on the day of his high school graduation. He was fired for what they labeled as 'attendance issues' – a pretext for punishing him for practicing his religion," the report said.
The report said Eli's case now is in mediation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and because of ongoing delays the ACLJ has joined the case.
"We are fighting to hold GE accountable for its discriminatory actions and to ensure that Eli receives justice," the report said. "No one should be forced to choose between their job and their faith – especially a teenager.
"Employers must provide reasonable accommodations for religious practices unless doing so would cause undue hardship, which is a high bar under the law. In Eli's case, there was no indication that honoring his Sabbath accommodation would have caused an undue hardship."
A recent indictment in Texas has brought allegations of electoral fraud against a Democrat judge into the public eye.
Judge Rochelle Lozano Camacho, along with five other individuals, stands accused of manipulating the electoral process during her 2022 primary campaign, raising concerns over voting integrity in Texas, as the Daily Caller reports.
Camacho has been indicted on three counts related to vote harvesting, a practice that is illegal in Texas and classified as a third-degree felony. The charges allege that this vote-harvesting scheme was orchestrated to influence the outcome of her 2022 primary runoff.
The allegations first came to light after Mary Moore, Camacho's opponent in the Democratic Party primary runoff, filed a complaint in 2022. Moore asserted that Camacho had enlisted the services of a Democratic Party operative tasked with improperly handling mail ballots and swaying voters in her favor.
The complaint led to an investigation into the activities of Judge Camacho and her complicity in the alleged vote-harvesting scheme. According to the investigation findings, the operative allegedly received payment in the range of $1,500 to $2,500. This payment was purportedly for services that included the collection of mail ballots, the completion of applications, and the transportation of voters.
Additionally, the investigation revealed that Camacho targeted elderly voters residing in a Pearsall subdivision. One of her alleged accomplices reportedly concealed ballots and utilized multiple vehicles to further the operation. This strategy of targeting particular demographics highlights the calculated nature of the alleged scheme.
Elevating the gravity of the situation is the fact that Camacho narrowly won her primary runoff by just 72 votes out of a total of 322 ballots cast. This narrow victory has further fueled allegations that the vote-harvesting scheme significantly impacted the election results.
The list of those indicted alongside Camacho includes key figures such as her sister, the county's trustee, the election administrator, and two members of the Pearsall city council, as well as another woman. This wide-reaching indictment underscores the potential depth and complexity of the alleged voter fraud scheme within the community.
On May 2, authorities moved swiftly, resulting in the arrest of all suspects except for Judge Camacho, who is expected to be processed at a later date. The charges filed are significant, given vote harvesting's potential to undermine democratic processes and the severe legal penalties associated with such acts.
In 2020, similar charges emerged when the attorney general's office accused four individuals of vote harvesting, highlighting ongoing concerns over election integrity in Texas. Past incidents have included a county commissioner and pointed to systemic vulnerabilities that the authorities remain vigilant to address.
The indictment of Judge Camacho has sparked a wave of political and legal reactions. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton weighed in on the developments, underscoring the seriousness of the charges. “Elected officials who think they can cheat to stay in power will be held accountable. No one is above the law,” Paxton stated.
The attorney general's comments resonate with broader public sentiment emphasizing accountability among elected officials. The allegations, if proven, could serve to reinforce trust in the legal system's ability to address electoral fraud without bias.
Vote harvesting, as defined under Texas law, carries substantial penalties, including potential prison time of up to 10 years and fines reaching $10,000. These penalties resonate with the gravity of maintaining clean and fair elections, a cornerstone of democracy that the state continues to uphold vigorously.
Looking ahead, the legal proceedings against Camacho and her co-defendants will be closely monitored. The courts will face the challenging task of navigating through the accusations to determine their veracity, ensuring justice is served in line with state laws.
Community reactions remain divided, with some expressing disbelief at the allegations, while others call for stringent measures to prevent such incidents in the future. The case serves as a stark reminder of the vigilance required to safeguard electoral integrity in all local, state, and federal elections. As the proceedings advance, this case could become a pivotal example highlighting the importance of transparent election processes and the role of the judiciary in upholding these standards.
In a shocking twist, President Donald Trump has chosen Fox News personality Jeanine Pirro to be serve as the top prosecutor in Washington, D.C., at least for the time being.
Pirro, a steadfast supporter and good friend of Trump's, is a former prosecutor and judge from Westchester County, New York.
"During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime. Her establishment of the Domestic Violence Bureau in her Prosecutor's Office was the first in the Nation," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
While Pirro has yet to comment on her new role as interim U.S. attorney in D.C., Fox News confirmed that she has left her job at the network, where she was co-hosting The Five.
