Featured

Home Featured
Featured posts

Democrat Candidate Calls For Banning MAGA From Internet

    4
    Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A Democratic candidate for the Georgia House is under fire after proposing a sweeping—and controversial—“punishment” for Trump supporters: kicking them off social media for four years.

    Suzanna Karatassos, a self-described “progressive fighter” running for a seat held by Republican state Rep. Houston Gaines, made the remark in a now-deleted video that quickly spread online.

    “When this is all over and Trump’s gone and Democrats are back in charge and we’re rebuilding everything, the punishment for MAGA for voting for Trump three times needs to be they remove their internet access for four years,” Karatassos said.

    “That they cannot post videos or comments on social media for four straight years, so that none of us are subjected to their lies and misinformation while we are rebuilding the chaos that they caused the whole world and America gets to be without their BS online for 4 straight years.”

    “Can we all agree to this?” she added.

    Karatassos later deleted the video—but not before it was captured and widely shared by critics.

    Her comments land in the middle of a heated national fight over free speech, censorship, and Big Tech’s role in policing online content.

    In 2023, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a sweeping injunction blocking federal agencies—including the FBI and Department of Health and Human Services—from pressuring social media companies to suppress “protected free speech.”

    Doughty pointed to 25 instances of alleged government pressure on tech platforms, according to reporting tied to a thread by Substack writer Justin Hart.

    But the Supreme Court later struck down that ruling in a 6–3 decision, saying the states and individuals who brought the case lacked legal standing. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

    Separate emails from April 2021 also showed the Biden White House pushing Facebook over content, including a Tucker Carlson video on COVID-19 vaccines.

    Meanwhile, Karatassos’ remarks are already fueling backlash—raising fresh questions about how far some candidates are willing to go when it comes to policing political speech online and Donald Trump.

    Trump To Award Ben Carson Presidential Medal of Freedom

      1
      Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

      President Donald Trump announced that Dr. Ben Carson will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, noting that there will be a ceremony at the White House to honor him.

      President Trump said on Saturday he will award Ben Carson, his first-term Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

      “We are going to be presenting Dr. Ben Carson with the highest civilian award and honor in our country. It’s the civilian version of the Medal of Honor, which is our highest military award. It’s the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” Trump said in remarks at an event hosted by the American Cornerstone Institute, which Carson founded.

      Trump said he plans to have a ceremony for Carson at the White House but did not specify timing.

      “Congratulations Ben. He didn’t know this. He didn’t know it. I hope he’s happy,” Trump said after making the announcement at the conclusion of his remarks at the American Cornerstone Institute’s Founders’ Dinner on Saturday.

      Carson, a former neurosurgeon, ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016 against Trump. The president then tapped him to serve as HUD secretary. Carson served as the national faith chair for the Trump campaign in the 2024 election.

      Trump recently said he would posthumously award conservative activist Charlie Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom after he was fatally shot on Sept. 10 at an open-air event at Utah Valley University.

      Texas Pediatrician Suspended and Removed Over Viral Flood Rant

        2

        A pediatrician has been fired after politicizing the deadly floods in Texas.

        Dr. Christina B. Propst came under fire over a now-deleted social media post about the tragic and deadly flooding in Texas, which has left at least 79 people dead — including at least 28 children.

        In a now-deleted post that was shared by screenshots on X, Propst, under her old Facebook username Chris Tina, wrote about the flooding and expressed apparent ill-will toward MAGA voters in affected areas, suggesting they should ‘get what they voted for.’”

        “May all visitors, children, non-MAGA voters and pets be safe and dry,” the original post read. “Kerr County MAGA voted to gut FEMA. They deny climate change. May they get what they voted for. Bless their hearts.”

        A screenshot was shared on X and went viral very quickly, taking off especially on Sunday after a quote retweet from the Libs of TikTok account.

