The Supreme Court declined to take up a case on Maryland's AR-15 ban, allowing the Democratic state to continue throttling the Second Amendment rights of its residents - for now.
The court's denial raised objections from Justice Clarence Thomas, who said he "would not wait to decide" a question "of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners."
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also said they would have taken the case. Four votes were needed to take up the issue.
In a brief opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said it is not necessary for the Supreme Court to get involved while lower courts continue to develop the case.
The Supreme Court has largely avoided altering the legal landscape on guns since its landmark decision three years ago in Bruen, which imposed a new historical test that made it significantly harder to regulate firearms.
But Kavanaugh predicted that the Supreme Court would likely decide the AR-15 issue in the next year or two.
"Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision-making on the AR–15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two," he wrote.
In a fiery dissent, Justice Thomas argued that AR-15s are "clearly 'Arms' under the Second Amendment’s plain text."
He chastised the court for waiting to decide a matter of "critical importance."
"I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Justice Thomas wrote. "The question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country."
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and is arguably the most iconic firearm in the world.
The gun control lobby has long sought to paint the AR-15 as a "weapon of war" unfit for civilian use, although millions of Americans use AR-15s for lawful purposes without incident.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals repeated the "weapon of war" talking point in its 2024 ruling upholding Maryland's ban. The court held that AR-15s are "military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”
Kavanaugh called the appeals court's decision "questionable," suggesting he could help overturn it in the future.
"Given that millions of Americans own AR–15s and that a significant majority of the States allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR–15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller," he wrote.
Texas Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett is making a fresh bid for attention with talk of impeaching President Trump.
The second-term congresswoman, known for her confrontational stunts, told WFAA’s Inside Texas Politics that she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry" if Democrats win back the House in 2026.
Despite Crockett's rhetoric, there is little support for impeaching Trump among House Democrats currently.
Their crushing defeat in November capped years of failed attempts to derail Trump's remarkable political ascent through lawfare, efforts which escalated dramatically during the 2024 election cycle as Trump faced multiple overlapping prosecutions.
With Democrats' approval ratings in the gutter, leaders in the party are reluctant to embrace more impeachment theater.
Crockett conceded that two past efforts to impeach and convict Trump have not been successful.
"Once we get to the majority, which I’m hoping and praying we get to, next cycle, that allows me to start to open up and do the things that would look like an impeachment. Now, whether or not we would put it to a vote, you know, he’s been impeached twice, couldn’t get convicted. There’s a lot of things to consider about whether or not to go forward.”
To make impeachment stick, Democrats would need control of the House and the Senate and at least some Republican defectors willing to convict and remove Trump. But Trump's control of the GOP is stronger than ever before, making such an outcome unlikely.
Another low-ranking House Democrat, Shri Thanedar (Mi.), withdrew an impeachment resolution recently under pressure from leadership.
Despite her aggressive posturing, Crockett understands that impeaching Trump has not worked before and is unlikely to work in the future. Still, she suggested there could be a political payoff in pursuing an impeachment investigation into Trump, even without a formal impeachment vote. She pointed to House Republicans' impeachment inquiry into Hunter Biden as a precedent.
"So I think that there is something to be said for us digging in when there’s real things to look at such as this $400 million plane from the Qataris and whether or not that’s a violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution," she said.
"I think that we need to dig into all this crypto nonsense that he’s got going on. I think we need to dig into the fact that it looks like he’s giving out pardons for play," she said.
Hedging, she concluded, "I would absolutely at least do an inquiry. Absolutely.”
The campaign for California Democrat Maxine Waters agreed to pay over $68,000 in fines over a litany of campaign finance violations.
Citizens for Waters, her 2020 re-election campaign, was caught making false financial reports, "knowingly" taking excessive contributions and distributing prohibited cash disbursements, according to a settlement agreement with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
In addition to paying the fine, Waters' campaign must send its treasurer, David Gould, to attend a training on campaign finance.
"Respondent shall submit evidence of the required registration and attendance at such event to the Commission," the document said.
The Waters campaign accepted "excessive contributions from seven individuals totaling $19,000 that were not refunded, reattributed, or redesignated within the permissible timeframe," the FEC found, while noting the contributions were eventually returned "untimely."
The campaign also "understated $262,391 in receipts and $256,164 in disbursements" and "made four prohibited cash disbursements that were each in excess of $100, totaling $7,000."