"Jeanine Pirro has been a wonderful addition to The Five over the last three years and a longtime beloved host across FOX News Media who contributed greatly to our success throughout her 14-year tenure. We wish her all the best in her new role in Washington," a spokesperson for FOX News Media said in a statement.
Before her career in media, Pirro was the first woman ever elected as County Court Judge and District Attorney in Westchester County.
"Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York. She is in a class by herself. Congratulations Jeanine!" Trump wrote.
At Fox News, Pirro became known for her vocal Trump support and blistering commentary on crime, first as a host of her own show, Justice with Judge Jeanine, which ran for 11 years, and then as a regular host on The Five, one of the most popular shows in cable news.
Pirro has been a steadfast defender of Trump through some of his toughest moments, publicly backing him during the Access Hollywood controversy that erupted before the 2016 presidential election.
Trump called for Pirro's Fox News show to be reinstated after she was suspended in 2019 following comments about Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN)
Pirro is not the first Fox News personality to get a job in the new Trump administration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also a former host at the network.
Pirro will replace Trump's original pick for U.S. attorney in D.C., Ed Martin. Trump confirmed Thursday that he was pulling Martin from consideration for a permanent role after it became clear he did not have enough votes in the Senate.
"He wasn't getting the support from people that I thought," Trump told reporters at the White House. "You know, he's done a very good job. Crime is down 25% in D.C. during this period of time… I can only lift that little phone so many times of the day. But we have somebody else."
Republicans, especially Thom Tillis (NC), were uncomfortable with Martin's sympathy for Jan. 6 protesters.
Martin's term as interim prosecutor is up on May 20, but Trump said he will have a new role at the Justice Department investigating the "weaponization" of government under the "Biden regime."
The sex trafficking and racketeering trial for Sean "P. Diddy" Combs has hit a snag as a key witness in the case has gone missing, the UK Daily Mail reported. The female identified only as "Victim 3" and her attorney can't be reached.
The trial is set to begin next week in New York against Combs, 55. He is facing five counts against four victims that include charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution.
However, a portion of the trial could be in jeopardy if federal prosecutors can't contact Victim 3 and her lawyer. Victim 3 was set to give testimony of "very personal and explosive details" about how Combs allegedly abused her.
Maurene Comey, the lead prosecutor, informed US District Judge Arun Subramanian on Wednesday that Victim 3 remains unreachable. Comey added that Victim 3 "may not show up" even if she can be contacted in time.
Jury selection began this week in the trial that is set to spotlight decades of alleged abuse at the hands of Combs. He was known to have allegedly coerced his victims into depraved sexual activity during so-called "freak-outs."
One of his accusers is Cassie Ventura, formerly a longtime girlfriend of his, who has agreed to appear without an alias. Initially, Victim 3 had agreed to the same but later chose to remain cloaked in a pseudonym to testify against the entertainment mogul.
Her testimony was to add more charges of transportation to engage in prostitution and sex trafficking to Combs' growing list of crimes. However, with Victim 3 missing in action, those charges are now in question.
Teny Geragos, Combs' defense attorney, took the opportunity of Victim 3's absence to force the prosecution to decide whether to nix her testimony. The federal government will have until the end of the week to decide if they should revise the charges.
Prosecutors are still hopeful for a conviction against Combs even without Victim 3's testimony. Comey assured the judge that there are "many, many acts of racketeering apart from Victim 3."
According to the New York Post, Combs could spend life behind bars if he's convicted of the charges he's facing now. It's believed he was not only engaging in illicit activity, but that it was allegedly a criminal enterprise.
The details of Combs' depraved lifestyle are harrowing, especially if the alleged victims were indeed forced into the behavior. The indictment states that Combs held days-long parties that "often involved multiple commercial sex workers."
They were largely fueled by illicit drugs that were doled out like candy. "During freak offs, Combs distributed a variety of controlled substances to victims, in part to keep the victims obedient and compliant," the indictment said.
After endless days of sex and drugs, Combs and his alleged victims "typically received IV fluids to recover from the physical exertion and drug use," the indictment said. "Sometimes unbeknownst to the victims, Combs kept videos he filmed of victims engaging in sex acts with commercial sex workers," it added.
Combs was a powerful man in the entertainment industry, and it's not surprising that it would be difficult for anyone to testify against him. It remains to be seen whether Victim 3's absence will have any impact on a possible conviction, but there's sure to be more wild turns in this case.