This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A ruling from the state Supreme Court in Missouri is allowing, at least for now, a shutdown of abortion business that do not meet minimum medical facility requirements.
"We're going to take a moment to celebrate, because this effectively shuts down abortion clinics in the state of Missouri for the time being," said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, during an interview with Tony Perkins on "Washington Watch."
The dispute is over the business operations meeting the state requirements for medical facilities.
"What the Supreme Court said was that the lower court did not apply the proper standard: The lower court said any likelihood, any chance of success on the merits, is sufficient. And that is not legally accurate," Bailey said.
A report from the Washington Stand said the result is that the case is being returned to the lower court for a re-evaluation of the issues based on the correct standard.
"Planned Parenthood at this point is starting to look more like a criminal enterprise than any kind of legitimate health care entity," Bailey charged.
"We said all along that Amendment 3 was bad, because it was not only going to result in the death of innocent children, but potentially harm to women, as well. And as soon as Amendment 3 passed, Planned Parenthood marched to court and said that they shouldn't have to have ultrasounds anymore. … They didn't have to have any plan to prevent hemorrhaging or sepsis of their 'patients,' that their facilities didn't have to be licensed, that they didn't need to sterilize their equipment, and that they didn't have to get informed consent voluntarily from the women before they performed these abortions," Bailey said.
"These are pernicious and dangerous positions that Planned Parenthood has taken in court. And they convinced a judge in Kansas City that they were correct that Amendment 3 wiped all of that out."
The amendment was the vote through which state voter allowed abortion in their state constitution.
The abortion cartel, with that amendment, had argued it no longer needed to meet state health and safety rules, no longer needed to assure the mother had not been coerced into abortion and had no reason to make preparations for the event of a botched abortion, the report explained.
It was Jerri Zhang, a circuit court judge in Jackson County, who claimed the state no longer could enforce health and safety rules such as a requirement abortionists have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of their business.
Zhang even, in an extreme move, blocked the state from requiring abortion businesses be licensed by the state.
The report noted that during a 2018 inspection of a Planned Parenthood business, state inspectors found "abortionists used an abortion suction machine clogged with 'blackish gray residue' that inspectors later identified as black mold. Planned Parenthood techs used the potentially infection-transmitting machine, although the replacement hose lay unused in a nearby cabinet. They documented that other equipment contained 'rusted areas, old peeling tape, dried adhesive residue' and 'uncleanable surfaces,' as well as the potential presence of mold or human blood during the unannounced September 26 inspection of Planned Parenthood's Columbia Health Center in Columbia, Missouri."
Abortionists have conceded in court filings that they don't even track complications and injuries that may result.
The amendment narrowly adopted by voters confirmed a woman's right "to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives."
It allows voters to protect the lives of the unborn after a baby reaches the age of viability.
Critics of the plan charged with it deliberately was vague so that it could be used to trash health and safety standards.
Bailey noted the voters were "defrauded" by amendment promoters.
"They sold people on this idea that you have a constitutional right to kill innocent children and that there should be no limitations on it. What they didn't explain is that it would eliminate all health and safety regulations," he said.
The report noted, however, that Zhang, a "liberal judicial activist," probably will side with the pro-abortion regime "under any legal standard."
Any such ruling likely will end up at the state Supreme Court again.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A long list of dozens of judges at the entry level to the federal court system have issued nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump and his voter-endorsed agenda to cut waste and fraud, remove illegal alien criminals, and more.
They've insisted on claiming the power to make decisions for the executive branch, even to the level of personnel hirings and firings.
And they've threatened the administration with contempt for not following their opinions.
But Congress now is formulating a response to that leftist agenda, a response that would withdraw the authority of those judges to enforce their own orders unless there was a bond posted when they issued the injunction.
That's already in federal law: A judge issuing an injunction can require those demanding the injunction to post a bond to cover the costs and expenses involved should that injunction eventually be overturned.
But most judges simply ignore that requirement or set a bond at zero.
A report in the Washington Examiner explains President Trump's "big, beautiful" bill, a reconciliation package approved by the House and now pending in the Senate, includes a resolution to the problem.
