This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An federal appeals court has ruled that a trial court judge failed to adequately consider President Donald Trump's immunity, confirmed by a Supreme Court ruling, in a dispute created by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that claimed Trump's description of legal fees as legal fees was wrong in the so-called hush money fight.
Courthousenews said it was a panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that returned the case to Alvin Hellerstein a district judge, in Manhattan.
The decision revived Trump's fight against the Bragg-driven case that also featured a number of holes.
The appeals judges did not direct Hellerstein's decision.
They wrote, "We cannot be confident that … the district court adequately considered issues relevant to the good cause inquiry so as to enable meaningful appellate review. For example, the district court did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed the state's case into one that relates to acts under color of the presidency."
The Manhattan DA has fought any review of his political case against Trump.
The jury's claim in the case was that Trump was guilty of 34 felonies for falsifying business records.
The report charged, "The jury found that Trump orchestrated his former personal attorney and 'fixer' Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who Trump was concerned would share details from their 2006 sexual encounter at an inopportune time during the election. When repaying Cohen, Trump disguised the payments as standard legal fees, sometimes signing those illicit checks from the Oval Office during his first presidential term, witnesses testified."
Legacy media reports often ignore the fact that both alleged participants in that encountered denied it happened.
Trump repeatedly has described the case as just another in the Democrat party's weaponization of the courts against him, not without evidence.
Trump already is appealing the same fight in New York state courts.
WND had reported on the state system appeal that the case all erupted because of Bragg.
When Bragg made the allegations, the judge, Juan Merchan, censored Trump's statements about the case. He allowed prosecutors to leave a vague "secondary" crime claim in place without any specifics. He delivered pro-prosecution jury instructions which seemed to allow a verdict without unanimity.
And all the while, Merchan's daughter was making money advising Democrats on issues that could include her father's courtroom rulings.
The basis of the most recent rulings is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that presidents have complete immunity for actions as president, but not for private actions.
Trump charges that ruling means prosecutors should not have been allowed to say some of the things they claimed about him.
The Washington Examiner reported Trump's legal team confirmed the Supreme Court's decision on immunity "means prosecutors should have been barred from using evidence connected to Trump's 'official' acts as president in the case against him."
It was in 2024 that a jury in leftist-majority Manhattan said he was guilty of falsifying records dealing with a payment to onetime porn star Stormy Daniels, 34 counts total.
The errors made in the trial court, however, mean the conviction should be scrapped, the report said.
Merchan, a donor to a Democrat cause, in fact, barred some of Trump's defense evidence, including statements that appeared to exonerate him from Daniels herself, censored Trump's speech, delivered pro-prosecution instructions, and more.
"One of the mistakes some legal critics believe was committed during the trial involved allegations that the New York district attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, never committed itself to what the second crime was. Rather, his office theorized that the crime could have been a New York tax violation, a federal campaign finance violation, or a New York election law violation," the report explained.
The law violation brought by Bragg is a two-part crime, meaning it depends on violation of another statute, and the prosecution never clarified that. That means some members of the jury may have assumed one law, or another, leaving their verdict not unanimous.
"The court permitted the jury to convict if some jurors believed only that President Trump had conspired to violate FECA, while others believed only that he had conspired to help others commit tax fraud, and still others believed only that he had conspired to help others make false statements to a bank," appeals court filings said. "Due process and Section 17-152 do not permit a conviction based on such a haphazard 'combination of jury findings.'"
At sentencing, Merchan spent seven minutes complaining that he was limited in his sentencing, then gave Trump an unconditional discharge, allowing for no fines, jail or probation while continuing the felony convictions.
Merchan, whose daughter is a consultant who was making money off of her father's multiple rulings against Trump, claimed "extraordinary" legal protections handed to the president of the United States required him to hand down a minor sentence that Trump would allegedly not have received without being reelected.
Merchan, in extraordinary fashion, allowed a wide range of inflammatory testimony to come into his courtroom against Trump. A long list of legal experts charged that the case never should have been created by Bragg. Merchan, in fact, inexplicably told the jurors their verdict didn't have to be unanimous.
