Two suspects have been arrested in connection with a string of five shootings in and around Charlotte, North Carolina, one of whom has been identified as an illegal immigrant.
18-year-old Carlos Roberto Diaz and a 16-year-old juvenile were arrested in connection with the spree of shootings that have led to charges ranging from first-degree murder to shooting into an occupied dwelling.
The juvenile was charged with first-degree murder, and additional charges are expected to come in the coming days.
Diaz faces a host of charges including one count of first-degree murder, two counts of shooting into an occupied vehicle, one count of felony conspiracy to commit murder, five counts of attempted murder, two counts of shooting into an occupied dwelling, and one count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflict serious injury.
Diaz is in the U.S. illegally and immigrated from Honduras and had an encounter with Border Patrol when he crossed the border in 2019 at the age of 14.
The shootings that took place last week have become part of an increasingly overbearing nightmare for innocent Americans who are watching the country devolve into violence and chaos thanks to President Joe Biden's open borders.
Thousands upon thousands of unvetted immigrants, often young men, have poured into the United States causing violence and unrest thanks to Biden's refusal to close the border and order deportations.
Diaz and his 16-year-old accomplice are just two individuals who are a part of this growing problem and we know that Diaz should never have entered the United States.
What's worse is the motives for this event seem to be entirely random as the 16-year-old reportedly told police that he and Diaz decided to go on a crime spree after they went to a party together. The pair would go on to commit five different shootings which happened in about 30 minutes following that party.
Anthony Blocker, a neighbor, told the media "You got people now just going by and shooting because they don’t have anything to do. Yeah, that’s scary. That’s scary. I’m glad we no longer have that in our community."
While violent crime certainly existed prior to Biden throwing the borders open, things have gotten much worse since Biden stepped in and decided to let in thousands of unvetted young men.
Biden's border policies have been an abject failure and the American people are paying the price for it. Incidents of random violence committed at the hands of illegal immigrants are countless and Biden owes Americans an explanation.
Thankfully, a reckoning is coming as Americans have a chance to render a referendum on Biden's policies in November's presidential election.
Americans largely disapprove of Biden's border handling and it is a major issue that former President Donald Trump is running on. We can only hope this madness ends before more victims are terrorized by offenders who aren't even supposed to be here.
House Republicans failed to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in “inherent contempt” of Congress on Thursday thanks to four Representatives defecting and voting with Democrats.
Representatives David Joyce (R-OH), Michael Turner (R-OH), Tom McClintock (R-CA), and John Duarte (R-CA) all voted with Democrats against the resolution meaning Garland will face no legal consequences for refusing a Congressional subpoena.
This measure would have fined Garland $10,000 per day until he abided by congressional subpoenas to release the audio recordings.
Republicans in Congress are demanding that Garland hand over audio recordings of President Joe Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur who was investigating Biden's “handling of classified materials."
The transcript of the interview is already available but Garland refused to hand over the tapes because it would "chill cooperation with the department in future investigations."
Garland is refusing a lawful order from Congress to turn over the audio tapes and this is particularly relevant considering that two advisors to former President Donald Trump are in prison for the very same crime.
Peter Navarro, who advised Trump during his first term in the White House, is serving a prison sentence for refusing a subpoena from the January 6th select committee.
It was just recently discovered that the Jan. 6th committee, which was run by Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans, fabricated evidence in order to make a case against Trump. But Navarro is still serving time in prison for refusing what he claimed was an illegitimate subpoena.
Another key advisor to Trump, Steven Bannon, is also serving a prison sentence for refusing a subpoena from Democrats in Congress.
Democrats have made it clear that they will use their power against Republicans and that includes prison sentences for those who refuse to bow to questionable requests.
Punishing Garland is less about accountability and more about demonstrating to Democrats that Republicans will play by the same rules. Only, thanks to those four Representatives, Garland can continue to defy House Republicans.
Republicans have become painfully aware of the two-tier justice system in America today where conservatives face the full force of the law while Democrats skate by. However, Republicans have become willing participants in their handling of Garland.