"The 1,000-page bill includes a provision to curb the power of federal judges to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating court orders," the report said.
"We think what these federal judges are doing is tantamount to a national crisis," a GOP aide told the publication.
The plan is for courts to enforce a rule that calls for a bond to be posted before a federal judge can issue an injunction to stop an administration move.
"Judges often refrain from using these bonds, including if plaintiffs don't have the resources to pay, and can choose to set the bond at zero. Under the bill that passed the House, a judge's injunction would not have teeth without the bond payment," the report said.
The wording is: "No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section."
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chief of the House Judiciary Committee, said, "The judge can set the security at whatever level he wants. What's typically happened in these cases is he's just waiving it. Nobody's putting it up. And they're getting this injunction that applies nationwide, which is the concern."
The result would be, if it reaches the point of being signed into law, that every federal court injunction that waived the security requirement would suddenly be unenforceable.
It's not the only move developing in response to the judges' determination that they will make executive branch decisions.
"Last month, Rep. Darrell Issa's, R-Calif., bill to block district courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions passed the House. Another attempt came from Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who introduced articles of impeachment against District Judge James Boasberg, who blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. Boasberg has threatened contempt proceedings over the order," the report explained.
Democrats argue the plan to have judges require bonds, or lose the ability to enforcement their rulings, is unconstitutional.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A plan being developed by the administration of President Donald Trump to screen the social media postings of foreign students who want visas to travel to, and study in, the United States has prompted a suspension of embassy appointments for those visas.
A report at CNN explains Secretary of State Marco Rubio has dispatched instructions to U.S. embassies and consulates to pause appointments for those students seeking permissions to come to America.
That's because the department is working to expand "social media screening and vetting" for all applicants.
The announcement comes, the report said, just as the Trump administration has revoked student visas for some students, and further withdrew permission for Harvard to enroll foreign students because of the presence of anti-Semitism on campus, although that decision was temporarily suspended by a judge.
Going on now, the State Department said, was "a review of existing operations and processes for screening and vetting of student and exchange visitor (F, M, J) visa applicants, and based on that review, plans to issue guidance on expanded social media vetting for all such applicants."
A large part of what has been creating problems is the rampant anti-Semitism on some university campuses. Anti-Israel protests have been allowed, and protesters protected, even as Jewish students face discrimination, according to multiple reports.
The cable explained those appointments, as well as the screening and vetting of applicants could have "potentially significant implications for consular section operations, processes and resource allocations."
The instructions are that embassies and consulates are not to add "any additional student or exchange visa … appointment capacity until further guidance is issued." Also, existing appointment openings are to be blocked.
At Politico, a report elaborated, "The administration had earlier imposed some social media screening requirements, but those were largely aimed at returning students who may have participated in protests against Israel's actions in Gaza. The cable doesn't directly spell out what the future social media vetting would screen for, but it alludes to executive orders that are aimed at keeping out terrorists and battling antisemitism."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Trump administration has confirmed in a new statement that, "We are out of business with Harvard."
Because of the presence of anti-Semitism on campus, and the way it handles student protests and censorship, the White House had asked the school, whose officials are sitting on some $53 billion in piles of endowment cash, to address those issues.
The school declined, and the Trump administration has responded by canceling $2.7 billion in federal contracts and grants, proposing a plan to remove the school's exemption from taxes as well as creating a tax for those endowment accounts, and canceling its permission to enroll foreign students, a plan temporarily suspended by a judge.
Now, the Washington Examiner reports the White House "is set to divert all remaining federal contracts away from Harvard University."
The report noted the General Services Administration has instructed federal agencies to review any contracts they hold with Harvard and end unnecessary contracts, while moving those that are needed to another school.
"Agencies have also been ordered not to consider Harvard for future contracts," the report said.
"We are out of business with Harvard, so look for other vendors for things you would have considered Harvard for," the report confirmed the official explained.
It was Josh Gruenbaum, GSA's commissioner of Federal Acquisition Service, who sent a letter detailing cuts of about another $100 million form the school.