The "offenses" actually were misdemeanors until Bragg theorized they were part of the furtherance of another, unidentified, crime, and that made them felonies. Experts called Bragg's machinations "legally creative."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats and other leftists across America have been unleashing rage rhetoric with foaming-at-the-mouth episodes of dysfunction in recent months.
Calling President Trump "Hitler" and his fans "Nazis" no longer seems to be enough.
Now there are insults and sometimes demands for physically impossible actions, even threats.
And the infection has spread even to mostly Republican Montana, where one political candidate, Haley McKnight, seeking to be a city commissioner there, oddly thought her campaign would be enhanced by a vile, vicious verbal assault on Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Republican.
Editor's Note: Be aware of offensive language from McKnight.
On social media, commenters responded to McKnight with:
"Imagine running for public office and thinking death threats via voice mail is part of the campaign strategy."
"I don't think she gets invited to a lot of parties."
"This voicemail raises issues of potential criminal threats, harassment, and civil liabilities, especially, given McKnight's public role as a candidate."
And, "We're gonna need a bigger mental institution."
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who has a book addressing the issue, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," commented on the current trend among mostly leftists for "unmitigated hate speech."
McKnight hopes for Sheehy, death, cancer, more death, and yes, more death.
Turley noted in Virginia the Democratic candidate for attorney general, Jay Jones, admitted that he previously expressed a desire to kill a political opponent and his children.
McNight's rant include: "Hi, this is Haley McKnight. I'm a constituent in Helena, Montana. I just wanted to let you know that you are the most insufferable kind of coward and thief. You just stripped away health care for 17 million Americans, and I hope you're really proud of that. I hope that one day you get pancreatic cancer, and it spreads throughout your body so fast that they can't even treat you for it."
She then descended into a "litany" of insults about fertility, Sheehy's children, and threatened the senator not to "meet me on the streets."
"I hope you die in the street like a dog. One day, you're going to live to regret this. I hope that your children never forgive you. I hope that you are infertile. I hope that you manage to never get a boner ever again. You are the worst piece of s*** I have ever, ever, ever had the misfortune of looking at … God forbid that you ever meet me on the streets because I will make you regret it. F*** you. I hope you die…All that you have done since you have gotten into power is do s*** for yourself."
Turley noted that McKnight's response was that her rage was "righteous" and she blamed "conservatives" for making public her threats.
She claimed, "I was responding to some horrible policy with some justified rage." And she blamed the senator for not responding to her call.
"I would hope that if Sheehy was so rattled by my voicemail, he would have contacted me instead of leaking my information to conservative news media the night before an election. It feels like a cheap shot. I'm one of his constituents, and you know, this message is nothing that I'd say to my grandmother or in front of any children, it was meant for Senator Sheehy alone."
The Montana Free Press said McKnight, who wants to be on Helena's city commission, said her "rage" was "justified."
She claimed to the publication she didn't really wish the senator "any harm."
In fact, she now has accused the senator of trying to "bully and harass" her.
Sheehy spokeswoman Jack O'Brien said, "We hope Ms. McKnight gets the help she clearly needs."
She has been described as a "progressive" and records show she's donated money to a Democrat.
Officials confirmed police had been notified.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new internal report regarding the British Broadcasting Corp. confirms that its officials lied about President Donald Trump when reporting on the Jan. 6, 2021, speech to a crowd of fans.
That was the day that some of those fans walked to the Capitol to protest what they viewed as the wrongful election of Joe Biden.
Some broke the law by entering the building when authorities barred them. And a few inside vandalized parts of the building.
They later were pardoned by Trump.
But according to the Daily Mail, a new "damning internal report" confirms that the BBC "manipulated" statements "to make it appear as though he encouraged his supporters to break into the Capitol."
Michael Prescott, was an independent adviser to the BBC for years, and sent a dossier to its board last month, the report said.
The documentation accused the BBC, which is paid for by taxpayers in the U.K., of having a widespread bias against Trump, on the Gaza war and on the transgender debate.