Republicans hold the power to punish Garland but refuse to use it while Trump's advisors sit in prison for the same crime under much less clear-cut circumstances.
Where it can be argued that Navarro and Bannon are political prisoners, Garland's case is cut and dry. He's refusing to hand over an audio recording to Congress because of the political implications it poses for President Biden.
Furthermore, it's worth remembering that this audio recording stems from an investigation that found that President Biden mishandled classified documents but that he shouldn't be prosecuted.
The two-tier justice system is alive and well and Republicans refuse to take substantive measures to fight back.
The founder of David's Cookies, David Lieberman, died of a heart attack at age 75 on Thursday in a Mount Kisco, New York hospital, according to his wife Susan.
Lieberman was also being treated for myelofibrosis, a type of blood cancer, at the time of his death. The hospital was near his home in Katonah.
Lieberman founded David's Cookies in 1979 after getting a law degree and becoming a chef. He was the first baker in many decades to create chocolate chunk cookies by using chopped Swiss dark chocolate instead of chocolate chips, which were created in 1938 by Nestle.
Lieberman abandoned a law career to work in the kitchen at Troisgros in France, becoming the first American to work there.
“He was always trying to do something that no one else thought of,” his younger brother, William Liederman, said about his cooking.
Lieberman created a line of sauces that chefs could use instead of bullion in cooking, but while he was marketing those products, he visited a cookie store in San Francisco and was underwhelmed.
He joined the trend of opening cookie shops with his first David's Cookies store in Manhattan and eventually grew the brand to 100 stores around the U.S. and in Japan, making tens of millions of dollars annually.
He sold a variety of cookie types along with bread and other baked products until he sold the chain to Fairfield Foods in New Jersey in 2015 and retired.
He eventually decided David's Cookies no longer met his standards and was thinking of getting back into the cookie business at the time of his death.
But even as he built a veritable cookie empire, he also continued his work as a chef and owned several restaurants in New York City.
Lieberman struggled with his weight and was told by his doctor to lose weight if he wanted to live to see his grandchildren.
In 1990, he wrote a weight loss book but did not find the success he needed that way.
He gave up drinking despite being a wine connoisseur and did live to see two grandchildren.
His name will live on through the cookie company he founded and through other cooking ventures and restaurants.
The House of Representatives took what many would have previously considered a redundant step, and banned voting for non-citizens, as The Hill reported.
The bill, which passed the House by a vote of 221-198, was shockingly controversial, considering it is already legal for non-citizens to vote.
On Wednesday, a bill that has been advocated for by former President Trump was approved by a small number of Democrats and House Republicans.
The bill aims to impose voter register purge requirements on states and expand the proof-of-citizenship requirements for eligibility to vote in federal elections.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which is the formal name of the legislation, was approved, with five Democrats voting in favor.
It is now on its way to the Senate, where it is almost certain to be disregarded due to Democratic opposition.
President Joe Biden has promised that if the bill should reach his desk, he will veto it, giving every indication that he supports a lack of election security.
The bill's opponents contend that its fundamental concept, which is to declare noncitizen voting as unlawful, is redundant.
They also contend that its provisions are more likely to result in the denial of the right to vote to U.S. citizens than in the prevention of votes by foreign nationals.
On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) argued on the House floor that the legislation is essential due to the fact that noncitizens have voted in U.S. elections despite the fact that it is unlawful to do so.
“Even though it’s already illegal, this is happening,” Johnson said.
In May, Johnson told reporters, “We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it’s not been something that is easily provable. We don’t have that number.
“This legislation will allow us to do exactly that — it will prevent that from happening. And if someone tries to do it, it will now be unlawful within the states,” he added.
During a joint press conference with Trump in April, when the Speaker was attempting to rally GOP support in the face of a tiny group of Republican lawmakers threatening to remove him from office, the idea of a law preventing noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections was embraced by the Speaker.
The former president was vocal in pushing GOP lawmakers to approve the legislation in a Truth Social post, writing: “Republicans must pass the Save Act, or go home and cry yourself to sleep.”
