This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A settlement "in principle" has been reached in a lawsuit against the government brought by the family of Ashli Babbitt, the woman who was shot and killed by police during the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol
At a hearing on Friday, Department of Justice Lawyer Joseph Gonzalez and Robert Sticht, representing Babbitt's husband, Aaron, confirmed the settlement was in process, but neither revealed exact terms or whether there would be monetary compensation for the shooting by police officer Michael Byrd.
The action had sought $30 million in damages.
Byrd shot and killed Babbitt as she was part of a group of protesters who had entered the Capitol and ended up near the House chamber.
A report at WUSA said details still were being negotiated.
The lawsuit charged wrongful death and cited the Federal Tort Claims Act.
It charged Byrd "had negligently discharged his firearm and failed to warn Babbitt or de-escalate the situation. The suit also alleged negligence on the part of other officers near the Speaker's Lobby at the time of the shooting as well as the U.S. Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board in failing to properly train Byrd in tactical decision-making."
Babbitt was an Air Force veteran but was killed during the protests that day.
The report explained, "The hearing Friday was called in response to an emergency filing by attorney Terrell N. Roberts III, who was previously retained by Aaron Babbitt to pursue a $10 million wrongful death suit. Roberts said he'd learned of the impending settlement and sought a temporary restraining order to ensure he will receive a 25% cut of any funds he says he's owed from his prior agreement with Aaron Babbitt."
The report said Roberts had worked on the case, then terminated his representation.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Get ready for the Left to caterwaul "Dictator!"
The Army on Friday confirmed there will be a military parade on President Donald Trump's birthday in June, as part of the celebrations around the military branch's 250th birthday, according to a report in Western Journal.
Plans for the parade, as first detailed by The Associated Press on Thursday, call for about 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles and 50 helicopters to follow a route from Arlington, Virginia, to the National Mall. Officials say the parade, which originally was not in the plans for the Army's anniversary celebration, will cost tens of millions of dollars.
Trump has long talk of a military parade in the nation's capital, and discussions with the Pentagon about having one in conjunction with the anniversary festival began less than two months ago, according to the report.
The Army's 250th birthday happens to coincide with Trump's 79th birthday on June 14. In a statement Friday, Army spokesman Steve Warren said the Army's birthday celebration will include "a spectacular fireworks display, a parade, and a daylong festival on the National Mall."
In comments to Fox News Digital, White House officials confirmed a commemorative parade would take place and said it would be one of the first events to kick off a yearlong celebration of the nation's 250th anniversary.
Warren said that given the significance of the Army birthday, they are looking at options "to make the celebration even bigger, with more capability demonstrations, additional displays of equipment, and more engagement with the community."
Trump detractors wasted no time decrying the event, with one on X calling it a "birthday parade" for the 47th president.
VoteVets posted: "Not to honor service, not for national defense – just to feed the ego of a wannabe dictator. Pure authoritarian cosplay."
Republicans Against Trump posted on X: "Cutting cancer research while wasting money on this? Shameful."
Army planning documents, obtained this week by the Associated Press and dated April 29 and 30, said the parade will include soldiers from at least 11 corps and divisions nationwide. They said it would involve a Stryker battalion with two companies of Stryker vehicles, a tank battalion and two companies of tanks, an infantry battalion with Bradley vehicles, Paladin artillery vehicles, Howitzers and infantry vehicles.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser was not happy about so many tanks rolling through the city's streets. "If military tanks are used, they should be accompanied with many millions of dollars to repair the roads," she told AP.
The Army birthday festival has been planned for more than a year and is slated to include displays of Army equipment, military demonstrations, musical performances and a fitness competition on the National Mall.
During his first term, Trump proposed having a parade after seeing one in France on Bastille Day in 2017. Trump said that after watching the two-hour procession along the famed Champs-Elysees he wanted an even grander one on Pennsylvania Avenue.
That plan was ultimately dumped due to the huge costs – with one estimate of a $92 million price tag – and other logistical issues.