"Prescott explained how the BBC – often described as the world's 'most trusted' broadcaster – 'completely misled' viewers during an episode of the program Panorama which aired a week before the election by showing the president telling supporters he was going to walk to the Capitol with them to 'fight like hell.'"
The analysis revealed that Trump actually said he would walk with them "to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
He ended up not being allowed by Secret Service to walk with the crowd.
The network created Trump saying things he "never actually said" by editing and splicing footage of his speech, the report said.
The memo's author warned BBC chief Samir Shah of the very dangerous precedent created by the Panorama claims.
"It is now understood that Prescott's report is circulating among senior figures in the British government," the report said.
Donald Trump Jr. said, "The FAKE NEWS 'reporters' in the UK are just as dishonest and full of s— as the ones here in America!!!!' he wrote on X."
Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in the report, "'We have Britain's national broadcaster using a flagship program to tell palpable untruths about Britain's closest ally. Is anyone at the BBC going to take responsibility – and resign?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Legendary actor Harrison Ford, best-known for his roles in "Indiana Jones" and "Star Wars" films, has developed a full-blown case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, calling the president the greatest "criminal in history" who "scares the s***" out of him.
In an interview with the left-leaning British newspaper the Guardian this week, the 83-year-old Ford launched a scathing attack on Trump, saying the commander in chief "doesn't have any policies, he has whims. It scares the s*** out of me.
"The ignorance, the hubris, the lies, the perfidy. [Trump] knows better, but he's an instrument of the status quo and he's making money, hand over fist, while the world goes to hell in a handbasket."
"It's unbelievable. I don't know of a greater criminal in history."
Ford will be at Chicago's Field Museum this Wednesday to receive a conservation leadership award, and he blasted Trump for ignoring so-called climate change.
The president exposed climate change as "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world," in a speech to the United Nations in New York last month. "If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail. You need strong borders and traditional energy sources if you are going to be great again."
Ford is blaming natural disasters on climate change, saying: "I knew it was coming, I have been preaching this stuff for 30 years."
"Everything we've said about climate change has come true. Why is that not sufficient that it alarms people that they change behaviors? Because of the entrenched status quo."
The actor told the Guardian he was hopeful that Trump's fossil fuel-dominated outlook would not prevail.
"He's losing ground because everything he says is a lie," Ford said. "I'm confident we can mitigate against [climate change], that we can buy time to change behaviors, to create new technologies, to concentrate more fully on implementation of those policies."
"But we have to develop the political will and intellectual sophistication to realize that we human beings are capable of change. We are incredibly adaptive, we are incredibly inventive. If we concentrate on a problem we can fix it most times."
During the 2024 presidential election, Ford produced videos of himself endorsing the Democrat ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Among the many agenda points begun by Barack Obama in the White House and continued by Joe Biden was the nation's tolerant position on the persecution of Christians, especially in Nigeria.
There, Islamists have been, for years, slaughtering members of the Christian faith.
It has reached a point now that President Donald Trump has taken dramatic action, labeling the African nation a "country of particular concern" because of its death agenda.
"Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria," Trump posted to Truth Social. "Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a 'COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN' — But that is the least of it."
He called for action against those persecuting people for their faith.
Trump announced he has told Reps. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., and Tom Cole, R-Okla., and members of the House Appropriations Committee to investigate and then report.
"The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening in Nigeria, and numerous other Countries," Trump said. "We stand ready, willing, and able to save our Great Christian population around the World!"
It was an abrupt turnabout from Obama's agenda. Obama, who once went overseas and declared that America no longer was a Christian nation, actually was accused by former Nigerian leaders of no less than facilitating the attacks on Christians.
A WND report from Obama's second term explained how Goodluck Jonathan, then just out of office as Nigeria's president, wrote in "My Transition Hours," that, Obama had taken the "unusual step" of telling Nigerians how to vote for their president.
"In that video, Obama urged Nigerians to open the 'next chapter' by their votes. Those who understood subliminal language deciphered that he was prodding the electorate to vote for the [Muslim-led] opposition to form a new government," the report said.