At least one Supreme Court justice was in for a shock just days ago when a shooting rocked her personal residence, leading to the involvement of multiple agencies and, no doubt, damage to the justice's feeling of well-being in her own home.
While protecting the residence of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Washington, DC, two deputy US Marshals opened fire on a would-be carjacker who brandished a weapon, according to authorities, according to the New York Post.
The 18-year-old Kentrell Flowers allegedly approached one of the marshals' vehicles at approximately 1:15 a.m. on July 5 outside Sotomayor's home in northwest DC and brandished a firearm.
As the attacker moved toward one of the federal officials, they were forced to retaliate, taking shots at the teen, according to the US Marshals Service, as reported by The Post.
During the course of the incident, one of the federal agents pulled out his handgun and fired a number of shots at the suspect. Additionally, the second officer also fired his weapon at Flowers.
Officials added that Flowers, a resident of Southeast DC, was taken into custody and treated at a nearby hospital for injuries that were not considered life-threatening.
It has been reported by a source close to the incident that the justice who had been selected by former President Barack Obama was not at home when the attempted carjacking occurred.
During the course of their investigation into the shooting, officers from the Metropolitan Police Department discovered a semi-automatic weapon at the scene.
“The Deputy US Marshals involved in the shooting incident were part of the unit protecting the residences of U.S. Supreme Court justices,” the US Marshals office said in a statement.
Charges of armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a large-capacity magazine were brought against the teen suspect.
For the time being, the United States Marshals Service and the Metropolitan Police Department have declined to provide any additional information regarding the investigation that is still ongoing.
This is only the most recent in a string of high-profile carjackings that have occurred in the nation's capital, some of which have targeted federal agents and VIPs.
Secret Service agents who were assigned to President Biden's granddaughter, Naomi, opened fire on a group of individuals who were attempting to break into an unmarked Secret Service car. This incident occurred late last year.
When the agents arrived in Naomi's Georgetown neighborhood shortly before midnight on November 12, they discovered three individuals attempting to enter the parked car, according to the officials.
Additionally, former Trump administration staffer Mike Gill was sitting in his vehicle on K Street at approximately 5:45 p.m. in January when he was shot and killed by a carjacker. Gill was pronounced dead at the scene.
The U.S. Justice Department has asked several judges for more time to figure out how to proceed on multiple cases involving obstruction charges that the Supreme Court ruled were invalid, including charges against former President Donald Trump.
Many of the judges are based in Washington, D.C., the jurisdiction where the January 6 defendants have been charged. Prosecutors are asking for one to two months of extra time to figure out how they want to proceed on pending charges and existing convictions.
One specific case involves Ronald Sandlin, who is serving a more than five-year sentence for obstruction and assaulting a police officer.
Judge Dabney Friedrich has ordered prosecutors in the case to come up with new recommendations for charges and sentencing in light of Fischer V. United States, which ruled that obstruction must be limited to destroying physical documents that could serve as evidence.
Prosecutors asked for 30 extra days to figure out their game plan.
“The government is actively assessing the impacts of Fischer on Jan. 6 cases in a variety of procedural postures,” they said.
They admitted that the obstruction charge may not be appropriate under the narrower Supreme Court ruling.
“The government will also analyze whether it would still be able to meet its burden under the narrower interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) articulated in Fischer, and whether Fischer alters the government’s position on the defendant’s sentence,” prosecutors wrote.
Not all judges are willing to deal with the delays the DOJ is asking for, however.
In another case against Tara Stottlemeyer, prosecutors asked for 60 days to figure out whether to vacate her conviction on obstruction.
She has already served her jail sentence for breaking into several offices and rifling through papers but is still on probation.
Prosecutors noted that the obstruction charges were not wholly negated and that the DOJ needs time “so that this process may take place efficiently and thoughtfully.”
In that case, Judge Timothy Kelly denied the DOJ's request to have until September and told them to get their case together by July 30.