"The Committee contends that it began using new software to prepare campaign statements immediately following the 2019-2020 cycle and has filed amendments to Further, the Committee contends that it has retained legal counsel to provide advice and guidance to the Treasurer and implemented procedures to ensure the financial accuracy of reports," the FEC's report says.
The news was first reported by OpenSecrets, which noted that an attorney for the Waters campaign blamed the discrepancies on "limited staff availability and resources" during the COVID pandemic.
The FEC settlement is the latest financial scandal involving Waters, who has a long history of blatant self-dealing through her campaigns.
Waters' campaign has consistently paid thousands of dollars to a company run by Waters' daughter for slate mailer services. Since 2003, Karen Waters has received $1.2 million in cash from her mother's campaigns.
With that in mind, a $68,000 fine is a slap on the wrist. But it's a rare instance of accountability, however small, for one of the most brazenly corrupt members of Congress.
At the ripe old age of 86, it appears unlikely that Waters will ever change her ways. After all, voters in her overwhelmingly Democratic district have consistently re-elected her since she entered Congress in the 1990s. She has been the top Democrat on the powerful House Financial Services Committee for more than a decade.
Her political durability has no doubt convinced her that she is above the law. We can predict that this probably won't be the last time we hear about Maxine Waters breaking the rules.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'This is a staggering revelation for nearly all of us'
A declassified report from federal investigators shows they concluded Nellie Ohr, who with her husband Bruce Ohr was integral to the fake "Russia collusion" conspiracy theory created by Democrats to attack then-candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential race, lied to Congress but never was prosecuted.
U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, pointed out, "By lying to Congress, Nellie Ohr showed contempt for congressional oversight and the American people. What's more, the FBI and DOJ's failure to hold Ohr accountable for appearing to commit multiple felonies and its obstructive conduct against agents that sought additional information reveals the agencies' deeply disturbing political bias. Ohr never suffered consequences for advancing the phony Trump-Russia narrative and attempting to cover up her involvement in the hoax.
"Yet time and again, the American justice system has been weaponized against President Trump and his associates with reckless abandon."
But the weaponization was even worse, according to a new report in the Federalist that reveals the subsequent special counsel investigation by ex-FBI chief Robert Mueller, based on the false claims about Russia collusion, actually was a "cover-up."
The report explains that the FBI's electronic case management database, called Sentinal, lets agents "hide the existence" of relevant investigative reports from others.
"And during the Russia collusion hoax, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team used that functionality to keep potentially relevant documents hidden from other FBI agents investigating whether a Fusion GPS contractor lied to Congress," the report charged.
"The significance of these two facts cannot be overstated: Now in question is whether the federal government complies with the constitutional mandate in criminal cases to provide defendants all material exculpatory and impeachment evidence as well as its discovery obligations in civil litigation; whether Special Counsel Durham's office, the inspector general, and agents investigating the members of the Crossfire Hurricane team had access to all relevant information; whether the DOJ and FBI provided congressional oversight committees with requested (or subpoenaed) documents; and whether FOIA responses included all relevant documents to the press and public," it said.
The report described as "explosive" the confirmation in the now-available documentation that key investigative information about the conspiracy theory to promote the Russia collusion claims were deliberately concealed from even other federal investigators.
The Russia collusion conspiracy was launched by Democrats, including the campaign of failed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who used "legal" fees to hire a lawyer who hired Fusian GPS who bought the salacious and false claims in the "Steele dossier" from a former British agent.
Jay Town, a former career prosecutor and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama during Trump's first term, told The Federalist he didn't know about the existence of that classification.
"This is a staggering revelation for nearly all of us," he confirmed.
The report explained there's little information about why such a concealment mechanism exists or why it is used.
"That the FBI's case management system allows documents, including witness statements and other evidence, to be rendered invisible to other agents searching Sentinel for relevant documents is horrifying because the federal government is legally obligated in a variety of circumstances to produce such information — but it cannot produce something that it does not know exists," the report noted.
The report noted the government has a legal obligation in both criminal and civil cases to provide evidence to the other side.
"Without knowing when, why, or how often the FBI designates files as 'Prohibited Access' within Sentinel, or whether, and if so how, the Bureau ensures it provides 'Prohibited Access' Brady/Giglio evidence, it is impossible to access the scope of the issue. And that is a huge problem," the report said.
Even further, the report said, the problems go further: "One must also wonder if higher ups in FBI headquarters used the 'Prohibited Access' category for other highly politicized investigations, such as the probes into alleged corruption by the Clinton Foundation and the Biden family. If so, did the U.S. attorneys charged by Attorney General Bill Barr with overseeing those investigations — John Huber in Utah and Scott Brady in Pennsylvania, respectively — and the FBI agents working with them know Sentinel would not allow them to search for some relevant documents?"