In fact, when Jonathan won an initial round of ballot counts, residents of Muslim-majority northern states rioted.
Eventually, the Muslim candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, was declared the winner.
"That the Obama administration may have imposed its will on a foreign country's politics and elections is hardly unprecedented. Recall the administration's partiality for the Muslim Brotherhood during and after 2012 presidential elections in Egypt; or its unsuccessful efforts to oust Israeli prime minister Netanyahu with U.S. taxpayers' money; or its efforts – with an admittedly unverified 'dossier' … to prevent then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump from being elected, or by discussing an 'insurance policy' in the event that Trump won," a columnist explained.
"So in Nigeria, the Obama administration, it seems, sought to right the apparently intolerable wrong of having a duly elected Christian president in a more than 50 percent Christian nation."
Columnist Raymond Ibrahim said, "The Obama administration insisted that violence and bloodshed in Nigeria – almost all of which was committed by Muslims against Christians – had nothing to do with religion. This despite the fact that Boko Haram – which was engaging in ISIS type of atrocities: slaughter, kidnap, rape, plunder, slavery, torture before ISIS was even born – presented its terrorism as a jihad. In one instance it even called on President Jonathan to 'repent and forsake Christianity' and convert to Islam as the price for peace."
Obama then refused to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization until years after pressure from lawmakers and human rights groups.
The report noted, "Then when a conference was scheduled in the U.S. for the governors' of Nigeria's states, the Obama administration blocked the visa of the region's only Christian governor."
The Fox report said Trump's action was triggered after "entire villages have been burned to the ground, worshipers killed during Sunday services, and thousands displaced by Islamist groups sweeping through the country's northern and central regions."
Islamists have killed "hundreds" of Christians this year alone.
Fox reported, "According to the international watchdog group Open Doors, nearly 70% of all Christians killed for their faith worldwide last year were in Nigeria. The group warns that Boko Haram, Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and Fulani militant herders are responsible for most of the bloodshed, often targeting Christian farmers in the country's Middle Belt."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The situation already made officials at the Loudoun County, Virginia, school district look bad.
In their pursuit of transgenderism for all, they punished, for alleged sexual harassment, two boys who caught a girl in their locker room, threatening them and worse.
The district was sued, and now a new filing in that case has charged that officials "coordinated" with a local leftist political action committee "to smear" the families of the boys.
According to the Washington Examiner, lawyers for the boys and their families have amended their complaint to charge district officials with "civil conspiracy,"
The school allegedly used the confidential information it had about the situation to give to an organization called Loudoun For All for the purpose of "stoking political outrage ahead of local elections," the report said.
The materials included press releases and a case timeline, and the new filing explains the details were leaked "to assist in issuing statements labeling the families liars," the report said.
The information, containing "false and defamatory allegations," soon appeared on the PAC's website.
"It appears the school board was passing along confidential information to a political action committee for the purpose of further retaliating against our clients," explained Ian Prior, a lawyer with America First Legal, which is working the Founding Freedoms Law Center to help the families.
It all dates back to when a girl who calls herself a boy went into the boys locker room at Stone Bridge High School and recorded the boys objecting to her presence. Even though her recording apparently violated school policy, the school chose to punish the boys.
The newest filing also charges that Loudoun's Title IX process "relied on non-credible evidence, omitted key witness interviews, and deleted video footage that could have supported the boys' account," the report said.
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights already has concluded Loudoun violated Title IX by failing to "meaningfully investigate" the concerns raised by the boys – about a girl entering a male-only facility.
Based on the federal conclusions the district could lose federal funding if officials do not protect individuals in single-sex facilities.
Also, a federal judge has ordered the schools not to punish the boys further while the case is pending.
WND reported when students, fed up with the district's refusal to protect boys and girls in such settings, took to the streets to encourage voters to remove from power those with that leftist ideology.