Judge Tanya Chutkan will also have to rule on whether or not the charges against former President Donald Trump can go forward, if DOJ prosecutors still try to make them stick.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) sent a letter to White House Physician Kevin O’Connor on Sunday, demanding that he testify before the committee about President Joe Biden's "declining mental state" along with O'Connor's alleged involvement in Biden family business dealings.
O'Connor is "in a position to provide accurate and independent reviews of the President’s fitness to serve," Comer wrote.
In particular, Comer wants to find out whether O'Connor's medical assessments of Biden were influenced by his involvement in the family's business, such as consulting with James Biden about Americore.
"After a concerning debate performance by President Biden against former President Donald Trump on June 27, journalists have rushed to report on what Americans have seen plainly for years: the President appears unwell," Comer wrote.
Comer questioned O'Connor's most recent report on Biden, characterizing him as "a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old-male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency."
O'Connor notably did not recommend or administer a cognitive test to Biden at any point during the 2020 presidential campaign or his time in office so far.
Biden performed poorly during the CNN televised presidential debate on June 27, leading to fresh questions about his mental acuity.
He and his campaign have tried to brush it off as a "bad night" exacerbated by a common cold, but many Democrats are now questioning in the media and reportedly behind closed doors whether to replace Biden as the 2024 nominee.
James Biden testified to the committee earlier this year that O'Connor "provided him counsel in connection with the alleged work he was performing for Americore."
If O'Connor stood to benefit financially from Biden remaining in office, it's possible that he would report that Biden was functioning well when he actually wasn't.
Comer has previously accused Biden of cashing in on his name and position to enrich himself and his family during his time as vice president under Barack Obama, and in the years between his tenure as vice president and president.
Numerous financial records point to tens of millions of dollars in payoffs of Biden family members, and former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski claimed that Biden, called "the big guy," was getting a cut of the payments.
The investigation into Biden by the Oversight Committee has seemed to bog down in recent months with the investigation ongoing but little action being taken.
There is also an impeachment inquiry into Biden, but that has not really gone anywhere either.
Several House and Senate Democrats are planning to meet next week where they're expected to discuss the path forward for President Joe Biden, with many Democrats wanting to remove him due to his age and failing health.
Following Biden's disastrous presidential debate and last weekend's interview with George Stephanopoulos, the mood in the Democrat Party has shifted against Biden's campaign.
Republicans have warned for years that Biden is too infirm and elderly to serve another term in office and yet Democrats bought into the White House's narrative that Biden was sharp as a tack, away from the cameras.
When Biden finally ended up in front of the cameras, it revealed just how bad things had gotten and former President Donald Trump has surged into a decisive lead in many swing states.
Democrats are running out of time and are desperate to replace Biden so all eyes are on these upcoming meetings that will happen this week.
Some Democrats are downright angry with the White House for lying to them about Biden's health. Up until this point, most Republicans assumed that Democrats were in on the secret about Biden's health.
However, it seems that Democrats actually believed Biden was in perfectly good health which speaks volumes to how tightly controlled and choreographed Biden's outings have been.
According to insider sources, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) will hold a virtual meeting with Democratic committee ranking members on Sunday.
In the Senate, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) will be holding a similar meeting next week although the exact agenda isn't known.
Even for Democrats who don't want to go as far as removing Biden, the issue of Biden dragging down down-ballot Democrats is something that must be addressed.
Democrats have crucial races to win in the House and the Senate and the possibility that discouraged Democrat voters won't come out to vote for Biden could lead to massive losses down the line.
Democrats are obviously being very political with their treatment of this situation but ever since the debate it was apparent that the party is in crisis and everyone is rallying to chart a path forward.
The bad news for Democrats is that Biden is showing no signs of wanting to step aside and appears to be deadset on staying in the race.
There are other issues to consider in replacing Biden as all the Democrat primaries have already concluded and there are legal issues involving the massive war chest that the Biden campaign has accumulated.
The Democrat Party's situation could not be worse but they have no one to blame but themselves. Republicans have been saying Biden is too old for years but Democrats drank the Kool-aid and now they have to find a way out of this mess.