"As fiduciaries to the taxpayer, the government has a duty to ensure that procurement dollars are directed to vendors and contractors to promote and champion principles of non-discrimination in the national interests," he wrote.
Instead of agreeing to address anti-Semitism on campus, the school sued to keep getting billions of dollars from taxpayers.
Also, the school now is under investigation by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.
President Donald Trump, in fact, has suggested that the $3 billion that Harvard had been getting from taxpayers instead go to trade schools.
Further, the newest decision letter confirms that Harvard has failed to comply with a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023.
"As relevant here, GSA understands that Harvard continues to engage in race discrimination, including in its admissions process and in other areas of student life. For applicants in the top academic decile, admissions rates varied significantly by race. In this decile, admissions rates were: 56% for African Americans; 31% for Hispanics, 15% for whites; 13% for Asians," Gruenbaum's letter explained.
"Harvard has shown no indication of reforming their admission process."
He also cited "Troubling revelations have come to light regarding Harvard and its affiliates' potential discriminatory hiring practices and possible violations of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Harvard is suspected of engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment in hiring, promotion, compensation, and other personnel-related actions."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
On Memorial Day 2025, President Donald Trump unleashed a holiday greeting in all capital letters to Americans, including what he calls "THE SCUM."
Trump said in a lengthy post on Truth Social: "HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY THROUGH WARPED RADICAL LEFT MINDS, WHO ALLOWED 21,000,000 MILLION PEOPLE TO ILLEGALLY ENTER OUR COUNTRY, MANY OF THEM BEING CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY INSANE, THROUGH AN OPEN BORDER THAT ONLY AN INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT WOULD APPROVE, AND THROUGH JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER, AND RAPE AGAIN — ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY."
"HOPEFULLY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND OTHER GOOD AND COMPASSIONATE JUDGES THROUGHOUT THE LAND, WILL SAVE US FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE MONSTERS WHO WANT OUR COUNTRY TO GO TO HELL.
"BUT FEAR NOT, WE HAVE MADE GREAT PROGRESS OVER THE LAST 4 MONTHS, AND AMERICA WILL SOON BE SAFE AND GREAT AGAIN! AGAIN, HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY, AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!"
Jack Posobiec of Human Events noted: "Trump is now using Memorial Day to rip into the scum who were destroying our country from within. Is this what you voted for?"
Mike Sington, a retired senior executive at NBCUniversal, said: "Trump's Memorial Day message to America is disgraceful, unhinged, and the rant of a mentally deranged madman. Just more proof he's completely unfit to hold the office of President."
There are plenty of other mixed reactions online, including:
"Ya gotta LOVE President Trump's Memorial Day Truth! And the fact that it's in ALL CAPS too… "
"On Memorial Day and every day, Donald Trump is an insult to those who died serving this nation."
"President Trump unleashed an angry tirade against the Marxist movement, destroying our country on Memorial Day. Media will attack him for 'not honoring the troops' on this solemn day, but they don't realize that's exactly what he did. Almost all of the men and women who fought and died for America sacrificed everything to protect a country they loved. A country based on the rule of law with strong borders, ethical judges, legitimate elections, free speech, and the American Dream. They didn't die for Marxists who hate our country and want to destroy it from within. President Trump and his voters know this, and that's his message on Memorial Day is so well said. God bless the troops that gave up everything to keep America Free. May we ensure our country truly is free so that their sacrifices were not made in vain."
"F*** Trump's entire message. Tone deaf, self-indulgent, and a slap in the face to veterans. 'Happy' Memorial Day. F***ing clown."
"Trump could've just stopped at Happy Memorial Day."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – President Donald Trump on Sunday blasted Harvard's secrecy when it comes to the university's large number of students from foreign countries.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said: "Why isn't Harvard saying that almost 31% of their students are from FOREIGN LANDS, and yet those countries, some not at all friendly to the United States, pay NOTHING toward their student's education, nor do they ever intend to. Nobody told us that!
"We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, but Harvard isn't exactly forthcoming. We want those names and countries.