In a series of serious criticisms, former FBI assistant director Frank Figliuzzi has raised multiple concerns about the professional behavior of current FBI Director Kash Patel, highlighting issues related to his personal lifestyle and management of the FBI, the Daily Mail reported.
Patel, accused of prioritizing nightlife over agency responsibilities, faces questions about his leadership style and recent controversial actions.
Figliuzzi made these assertions during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," where he communicated his insights to Jonathan Lemire. Describing Patel's nightlife-oriented persona, Figliuzzi claimed that the director has been more frequently at nightclubs than at the central FBI offices in the Hoover building. These assertions come at a time when Patel's approach and experience, or lack thereof, have been matters of public discourse.
During the program, Figliuzzi cited unnamed sources within the FBI indicating that there has been a notable decline in Patel's involvement in routine briefings. According to Figliuzzi, these crucial briefings, originally conducted daily, have reportedly been reduced to only twice per week.
The core of Figliuzzi's criticism not only touches on Patel's physical absence but delves deeper into the ramifications of his sporadic engagement. With limited participation in daily operations, agents have been granted significant autonomy in managing matters, an approach that Figliuzzi suggests may stem from the director's unique career trajectory and limited experience in traditional FBI roles.
In his critique, Figliuzzi painted a picture of disarray within the organization. He pointed out that without Patel's consistent engagement or the necessary experience to run operations effectively, the situation could devolve into disorder. However, Figliuzzi also noted that with agents handling matters independently, the long-term implications remain uncertain.
Compounding these managerial issues are the recent controversies surrounding Patel's professional conduct. One such incident involved his announcement of the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan, charged with obstruction for allegedly interfering with an immigration arrest operation in Milwaukee. Patel made this announcement on his official X account before removing and reposting the information, adding to the controversy.
Adding another layer to the scrutiny, Senate Democrats have initiated an investigation into Patel's alleged misuse of government resources. Specifically, there are claims that he improperly used FBI aircraft for personal travel. Reports suggest that Patel may have used these flights to attend a UFC fight and an ice hockey game with sports legend Wayne Gretzky, among other private excursions.
These allegations, along with Figliuzzi's allegations, have sparked debates regarding the appropriateness of Patel's conduct as a high-ranking public servant. The use of government assets for personal activities has drawn questions about propriety and adherence to ethical standards.
At the heart of these issues is the question of leadership quality within the FBI, as raised by Figliuzzi's discussion of Patel’s experience and management style. The debacle has ignited discussions over his qualifications for the role and the impact of his conduct on the agency's effectiveness and morale.
The situation highlights the broader implications of leadership in law enforcement organizations, where the integrity and presence of leaders are critical to function efficiently. The dialogues initiated by Figliuzzi's comments underscore the need for a thorough evaluation of how leadership is perceived within such agencies and the consequent influence on morale and operational standards.
As scrutiny over Patel's conduct intensifies, the FBI is left to navigate a turbulent period. The impact of these claims on the agency's function and reputation remains to be fully realized. However, the increased public and political attention will likely prompt further examination into both the organization’s leadership structure and the ethical standards expected of its executives.
In response to these challenges, the FBI and its leadership must move towards addressing these concerns openly and transparently. The agency must work to restore and maintain public trust, demonstrating a commitment to ethical conduct and proficient management in high office.
With these accusations prominently in the public eye, stakeholders, both within the FBI and outside, are called to reflect on and address the systemic issues raised by Figliuzzi and ensure they do not detract from the critical mission of the agency.
Harvard leaders, students and faculty are going bonkers over President Donald Trump's repeated threats to defund the university and now, revoke its tax-exempt status.
According to Newsweek, Harvard President Alan Garber lashed out after Trump said he would revoke the university's tax status, calling the move "illegal" as the two camps continue to be at odds over the institution's inaction on tamping down on student activism.