A commentary at Twitchy was prompted to state, "BOOM! VA teens take matters into their own hands to stop school board trans-LUNACY…"
Local broadcaster WJLA said, "For the past four years, LCPS has allowed students to use bathrooms and locker rooms at school based on their chosen gender identity and not biological sex. Several students have protested the policy in the past, but the school board hasn't budged. Since the teens said the school board hasn't listened to their concerns, these students want a new school board and they're asking voters to help."
One teen told the outlet, "I've been sick of it for quite a while. I just can't put up with it anymore. It's not normal. It's not something we should be supporting."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
"You know it's going to be a bad traffic stop, when you have to repeat 'Put your pants on!'"
And it was.
That social media comment followed video of an Arkansas trooper's encounter with a naked truck driver who had parked alongside the road, and apparently was sleeping.
The driver repeatedly exhibits no understanding of English, nor recognition of road signs.
He ended up being pulled off the road, according to the video.
The incident comes at a time in America when multiple foreign drivers have been documented to fail at understanding or speaking English, or recognizing ordinary traffic requirements.
The cost has been multiple Americans' lives, as the drivers repeatedly have triggered massive violent and deadly accidents.
The problem has been defined on social media as California's agenda to deliver commercial driver's licenses to such individuals.
Other social media comments included: "That's freaking scary."
And, "Hold the company accountable."
Not the Bee reported, "This trooper's interaction with a trucker who can't speak English will be the most frustrating thing you'll watch all day."
American Truckers said, "California's treasonous Non-Domicile CDL standards are endangering motorists nationwide. How long before other states revoke all reciprocity for California CDLs?"
The driver responded "California" to the question about his employer, and also "California" when asked if there was anyone else in the truck with him.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. military carried out another round of strikes against alleged drug runners Monday, this time killing 14 suspected narco-terrorists on four boats in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Tuesday: "Yesterday, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out three lethal kinetic strikes on four vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations trafficking narcotics in the Eastern Pacific.
"The four vessels were known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics.
Hegseth explained: "Eight male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessels during the first strike. Four male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the second strike. Three male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the third strike. A total of 14 narco-terrorists were killed during the three strikes, with one survivor. All strikes were in international waters with no U.S. forces harmed.
"Regarding the survivor, USSOUTHCOM immediately initiated Search and Rescue (SAR) standard protocols; Mexican SAR authorities accepted the case and assumed responsibility for coordinating the rescue.
"The Department has spent over TWO DECADES defending other homelands. Now, we're defending our own. These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them."
On Friday, Hegseth announced "the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO), trafficking narcotics in the Caribbean Sea."
"Six male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the strike, which was conducted in international waters – and was the first strike at night," Hegseth said. "All six terrorists were killed and no U.S. forces were harmed in this strike."
Some online reaction to Monday's operation includes:
"It's like word isn't getting back to the club! All the boats are spontaneously combusting."
"Can we get this in 4K? Asking for a friend."
"Death from above, below, by land or sea, it has been long overdue to rid ourselves of this terrible plague. I grow weary of the loss of life I see in the ER, and complications thereof from narcotic abuse. For what it's worth, I lost a daughter to this demon as well. It hits hard, and now, we strike back harder. Thank you Secretary Hegseth, and thank you, Mr. President."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The war launched by terrorists in Hamas against Israel two years ago, when an invasion cost the lives of some 1,200 Israeli civilians with another 250 were kidnapped, apparently is winding down, under a multipoint plan authored by President Donald Trump.
It called for the release of the last living hostages, which has happened. The bodies of dead hostages still are being located. The Gaza region is ultimately to be run by a multi-party coalition.
But for now, Hamas still retains huge political influence in the region, and a journalist now is warning Arab Gulf states against contributing to the reconstruction process there until that status changes.
Until Hamas is out of power.