The president concluded: "Harvard has $52,000,000, use it, and stop asking for the Federal Government to continue GRANTING money to you!"
As WorldNetDaily reported, Harvard has sued the federal government to keep the privilege of enrolling foreign students, a lucrative source of revenue for the college as well, additionally, a path to international influence.
The Trump administration had revoked the school's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a dispute over Harvard's decision to refuse to cooperate with the government on issues including student protests, anti-Semitism and even cooperation with China, explodes.
The administration has explained Harvard has refused to comply with a list of demands sent to the school in April regarding student protests, many being anti-Israel and pro-Hamas, the anti-Semitism present on campus and allegations that the school has allowed infiltration by the Chinese Communist Party.
Republicans on the House Select Committee on China and the House Committee on Education and Workforce have begun investigating what links there may be between the school and the CCP.
Harvard, in the latest lawsuit it has brought against the Trump administration, is claiming the ending of its certification is a "blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act."
A federal judge in Harvard's back yard immediately came to the school's aid, temporarily blocking the administration decision to cancel the program for foreign students.
The order came from Allison Burroughs, a judge in Boston.
The administration move left the campus in disarray only days before graduation this year, the school claimed, as foreign students now are deciding whether to transfer or risk staying, and possibly losing legal status to remain in the U.S.
A report from the Washington Examiner said Alan Garber, the school chief, claimed the withdrawal of the privilege of enrolling foreign students, "imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams."
The end of that certification, in fact, would mean many students at Harvard would have to transfer to another school. Estimates are that about one fourth of the student population there is foreign.
Harvard's filing claimed, "It is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students."
The school also has lost an estimated $2.7 billion in government grants because of its agenda, following decisions byi federal officials with end those payments.
The foreign students are a lucrative source of cash for the school, which already has a $53 billion endowment.
The report said, "Most international students at Harvard pay full tuition, which is $59,320 for the 2024-25 academic year. Room and Board on campus and other mandatory fees amount to an additional $27,606 per student. The total for an international student to attend Harvard is $86,926 per year."
WorldNetDaily reported when the decision to withdraw Harvard's permission to enroll foreigners was announced.
The Department of Homeland Security said Harvard has created "an unsafe campus environment" by allowing "anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators" to assault Jewish students on campus.
Homeland Security reports have confirmed how Jewish students report discrimination and bias on campus.
A Breitbart report elaborated on the new moves, explaining DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said, "This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.
"It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Another scandal from the era of Joe Biden in the White House has been uncovered in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., was left stunned.
That was by the fact that the Biden administration handed out a "staggering" $93 billion in loans and commitments during the final 76 days of Biden's tenure, apparently without even reviewing a business operating plan or a project review.
A report at PJMedia documents Kennedy's reaction when Energy Secretary Christopher Wright dropped the bombshell.
"The 76-day period you're talking about, that's the period between the time that President Trump was elected and President Biden left office. Is that right?" Kennedy demanded.
"That is correct," Wright said.
"How do you do due diligence on one loan, much less $93 billion?" Kennedy asked.
"I think it's probably pretty clear it wasn't done in many cases. There were commitments made from businesses that provided no business plan, no numbers about their own financial solvency, or how this project actually worked," Wright confirmed.
Kennedy continued, "So, so you're telling me that the Department of Energy in the 76-day period before their boss was gonna leave office, gave or loaned money to, to entities that had no business plan?"
Yes, Wright affirmed.
"No financials?" Kennedy asked.
"Correct. I've come in with great concern about how this institution, this great American institution, has been run and how American taxpayer money has been handled," Wright explained.
A review now is under way, he confirmed.
Wright also confirmed he could not provide assurance that none of the recipients lied.
And Kennedy asked about fraud.
"Is it conceivable that some of these folks… came to you with a half-baked idea?" he said
"Very conceivable. In fact, I've seen such plans … that didn't have a business plan — just a promise to develop one later," Wright said.
Wright assured the senator he would be turning down wasteful projects and referring those who acted inappropriately to the Department of Justice.