Harvard is particularly upset with Trump and his administration for freezing a large pot of $2 billion in federal grants and funding, causing the university to file a federal lawsuit against the administration to unfreeze it.
Garber held nothing back as he told the media how he believes Trump's actions against the university are illegal and unconstitutional.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Garber said the president's revoking of Harvard's tax-exempt status is "highly illegal, unless there is some reasoning that we have not been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move."
"Tax-exempt status is granted to educational institutions to enable them to successfully carry out their mission of education, and for research universities, of research."
Garber added, "Obviously, that would be severely impaired if we were to lose our tax-exempt status. And I should add, it would be destructive to Harvard, but the message that it sends to the educational community would be a very dire one, which suggests that political disagreements could be used as a basis to pose what might be called an existential threat to so many educational institutions."
The "political disagreements" are not that at all. Trump and his administration simply want the university to tamp down on student activism related to the Hamas-Israel war, and the extreme anti-semitism witness across the campus.
Newsweek noted:
Harvard is one of several Ivy League institutions the Trump administration has threatened over campus activism and what the White House characterizes as antisemitism on the part of student protesters.
Columbia University was another institution that Trump threatened, and ultimately, the Ivy League school made several concessions to the Trump administration as it obviously knew what the right move was.
Many of Trump's supporters applauded the president for going after the school's tax-exempt status.
"Harvard Law evidently wants more (of a certain type of) bad behavior. So, they reward bad behavior. We should not tolerate those who reward bad behavior," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Eradicate the privileged, elitist universities. Fund trade schools."
It'll be absolutely fascinating to see who ultimately wins in court on this one.
Earlier this year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) essentially provided a "class" for illegals during which she offered tips and tricks to resist and avoid President Donald Trump's deportation policies.
The situation was so egregious that it sparked border czar Tom Homan to threaten her with DOJ charges, to which AOC responded this week, essentially saying, "bring it on," according to the New York Post.
On Friday, the radical progressive Democrat essentially dared Homan to bring charges against her and drag her to court.
AOC has insisted that she hasn't done anything illegal, and welcomes the opportunity to fight the charges in a court of law, should it come down to that.
During a packed town hall event in Jackson Heights, Queens last week, AOC held nothing back in daring Homan to take her to court over the situation.
Tom Homan said he was going to refer me to DOJ because I’m using my free speech rights in order to advise people of their constitutional protections. To that I say: Come for me. Do I look like I care?” AOC told those in attendance.
She continued, saying there’s "nothing illegal about it — and if they want to make it illegal, they can come take me."
AOC's seminar to help illegals avoid deportation came via a livestreamed web event, during which she gave tips like not opening the door for ICE agents and other methods to either avoid or delay the process.
“What she needs to do is read the statutes enacted by Congress,” Homan said in February, “because it’s a crime to enter this country illegally.”
"Not only that, but when you harbor and conceal and impede law enforcement, that’s a felony," Homan continued.
"What she’s doing, she says she’s educating everybody on their constitutional rights, and we all know they’ve got constitutional rights, but what she’s really doing … she’s trying to teach them how to evade law enforcement."
At the time Homan made those comments, AOC published a childish reply on her X account.
"MaYbe shE's goiNg to be in TroUble nOw"
Maybe he can learn to read. The Constitution would be a good place to start https://t.co/vQ69UDyQnT
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 14, 2025
It'll certainly be interesting to see if she's forced to eat her words, should she actually be hauled to court.
So many Democrats and others are so ridden with Trump Derangement Sydrome (TDS) that it often transfers on to other members of Trump's administration, including on Vice President J.D. Vance.
According to the Daily Mail, one of VP Vance's old college friends, who happens to be a politician, recently announced that Vance isn't welcomed in Canada until President Trump changes his rhetoric about the country becoming America's 51st state.
The Canadian politician, Jamil Jivani, once referred to Vance as "brother," indicating a strong friendship.
But apparently that's gone out of the window in the wake of Trump's repeated insistence that Canada would be better off joining the United States.