"The potential for embezzlement and re-channeling of funds for terrorist purposes is not a theoretical concern but a tangible reality. The fundamental question today is: who can guarantee that this scenario will not repeat itself? Hamas still holds power, the civil administration is in a state of collapse, and prospects for a political solution are nowhere in sight. Reconstruction through traditional channels without strict oversight guarantees is a costly venture. The massive reconstruction bill could turn into a long-term economic and political trap, the price of which generations of Gulf citizens will have to pay without any real redeeming value for ordinary Palestinians," explained Salem Al-Ketbi, an Emirati political analyst, in a report compiled by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
MEMRI explained that Al-Ketbi charged that financial involvement in Gaza "is a very risky venture, given that aid provided in the past to Hamas-controlled Gaza, intended for building schools and hospitals and other civilian purposes, was largely seized by Hamas and channeled to military projects."
He wrote there's increasing pressure for funding to pay for the reconstruction of a region decimated in the war triggered by Hamas. In fact, many schools and hospitals there have been destroyed as Hamas terrorists often would use those locations as shields for their military campaigns.
"Behind the slogans of humanitarian obligations lurk complex interests and political stakes that may not match the true intentions. Discussions of [the] aid in question [go] beyond emergency relief. They extend to massive investments in an environment still under Hamas control. The estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds $70 billion, and the effort could span three full decades," he wrote.
"Based on past precedents one cannot be very optimistic. UN reports in 2023 revealed that more than $7 billion have been transferred to Gaza since 2006, including $2 billion provided by the Gulf states. Funds were allocated to the building of schools and hospitals, but most of the money was diverted to illicit purposes," Al-Ketbi said.
"Hamas channeled most of the funds to its military projects, [and] the small share spent on construction benefited the movement's cadres and leaders, while ordinary Palestinians were left to simmer in dire conditions."
He noted that, for example, about $1 billion was spent on a network of hundreds of miles of military tunnels.
Embezzlement reached an estimated $350 million in just two years.
He said Gulf states should avoid entering a campaign in which terrorists could embezzle money, and use the purchased weapons against those very states.
"The glaring paradox lies in the position of certain regional states whose direct role in financing the terrorism of Hamas is well-documented. As a clear example, Iran publicly boasts that it has pumped $700 million annually into Hamas's coffers, according to statements by Tehran and the Palestinian militant group's leaders. Meanwhile, other regional countries have provided [a] safe haven to Hamas' leaders and supported them with hundreds of millions annually. These countries, which directly, publicly, and continuously fund Hamas, some of which harbour clear animosity towards Arab Gulf states, have not been held accountable for their role in supporting terrorism. So why should the Gulf states, which have been victims to Hamas' embezzlement, be asked to foot a huge portion of the $70 billion bill?"
He continued, "The wise position is clear and unequivocal: no money for Gaza, no billions for reconstruction, and no massive Gulf investments as long as Hamas remains in control of the Strip."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fed-up with California's issuance of commercial driver's licenses to illegal migrants, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy on Sunday said the federal government is on the verge of yanking $160 million from the Golden State.
"I'm about to pull $160 million from California," Duffy said on "Sunday Morning Futures" on the Fox News Channel, "and as we pull more money, we also have the option of pulling California's ability to issue commercial driver's licenses."
Duffy said the state's governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom who announced Sunday his interest in the presidency, "cares more abut illegals getting commercial driver's licenses than he does the citizens of his own state and the safety of Americans."
"It's shameful. He's been lying about what he's been doing. And again we're gonna fight tooth and nail under President Trump's administration to make sure that we hold states like California accountable."
Duffy explained there's a "non-domiciled CDL" that allows Americans who reside in one state to be issued a license from another.
"But you're an American citizen," he stressed. "Democrats have contorted this rule, they've abused the rule, and they have now allowed foreigners to get a non-domiciled CDL."
Duffy indicated 60,000 of such licenses have now been issued to people who are not in the country legally and are putting citizens at risk on the roadways.
"So you have 60,000 people on the roads who shouldn't have licenses. They 're driving fuel tankers, they're driving school buses," he said.
"Gavin Newsom has thumbed his nose at us."
Bartiromo also brought up the point that these illegal aliens could be able to cast votes in American elections using their driver's licenses as identification.
"If you're an illegal, you shouldn't have a license," Duffy stated, adding 'there could be some kind of identifier [on a driver's license] that shows you're not a citizen."
"This is the corruption that happens inside of Democrat states."