Even congressional oversight committees likely "did not receive everything they asked for" because of the evidence-concealment procedures, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Can ballots be counted even if they're two weeks late?
Election Day in America for generations as meant Election Day: That single day, for presidential elections in November, when voter cast ballots and those ballots are counted.
A winner is announced then.
But in recent years legislators and others have expanded that window: It's now often election weeks or even more, as they've agreed that ballots that come in late still should be counted.
That's faced opposition from Republicans for multiple elections, and now the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed it will weigh in.
A report at the Washington Examiner notes this case is about a state law in Illinois that lets ballots be counted even if they are two weeks late.
The court has granted a petition by Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and two Republican elector nominees.
The state law they want to have blocked has election officials counting ballots that arrive up to 14 days after Election Day, if they are postmarked by the deadline.
Lower courts claimed that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue, meaning they weren't injured so could make no claim.
But the high court accepted the case with the question about whether Bost and the others, as federal candidates, have a right to challenge the "time, place, and manner" regulations for elections in Illinois.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch asked for the review.
"In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, however, for a variety of reasons, courts have limited candidates' ability to challenge the electoral rules governing their campaigns. This case presents the latest — and an extreme — example of this trend," according to the petition submitted to the high court.
State election officials in Illinois said the case should be thrown out.
The case didn't ask the high court specifically about counting the ballots, but it would provide a path for exactly that question to arise.
The report cited how states all across the nation have "loosened" their ballot laws.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was once considered to be a quirky but rising star within the Democratic Party who had real prospects to be a leader -- at least so long as he generally adhered to the party's narratives and progressive agenda.
Now, the editorial board of the premier legacy media newspaper in Pennsylvania is demanding that the senator take his job "seriously" or "step away" from it entirely, The Guardian reported.
That ultimatum from the media coincides with multiple recent hit pieces that question his mental health status and dedication to his duties, which are little more than thinly veiled attacks against Fetterman over his newfound independent streak and willingness to buck the party's narratives and agenda on certain issues.
On Sunday, The Philadelphia Inquirer's Editorial Board published a scathing rebuke of Sen. Fetterman over allegations that he is "less interested" in doing the job he was elected to do than he is in enjoying the many benefits that come along with it.
"He has missed more votes than nearly every other senator in the past two years. He regularly skips committee hearings, cancels meetings, avoids the daily caucus lunches with colleagues, and rarely goes on the Senate floor," the outlet asserted, along with complaints that Fetterman refuses to hold town hall events with constituents to avoid being heckled.
The Board further noted the high rate of staff turnover in the senator's office, as well as the largely anonymously sourced allegations of concerns from current and former aides about his physical and mental health, about how "disengaged" he is at times, and how he is often absent or spends abnormal amounts of time alone, among other things.
"Being an elected official comes with public scrutiny. If Fetterman can’t handle the attention or perform his job, then in the best interest of the country and the nearly 13 million residents of Pennsylvania he represents, he should step aside," the Inquirer's Editorial Board asserted. "After all, being an elected representative is a privilege, not an entitlement. Being a U.S. senator is a serious job that requires full-time engagement."
The Board proceeded to chastise the senator for his behavior and excuses for his absences, including wanting to spend more time with his children and ailing father, and snarkily listed off many of the benefits he enjoys as a senator that most Pennsylvanians will never get to experience.
The Editors eventually let the mask slip and revealed the real underlying reason for this and other recent media attacks on Fetterman -- his openness to working with President Donald Trump and Republicans on areas of agreement and his unabashed support for Israel versus Hamas in Palestinian-occupied Gaza.
"It’s time for Fetterman to serve Pennsylvanians, or step away," the piece ultimately concluded.
The Guardian reported that Sen. Fetterman, in a Fox News-hosted bipartisan discussion and debate with colleague Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA), pushed back against the allegations against him and said, "For me, it’s very clear, it’s just part of like this weird -- this weird smear. The more kinds of, left kind of media continues to have these kinds of an attack, and it’s just part of a smear, and that’s just not -- it’s just not accurate."
"I’m here. I’m doing that job. For me, if I miss some of those quotes -- I mean some of those votes -- I’ve made 90 percent of them and, and we all know those votes that I’ve missed were on Monday; those are travel days, and I have three young kids, and I -- those are throwaway procedural votes," he added, according to Politico. "That’s a choice that I made, and if you want to attack me for that, go ahead."