Jivani, a conservative member of the nation's parliament, recently won his reelection bid, which was especially notable given that the most recent election in Canada saw liberals storm the proverbial gates.
The Canadian politician most recently had dinner with Vance in December and even attended the inauguration in Washington D.C., but now he seems to not be very fond of Trump's rhetoric and is taking it out on his old friend.
"They need to probably reconsider some of their rhetoric and their policy before coming to Canada," Jivani said.
The Daily Mail noted:
The pair were friends long before they got into politics, having attended Yale Law School together, with Jivani joking that they'd been in a fantasy football league together the past 15 years.
Jivani, who represents a district populated by thousands of auto workers, admits that there has been a distance between himself in the vice president.
Jivani wasn't totally hateful when describing why he and the VP have grown apart, saying their busy schedules cause most of the distance between them.
"He's busy, I'm busy. It's just the nature of the work that we do. Certainly, the way they've talked about Canada has been a problem for me personally. I'm a proud Canadian. I'm focused on my community, and we'll see what happens next," Jivani said.
Jivani, during his reelection campaign, battled opposing candidates' ads that linked him to Vance, pushing the idea that the two were close friends, which is apparently a turn-off for most Canadian voters.
"They created commercials about me and JD being friends. They doctored pictures of us and dropped them in mailboxes in my riding," Jivani said.
He added, "The misrepresentation of who I am, what I believe in, the misrepresentation of my commitment to this country, that stuff, was very, very frustrating."
That could explain why he's distancing himself from Vance and attempting to forbid him from entering the country.
Though President Donald Trump has encountered one legal challenge to his agenda after another since taking office in January, he just notched a key win in a case involving cuts to a federally funded agency he believes propagates anti-American bias.
As Fox News reports, the D.C. Circuit federal Court of Appeals granted the Trump administration's request for a stay on a lower court ruling that required reinstatement of more than 1,000 employees of Voice of America as well as the resumption of the outlet's broadcasting operations.
It was back in March that Trump issued an executive order designed to begin the process of restructuring and potentially dismantling the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) and Voice of America.
In describing the motivations behind the move, a senior White House official explained to Fox News Digital that “Voice of America has been out of step with America for years. It serves as the Voice of Radical America and has pushed divisive propaganda for years now.”
An article on the topic published on the White House website quoted a former longtime VOA correspondent as saying, “I have monitored the agency's bureaucracy along with many of its reporters and concluded that it has essentially become a hubris-filled rogue operation often reflecting a leftist bias aligned with partisan national media. It has sought to avoid accountability for violations of journalistic standards and mismanagement.”
Trump's March order resulted in roughly 1,300 VOA employees being place on administrative leave, the termination of key contracts, and an effective halt to the entity's broadcasting activities.
That, in turn, led to the filing of the federal lawsuit through which Saturday's stay was obtained, one which reversed an April order from District Court Judge Royce Lamberth requiring VOA employees to be reinstated.
Not surprisingly, Trump officials were pleased with the outcome at the appeals court, with senior USAGM advisor Kari Lake offering her reaction to Fox News Digital.
Lake said, “We are eager to accomplish President Trump's America First agenda, which has always been to modernize and make our government efficient while cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.”
She went on, “Now that we have a favorable ruling in the appeals court, we look forward to accomplishing the plan we've always had; to bring VOA into the 21st century.”
Lake also made her opinion on the ruling known on X, characterizing it as a “BIG WIN.”
In an apparent reference to the appeals panel's emphasis on the judiciary's required level of deference to executive power in matters related to federal personnel and contracting, Lake added, “Turns out the District Court judge will not be able to manage the agency as he seemed to want to.”
Amid the issuance of the stay in the VOA case, Trump on Thursday escalated his battle against what he says is federally funded left-wing broadcast bias, signing an executive order to cease taxpayer funding for National Public Radio and PBS, as NBC News noted.