        Many more messages followed, both in the originating thread and from other users. Late Saturday night, Blue Fish Pediatrics issued a statement that was shared on their social media accounts, and which at this time shows up as an alert message at the top of their website. The statement was also shared by head of the Texas Medical Board Dr. Sherif Zaafran.

        The statement reads:

        To Our Patients and Community

        At Blue Fish Pediatrics, our hearts are broken for the families impacted by the devastating flooding in our Central Texas communities near Camp Mystic. Like so many across Texas and beyond, we are grieving with those who have lost loved ones and are praying fervently for all families still awaiting news.

        We are aware that a personal social media comment by one of our physicians has caused significant hurt and outrage. The content and timing of that post do not reflect the values, standards, or mission of Blue Fish Pediatrics. We want to be clear: we do not support or condone any statement that politicizes tragedy, diminishes human dignity, or fails to clearly uphold compassion for every child and family, regardless of background or beliefs.

        Our practice exists for one purpose only — to provide excellent, loving, and respectful care to all children and their families. Our patients come from every walk of life, every political belief, and every background, and we are honored to serve each of them with empathy and integrity.

        In moments of crisis, we believe in unity over division, healing over judgment, and humility over rhetoric. We are taking this matter seriously, reviewing it internally, and have placed the physician on administrative leave.

        In the meantime, we extend our full support to the families and the surrounding communities who are grieving, recovering, and searching for hope.

        Sincerely,

        Blue Fish Pediatrics Leadership Team

        Propst’s profile page has been removed from both the Blue Fish Pediatrics website and the Memorial Hermann website. Memorial Hermann also posted a statement on X.

        A former member of Houston’s Food Insecurity Board was also fired after she posted a racially tinged video about the victims of the flash flooding over the Fourth of July weekend, specifically calling out the young girls at Camp Mystic.

        A former member of Houston’s Food Insecurity Board was fired after she posted a racially tinged video about the victims of the flash flooding over the Fourth of July weekend, specifically calling out the young girls at Camp Mystic.

        “I know I’m probably gonna get cancelled for this, but Camp Mystic is a whites-only girls’ Christian camp. They don’t even have a token Asian, they don’t have a token black person. It is a all-white, white-only conservative Christian camp,” Perkins said in the video. “If you ain’t white, you ain’t right. You ain’t getting anywhere, you goin,’ period. And I think that context needs to be said in this matter.”

        “It’s not to say that we don’t want the girls to be found, whatever girls that are missing or whatever right now, but you best believe, especially in today’s political climate, if this were a group of Hispanic girls — especially with them being in east Texas, it should be most likely Hispanic — if this were a group of Hispanic girls out there, this would not begin this type of coverage that they’re getting, no one would give a fuck, and all these white people, the parents of these little girls would be saying things like, ‘They need to be deported, they shouldn’t have been here in the first place,’ and yadda-yadda-yadda,” Perkins continued.

        Perkins then claimed that the parents of the children would have been demanding that Hispanic children be deported before claiming that the camp was an “all-white, whites-only enclave.”

        “Before y’all comment me, before y’all start leaving hate comments on my page about, oh, these are just kids and they don’t know no better, the parents of these children who are choosing — and it is a choice in 2025, it is definitely a freaking choice to go into east goddamn Texas and to make a all-white enclave, exclusionary, just for white people,” Perkins continued. “With all the black people in east Texas, with all the Hispanic people in east Texas, somehow, some way, you have carved out an all-white, whites-only enclave in east Texas for your white children. Yeah, I have a problem with that. I have a big problem with that.”

        “Once again, this is no shade to the girls, I hope they all get found, but once again, y’all have to understand the climate that we’re living in. They want you to have sympathy for these people,” Perkins said. “They want you to get out of your bed and to come out of your home and to go find these people and to donate your money to go find these people. Meanwhile, they are deporting your family members. Meanwhile, they’re setting up concentration camps and prisons for your family members. And I need y’all to keep that in mind before y’all get out there and put on the rain boots and go find these little girls.”