Politico observed that Fetterman also claimed that, when it comes to missed votes, his leftist colleagues Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Patty Murray (D-WA) had worse attendance records than him, but per GovTrack's statistics, that simply isn't the case.
Over the course of their decades-long careers, Sanders and Murray have missed votes approximately 13.4% and 2.6%, respectively -- the lifetime median for all senators is 2.9% -- while Fetterman's absentee rate is marked at 18.1%.
Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) said Monday that even after discussions with President Donald Trump over the weekend about his "big beautiful bill," he plans to vote no because of the $5 trillion debt ceiling increase, which he believes will increase deficit spending too much.
"We have never raised the debt ceiling without actually meeting that target," he told reporters. "So you can say it doesn't directly add to the debt, but if you increase the ceiling $5 trillion, you'll meet that. And what it does is it puts it off the back-burner. And then we won't discuss it for a year or two."
The increase is the largest in the country's history.
"So I think it's a terrible idea to do this," he added.
Paul said he would likely support the rest of the bill if the debt ceiling increase was removed and considered separately.
Paul said that the country is still spending at Biden-GOP spending levels because of an agreement in March to avert a government shutdown, which will result in $2.2 trillion in deficit spending when the fiscal year ends in September.
That's just not conservative," he added. "They're borrowing 5 trillion. That means they're anticipating the following year being over 2 trillion as well. So it's just not a conservative thing to do."
Trump said that if Paul and other Republicans vote against the bill and block it, they will damage the economy and raise taxes.
"If Senator Rand Paul votes against our Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, he is voting for, along with the Radical Left Democrats, a 68% Tax Increase and, perhaps even more importantly, a first time ever default on U.S. Debt," he wrote on his Truth Social platform.
"Rand will be playing right into the hands of the Democrats, and the GREAT people of Kentucky will never forgive him! The GROWTH we are experiencing, plus some cost-cutting later on, will solve ALL problems. America will be greater than ever before!" he added.
Paul is correct in that continued deficit spending will not be good for the economy in the long run.
It's a long shot that we could grow our way out of a $2-plus trillion a year deficit plus $34 trillion in existing debt.
Furthermore, kicking the spending cut can down the road again is exactly what all presidents, Democrat or Republican, have been doing for decades now.
Paul said he thinks he has the votes to prevent the bill from passing. "I think there are four of us at this point, and I would be very surprised if the bill at least is not modified in a good direction," he said.
Former President Bill Clinton has stepped into the fray, dismissing claims of President Joe Biden's cognitive decline, Breitbart reported.
During a conversation on "CBS Sunday Morning," Clinton confidently countered concerns over Biden’s age, expressing his belief in the president's ongoing ability to perform in office.
This discourse arose when Clinton was featured in a recent interview with reporter Tracy Smith. Smith broached the subject by referencing a book that has sparked discussions on Biden's health, alleging cognitive and physical deterioration.
Clinton was quick to reject any notions of decline. He maintained that President Biden remains effective in his role, emphasizing Biden's diligence and preparation.
"No," Clinton responded bluntly when asked about the validity of these claims. He went on to reflect on his personal observations and conversations with Biden over time.
His comments came in response to Smith’s inquiry, where Clinton shrugged off the allegations as unfounded. "He was always on top of his briefs," Clinton conveyed, underscoring Biden's grasp on presidential responsibilities.
Clinton further elaborated on his perspective during the interview by confirming he hasn't read the disputed book. Nevertheless, he did not shy away from offering his insights into Biden's current condition.
"I saw President Biden not very long ago, and I thought he was in good shape," he asserted, drawing from their recent meeting.
Despite not having delved into the book himself, this perception was enough for Clinton to confidently dispute its arguments. He suggested the subjects tackled in the book were attempts to divert from broader political challenges.
In a reflective tone, Clinton also addressed the broader political landscape. He suggested some political actors might be seizing on these claims to cast blame on Biden in the context of former President Trump's potential re-election.
"Some people are trying to use this as a way to blame him for the fact that Trump was reelected," Clinton noted, pointing to the political undercurrents surrounding these accusations.
Throughout the discussion, Clinton's emphasis remained on Biden's capabilities and contributions as president. This focus provided a stark contrast to narratives depicting the president as faltering due to age.
Clinton emphasized that any task of governing at Biden's age is inherently challenging. He reflected on the various discussions he's shared with Biden, reiterating his unwavering confidence in Biden's abilities despite these concerns.