The money handed out during those 76 days was more than double to loan total from the previous 15 years, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has affirmed the religious rights of a Christian photographer, ruling that the state cannot force its religious beliefs onto a business operator.
The fight over a decision by Emilee Carpenter to decline to promote same-sex ideology with her work, as the state of New York demanded, drew in a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court involving Colorado web designer Lorie Smith.
There, the justices ruled that the leftist state of Colorado was not allowed under the Constitution to force Smith to express beliefs that violated her Christian faith.
A report at Courthhousenews said the judge lobbied against the Christian photographer even while admitting that precedent required him to allow her to live by her faith.
The judge, Frank Geraci Jr., said the Supreme Court precedent required him to issue an injunction barring New York from its public accommodation laws "peculiarly to compel expressive activity."
Carpenter had challenged the state's religious agenda, which forced her to choose between a penalty of up to $100,000 or photographing same-sex duos, an activity that violated her faith.
She lost in 2022 but before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals could decide her case, the Supreme Court released the Lori Smith decision, about her 303 Creative corporation.
In fact, it is Colorado that has been on the cutting edge of losing faith disputes in the Supreme Court. It lost the 303 Creative case and also the Jack Phillips case several years earlier, when the state tried to demand he promote alternative sexual lifestyle choices with his bakery products. Colorado, in fact, was scolded for its "hostility" to Christianity in that case. And it now is demanding to control the statements and beliefs of counselors with a similar requirement, which also is pending before the Supreme Court.
The 2nd Circuit found New York's law isn't unconstitutional, but sent the case back to the lower court in light of the 303 Creative decision.
Geraci, appointed by Barack Obama,. now has ruled in favor of Carpenter on the specific issue, and noted that she still must comply with other parts of the accommodations law.
He praised those laws that discriminate, stating, "This is, in fact, the fundamental, praiseworthy purpose of public accommodation laws like New York's. These laws ensure that 'individuals in historically disadvantaged or disfavored classes desiring to make use of public accommodations' receive 'what the old common law promised to any member of the public wanting a meal at the inn — namely, that accepting the usual terms of service, they will not be turned away merely on the proprietor's exercise of personal preference.'"
Carpenter was represented by the ADF, and spokesman Bryan Neihart said, "The U.S. Constitution protects Emilee's freedom to express her own views as she continues to serve clients of all backgrounds and beliefs. The district court rightly upheld this freedom and followed Supreme Court precedent.
"Emilee can now enjoy the freedom to create and express herself, a freedom that protects all Americans regardless of their views."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Former U.S. Rep. George Santos was only charged when he was expelled from the House.
He later was convicted, but that removal precedent stands.
And now Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina, has filed a resolution to expel Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., over the federal charges she now is facing in court.
In a statement, Mace explained that the charges are for McIver's "assault on federal law enforcement officers and unlawful interference at a federal immigration detention facility in New Jersey."
McIver, "didn't just break the law, she attacked the very people who defend it," Mace explained.
"Attacking Homeland Security and ICE agents isn't just disgraceful, it's assault. If any other American did what she did, they'd be in handcuffs. McIver thinks being a member of Congress puts her above the law. It doesn't."
The DOJ has brought charges against McIver under laws that criminalize "forcibly assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers.
McIver has claimed that her confrontation with federal officers was part of her "oversight" of the federal government as a member of Congress, so she's immune to any charges.
But constitutional expert Jonathan Turley noted that argument probably won't actually make it into the courtroom, as the claim is ridiculous.
Further, he said it will be hard for McIver to avoid a conviction based on the bodycam footage of the confrontation that already is available.
"Members of Congress swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country – not to obstruct them," Mace said. "This isn't a matter of partisan politics. It's about whether we're going to hold Members of Congress to the same legal standards as every other American."
Mace cites the precedent the House established in 2023 when Santos was charged, but not convicted, when he was removed.
WND reported a day earlier when Turley opined that the case was just a symptom, more or less, of a bigger agenda by the Democrats.
He explained the "new defense" being used by Democrats, from city council to Congress, is that "their official duties include obstructing the official functions of the federal government."