Given that proponents of NPR and PBS are already asserting that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, through which they receive public dollars, is not subject to Executive Branch authority, it seems likely that another heated legal battle in the realm of federally funded media outlets is just about to begin.
Liberals in Congress have been standing in strong opposition to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda ever since he took office in January, and one particularly outspoken lawmaker is ratcheting up the rhetoric and seemingly looking for a fight.
As Breitbart reports, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) essentially challenged the Trump administration border czar to seek charges against her for a February webinar in which she arguably provided advice on how to skirt Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations.
It was several months ago that the office of Ocasio-Cortez hosted the aforementioned “Know Your Rights” live webinar, providing advice to migrants on what to do if they find themselves under ICE enforcement scrutiny, as Fox News noted at the time.
Included in the presentation was information on how to respond if ICE officials appeared at migrants' homes or workplaces and warnings of potential “ruses” used to secure compliance with search demands.
The target audience was urged to record interactions with ICE and to learn the differences between types of warrants and searches conducted by the agency.
Though the congresswoman was not a direct participant in the presentation of information, she did write with regard to its content, “Our strategic advantage in this moment is our strength in numbers. It is time to use it. In nearly every way, we outnumber those who want to abuse their power and keep people in fear,” telling constituents that “if ICE comes to your workplace or home, whether you are a citizen or noncitizen -- YOU can defend your community and our constitution by exercising your right.”
The involvement of Ocasio-Cortez drew the attention of Homan, who then said during a Fox News appearance, “Is that impeding our law enforcement efforts? If so, what are we going to do about it? Is she crossing the line? So, I'm working with the Department of Justice and finding out. Where is that line that they cross? So, maybe AOC's gonna be in trouble now.”
Shortly after Homan made his remarks, AOC offered a snarky retort to the border czar, saying, “Maybe he can learn to read. The Constitution would be a good place to start.”
During a town hall meeting last week, Ocasio-Cortez came back to the question of whether Homan was seriously pursuing prosecution over her involvement with the webinar.
AOC stated, “Tom Homan said he was going to refer me to DOJ because I'm using my free speech rights in order to advise people of their constitutional protections. To that I say: 'Come for me, do I look like I care?'”
She pressed her point further by declaring there to have been “nothing illegal about it, and if they want to make it illegal, they can come take me.”
In addition to defiance with regard to Homan, AOC has ramped up her rhetoric about Trump's agenda more broadly, suggesting that his administration's removals of Venezuelan gang members has been akin to “sanctioned kidnappings.”
Law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley has commented negatively on the prospect of AOC's prosecution over the webinar controversy, saying that it would amount to “an assault on free speech rights,” but the administration continues to express a hardline stance against those who would willfully interfere with the work of ICE.
With the issuance of an executive order by Trump last week designed to identify and possibly halt funding to sanctuary cities that thwart local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, it is quite clear that the administration is not backing down when it comes to its enforcement efforts, and confrontations such as the one between Homan and AOC are only likely to grow.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the rollback of regulations that have protected journalists and allowed government officials to anonymously leak information.
Bondi's order will give federal investigators the authority to use subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.
This comes after numerous leaks have damaged the Trump administration as leftist federal workers and officials have coordinated with leftist media outlets to spread damaging information.
The issue of leakers was so prolific during Trump's first term in the White House that Trump administration officials spent more time putting out fires than actually advancing Trump's agenda.
So far, Trump's 2nd term has seen much of the same damaging leaks, and the DOJ is now going to crack down hard on both journalists and the leakers feeding damaging information to damage President Trump and his agenda.
The Biden-era policy was put in place to protect journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations. This regulation was strongly advocated for by the mainstream media and journalist advocacy groups.
With those regulations being trashed, the Trump administration is now introducing new regulations that will preserve journalistic freedom but not so much as to allow leakers to blatantly sabotage the White House.
The new regulations will compel journalists to respond to subpoenas “when authorized at the appropriate level of the Department of Justice.”