Former President Donald Trump's lawyers have requested that Trump's classified documents trial be paused after a U.S. Supreme Court decision granting presidents immunity for official acts.
Lawyers representing Trump requested a pause on all proceedings in the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith except those dealing with Smith's requested gag order on Trump.
They want the trial paused until presiding Judge Aileen Cannon can apply the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to the facts of the case.
It's expected that the decision will have a massive impact on Smith's indictment. Some suspect that the indictment could fall apart entirely thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Trump's lawyers filed a request with the court on Friday that read, "Consistent with President Trump’s pending motion to dismiss based on Presidential immunity, the Supreme Court explained in Trump that it would ‘eviscerate the immunity we have recognized’ if a prosecutor could "do indirectly what he cannot do directly — invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge."
The Supreme Court recognized that the tangled web of charges and evidence that has been brought against Trump could very well run afoul of presidential immunity.
Even if not all parts of Smith's indictment are not covered under presidential immunity, the effect of even parts of Smith's indictment being wiped out will likely bring the whole complicated prosecution down.
The filing continues by saying, "Thus, ‘even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct,’ which is not the case here, prosecutors cannot ‘[u]se evidence' of official acts. Based on this reasoning, like the trial court in the Trump case, Your Honor must undertake the ‘necessarily factbound analysis’ regarding whether alleged conduct ‘is official or unofficial.'"
Basically, the trial will have to be paused while Judge Cannon works to determine what evidence covers official acts, and therefore cannot be used, and what evidence covers unofficial acts.
The trial was already delayed but this could push things well past the election in November which is horrible news for Democrats.
Democrats hoped to get a conviction of Trump before the election in order to help President Biden. Now there is virtually no chance of that happening anytime soon and should Trump win in November, there's virtually no chance of this case going anywhere.
All of that comes before you even consider whether Trump is innocent or guilty based on the facts of the case alone.
Smith's case was a long shot from the beginning that needed a favorable judge in a friendly state. Judge Cannon has been impartial and isn't helping the prosecution along while the case is being tried in Florida which is a very red state.
While Smith's case isn't officially dead, for all intents and purposes, this case is dead as far as this election cycle is concerned.
Will Scharf, a lawyer for former President Donald Trump, appeared on the Charlie Kirk Show on Real America's Voice on Wednesday to declare that Trump is not a convicted felon at this point, and may never be.
Trump lawyer Will Scharf makes an important point.
Trump is not a convicted felon until he's sentenced by Judge Merchan.
And the sentencing has been delayed and possibly cancelled all together. Media outlets should be careful with their language.pic.twitter.com/DQhDjsaxrf
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) July 3, 2024
"Trump is not a convicted felon," Scharf said. "A jury verdict is not a final judgment until the moment of sentencing, which now may never occur."
"Ooh, I love that," Kirk replied.
Kirk followed up Scharf's comments by asking him whether media outlets and Democrat mouthpieces could be sued for defamation for calling him a convicted felon.
"I'm going to watch my words here," Scharf answered with a toothy grin. "We have sued--Trump has sued George Stephanopoulos for defamation. If I were folks on the left, I would choose their words very carefully in the months ahead."
One person Trump could potentially sue would be President Joe Biden, who said during Thursday night's debate, "Only one of us here is a convicted felon, and it's not me."
Whether the public--particularly the Trump-haters--will see the statement that he's not a convicted felon as splitting hairs after he was convicted by a jury of 34 counts of falsifying business records is a valid question, however.
Charlie Kirk's show audience is primarily Trump supporters, so he and Scharf are preaching to the choir for the most part.
Democrats are gleefully throwing the term "convicted felon" around every chance they get, hoping it sticks to something.
It's election interference because it's untruthful, but then what isn't these days?
Maybe Trump can recoup some of his legal fees by suing them all into oblivion.
So far, their attempt at branding Trump as a felon has backfired like everything else they've tried.
Is there anything that will make Trump look worse than a nearly catatonic Biden at the debate last week? It's doubtful.