"The latest claimant of this license is Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers during a protest at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. McIver is shown on video forcing her way into an ICE facility and striking and shoving agents in her path," he said.
He said officials were able to subdue the incursion quickly.
But the messaging from McIver was that she could do what for other citizens would be "trespass and assault" because of her "legislative oversight" privileges as a member of Congress.
Her comments were a reprise of what other Democrats already have demanded.
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) declared 'You lay a finger on someone – on Bonnie Watson Coleman or any of the representatives that were there – you lay a finger on them, we're going to have a problem,'" the report noted.
And Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., "ominously warned the federal government that Democrats would bring down the house if it tried to charge McIver."
He said, "It's a red line. They know better than to go down that road."
The ACLU insisted that politicians "have every right to exercise their legally authorized oversight responsibilities for expanded immigration detention in New Jersey."
Turley explained Worcester City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj, in a video shoving and obstructing ICE officers, also claimed to be protecting a constituent.
"Even judges are claiming the same license. In Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with obstructing a federal arrest of an illegal immigrant who appeared in her courtroom. Dugan heard about agents waiting outside in the hallway to arrest the man and went outside to confront the agents. She told them to speak to the Chief Judge and that they needed a different warrant. The agents complied and the Chief Judge confirmed that they could conduct the arrest. In the interim, however, Dugan led the man out a non-public door and facilitated his escape."
The fault in making the "oversight" claim is that the law does not allow even members of Congress to have unauthorized access to secure federal facilities. Members of Congress can subpoena the executive branch, or get a court order, but they "do not have immunity from criminal laws in unilaterally forcing their way into any federal office or agency."
He explained Jeffries cited the crossing of a "red line."
The "red line" actually crossed, however, is the one "separating political expression and criminal conduct," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It turns out Ed Martin, the Justice Department's director of the Weaponization Working Group, before he left the office of interim U.S. attorney for D.C., had begun an investigation into the last-minute "autopen" pardons of then-President Joe Biden.
And now Martin is naming names and identifying people in the former administration who were presidential "gatekeepers."
On Tuesday, Martin talked to journalist Mark Halperin on the streaming show "2WAY Tonight."
Martin said the investigation had been underway for weeks and that as part of it, he has reached out to Biden family members. He also noted that some persons of interested have already begun to "lawyer up."
"I had a whistleblower in my office 10 day ago – senior, senior Democrat – saying, 'Look, it was these three people that controlled access, and they were making money off of it,'" Martin told Halperin. "I don't know if I believe it yet, but the point is, I think, we have to get to the bottom of it for the American people and to protect the process, and that's what we're doing."
Martin indicated that the whistleblower he spoke to was involved with the 2020 Biden campaign at the highest levels.
Though refusing to name the actual alleged exploiters in the autopen scandal, Martin provided Halperin with the names of "gatekeepers" who were "dominant characters in the White House."
As reported at The Blaze, Martin identified the following three "gatekeepers": Ron Klain, Biden's White House chief of staff from 2021 to 2023 who returned to the fold last year amid Biden's debate preparation; former senior Biden adviser Anita Dunn; and Barack Obama's former personal attorney Robert Bauer.
Martin also mentioned Steve Ricchetti, former counselor to Biden who previously served as chairman of his 2020 presidential campaign, and "obviously Jill [Biden]."
As WND reported, President Donald Trump on Tuesday vowed an investigation into the Biden administration's use of the autopen, the electronic presidential signature device, as he said, "This government was illegally run for four years."
As Trump appeared at the U.S. Capitol to rally support for his "big, beautiful bill" to lower taxes, Trump discussed at length the problems created by a mentally incapacitated Biden.
"We're gonna start looking into this whole thing with who signed this legislation," Trump said.
"Who signed legislation opening our border? I don't think he knew. I said there's nobody that could want an open border. Nobody. And now I find out that it wasn't him. He autopenned it.
"Who was operating the autopen? This is a very serious thing. We had a president that didn't sign anything and he autopenned almost everything."
Martin initially was Trump's nominee as the permanent D.C. U.S. attorney, but his name was pulled after opposition by Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of Oklahoma.