"Could anybody do that job until they were 86?" Clinton pondered rhetorically, acknowledging the demanding nature of the highest office.
However, from his numerous interactions and observations, Clinton remarked that he never felt Biden was unable to carry out his vital duties. He mentioned that Biden has consistently demonstrated a strong command of his responsibilities.
An aide to Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler was arrested by federal agents during an immigration-related confrontation that was caught on video.
The tearful staffer was briefly detained by Homeland Security officers who said that Nadler's office was "harboring rioters."
The aide was released without being charged after a security check was completed, the Department of Homeland Security said.
“Based on earlier incidents in a nearby facility, FPS officers were concerned about the safety of the federal employees in the office and went to the location to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those present,” Homeland Security officials said.
There were tensions building up to the arrest at Nadler's office in a federal building in downtown Manhattan, where an immigration courthouse is located one floor below. President Trump's escalating immigration crackdown has begun targeting courthouses to speed up deportations.
In the video, an agent is seen arresting a crying woman and telling her to "stop resisting" while another woman stands in a doorway and asks to see a warrant.
“I’m a federal officer, we’re here checking on something,” one of the agents says. "We have the right to check. You are harboring rioters in the office."
The Trump administration and Nadler's team have offered conflicting narratives of what transpired.
According to DHS, the Nadler staffer became "verbally confrontational and physically blocked access to the office” even after federal officers identified themselves and their purpose for being there.
“The officers then detained the individual in the hallway for the purpose of completing the security check," the DHS said.
Nadler's office said they invited a pair of immigration advocates to come inside Nadler's sixth floor office to "de-escalate" a situation on the fifth floor. Federal agents had threatened to arrest anti-ICE activists for loitering in a public hallway outside the immigration court, the New York Times reported.
The confrontation is the latest dramatic clash over immigration between Democrats in Congress and federal law enforcement. A House Democrat was arrested and charged in May for an assault outside an ICE facility in New Jersey.
Following last Wednesday's incident inside Nadler's office, police arrested several people for blocking ICE vans outside the building, the Gothamist reported. 18 protesters received criminal summonses and five were arrested and charged.
Nadler, a longtime Trump foe who, accused Trump of using a "fascist" playbook to intimidate critics.
“The Trump administration is really using totalitarian or even authoritarian practices,” Nadler told the New York Times. “We have to fight them. We don’t want to be a fascist country.
Trump and his Republican allies, in turn, have accused Democrats of sympathizing with illegal aliens and turning a blind eye to violent crimes committed by foreigners.
Michelle Obama is fueling fresh speculation about her personal life after making some baffling remarks about childbirth.
While airing her latest grievances on her new podcast, the Former First Lady made the bizarre claim that making babies is the "least" function of a woman's reproductive system.
Obama bemoaned the state of discourse on women's reproductive health, claiming women are not receiving the priority they should from lawmakers who care "just about the fetus."
"Women's reproductive health is about our life," she added. "It's about this whole complicated reproductive system that the least of what it does is produce life."
"It's a very important thing that it does, but you only produce life if the machine that's producing it — if you want to whittle us down to a machine — if the machine is functioning in a healthy, streamlined kind of way. But there is no discussion or apparent connection between the two."
The remarks have sparked fresh backlash, with critics accusing Obama of disparaging childbirth and the women who embrace the role of mother.
Besides being offensive to many, Obama's comments are also just plain odd.
The reproductive system is for .... reproduction. What else does she think it's for?
Her failure to grasp this basic concept has led to speculation online, where rumors have long circulated about her husband's sexuality.
Alex Marlow, Breitbart editor-in-chief, confessed he would need to investigate claims that Michelle Obama did not have her own children.
"The least of what a women’s body does and their reproductive system is produce life? I don’t know how you can say this and no one caught her…there [are] lots of rumors online that she did not have her own children, that she had surrogates…I’ve never really gone down that rabbit hole, but now I’m compelled to do so, because she says so matter of fact that women are — having a baby is the least a woman does with their [reproductive system]," Marlow said on the Alex Marlow Show.
Michelle Obama has been open about her fertility challenges, which led her to use IVF to conceive her two daughters. There is no evidence that we know of that she used surrogacy.
There may be less to Obama's comments than some think. It is no secret that she is a career-driven narcissist who sees children as a burden to be suffered and perhaps avoided if possible. Maybe she really convinced herself of the nonsense she is spouting here, simply because she finds it to be validating.
All we can say for certain is that Michelle Obama should never be taken seriously, under any circumstances.