Furthermore, the new rules will allow prosecutors to use court orders and search warrants to “compel production of information and testimony by and relating to the news media."
However, in order to preserve journalistic freedom, the new regulations explicitly stated that journalists are "presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn."
The Trump administration is committed to toeing the narrow line that will preserve freedom of the press while cracking down on political actors dedicated to stopping the Trump agenda through nefarious tactics.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been at the forefront of taking down leakers by announcing criminal referrals to the Justice Department against multiple individuals who were caught leaking sensitive information.
The Trump administration is going to throw everything they have at the leakers it can catch in order to dissuade other leftists in the federal government from throwing away their careers and lives to serve a political cause.
With these new regulations, the Trump administration is hoping to catch even more leakers and make more examples and stop the bleeding before it bogs down the rest of Trump's 2nd term.
Germany's domestic intelligence agency, known as the BfV, has taken a significant step by classifying the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as "extremist." This decision marks a controversial turn in German politics and has garnered commentary both within the nation and internationally.
The classification grants the intelligence agency increased authority to monitor the AfD, including more intensive surveillance and interception of communications, Fox News reports.
The BfV announced its decision on Friday, citing concerns over the AfD's ethnically driven ideology, which it argues devalues parts of the German populace, alongside the party's anti-migrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric.
This classification follows an extensive 1,100-page assessment and a court ruling where the AfD lost a battle to overturn a prior attempt by the BfV to classify it as extremist.
The political context in Germany requires any political party to be officially labeled as "extremist" to legally permit its surveillance, a policy rooted in the country’s historical experience grappling with totalitarianism. The AfD now joins a list of organizations under this classification, which also includes the neo-Nazi party NDP, the Islamic State group, and the Marxist-Leninist party.
The AfD made significant electoral gains earlier this year, finishing second in Germany’s February elections with 20.8% of the vote. This was a record for the party, cementing its position with a substantial number of parliamentary seats. The elections were ultimately won by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), led by Friedrich Merz, which garnered 28.6% of the votes and formed a coalition administration with the Social Democrats (SPD).
The Social Democrats and the CDU have both determinedly ruled out forming any coalition with the AfD. The February elections were notably challenging for the SPD, led by outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, resulting in its poorest performance since WWII, achieving only 16.4% of the vote.
The BfV’s decision has sparked a range of responses. A representative from the BfV emphasized the central issue for their assessment being the ethnically defined notions within the AfD, which they assert undermine the dignity of Germany's diverse populace. Conversely, the AfD has condemned the decision as a "blow against democracy," with the party’s leaders pledging to pursue further legal options to counter what they see as defamatory measures that threaten democratic norms.
Internationally, the decision has drawn critical responses. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio lambasted the new surveillance powers afforded to the BfV, describing the designation as an ill-disguised authoritarian measure rather than a democratic action. Rubio further argued that the AfD's stance on immigration contrasts starkly with the establishment’s policies he believes are "extreme."
Social media magnate Elon Musk also shared his concerns, expressing that moves against the AfD, a party he describes as centrist, are more aligned with eroding democratic principles. Similarly, American senator JD Vance has voiced apprehension about what he sees as an erosion of free speech in Europe, having previously met with AfD leader Alice Weidel before the elections.
Amidst the controversy, the future of the AfD remains uncertain but is vital for German politics. The party is continuing its legal efforts and maintains a robust voter base, evident from its recent electoral success. The AfD's leadership has reiterated its intention to challenge the BfV's classification, reinforcing its commitment to counter what it terms a politically driven attack.
As this political and legal saga unfolds, the discussion surrounding Germany's intelligence-gathering laws and their impact on democratic opposition parties continues to evolve.
The situation underscores the complex balance between national security interests and maintaining the democratic freedoms within Germany’s political system.
The decision to label the AfD as "extremist" reflects broader global debates about security, democratic freedom, and populist movements, ensuring this story will remain a point of interest both in Germany and internationally as ensuing developments emerge.