        “We ask for your continued prayers, respect and privacy for each of our families affected. May the Lord continue to wrap His presence around all of us,” said the camp, which describes itself on its website as a “private Christian summer camp for girls.”

        As rescue teams continue to work around the clock to help rescue and recover flood victims, some Democrat officials have attempted to blame the Trump administration for the disaster.

        White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that “Unfortunately, in the wake of this once in a generation natural disaster, we have seen many falsehoods pushed by Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer and some members of the media.  

        “Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning,” she told reporters. 

        “In the lead up to this tragic natural disaster, the National Weather Service did its job. Despite unprecedented rainfall, the National Weather Service executed timely and precise forecasts and warnings,” Leavitt added. 

        “On July 3rd, the National Weather Service office in Austin [and] San Antonio, Texas, conducted forecast briefings for emergency management in the morning and issued a flood watch in the early afternoon,” Leavitt continued. “Flash flood warnings were also issued on the night of July 3rd and in the early morning of July 4th, giving preliminary lead times of more than three hours before flash flooding conditions occurred. The National Weather Service office in New Braunfels, which delivers forecasts for Austin, San Antonio and the surrounding areas, had extra staff on duty during the storms, despite claims of the contrary.”  

        “So to any person who has deliberately lied about these facts surrounding this catastrophic event, you should be deeply ashamed,” Leavitt declared. “At this time, the administration’s focus will be giving on giving the victims and their communities the support they deserve during these recovery efforts in this tragic time.” 

        Court Rules on Teacher Who Sported MAGA Hat to School Training

          3
          Johnny Silvercloud, CC BY-SA 2.0

          A former teacher in Washington is celebrating a big win protecting his First Amendment rights.

          The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District ruled former Wy’east Middle School science teacher Eric Dodge’s decision to bring a “Make America Great Again” hat to a school training was protected speech under the First Amendment.

          According to Fox News, Dodge wore the MAGA hat while walking up to an Evergreen Public Schools building to attend a staff-only cultural sensitivity and racial bias training.

          Dodge, who was an educator for more than 17 years, didn’t wear the hat during the training but had it set it out where others could see it near his belongings, according to court documents. Some attendees reportedly said they felt “intimidated” and “threatened” by Dodge’s decision to have the hat with him.

          The school’s principal Caroline Garret reportedly approached him about the hat and told him to use better judgment. Dodge later brought the hat to another training before the 2019-2020 school year.

          On Dec. 29, the appeals panel ruled in favor of Dodge and decided the school district failed to show evidence of a “tangible disruption” to school operations that would outweigh the teacher’s First Amendment rights.

          The court noted that because Dodge did not wear the hat around students or in a classroom setting, his decision to wear the hat represented his beliefs alone and could not represent the school system.

          Dodge’s lawyers also argued that there was “no general prohibition on political speech” when Garrett told Dodge he could not bring his MAGA hat to school, even adding that Garrett allowed a Black Lives Matter poster to hang in the library and sported a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on her car.

          “That some may not like the political message being conveyed is par for the course and cannot itself be a basis for finding disruption of a kind that outweighs the speaker’s First Amendment rights,” Judge Danielle J. Forrest wrote in the opinion.

          The document concluded by saying “concern over the reaction to controversial or disfavored speech itself does not justify restricting such speech.”

          Governor Kristi Noem Of South Dakota Set To Endorse Trump Friday

          2
          Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

          Kristi Noem is set to make waves in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries.

          According to inside sources, the popular governor of South Dakota is expected to endorse former President Donald Trump at a rally in Rapid City on Friday.

          The decision comes amid reports that Trump is considering Noem as his running mate.

          As CNN reports:

          Once a potential 2024 candidate herself, Noem initially inched away from Trump after last fall’s midterm elections and the launch of his latest campaign. She told The New York Times at the time that she didn’t believe the former president offered “the best chance” for the Republican Party in 2024.

          However, the South Dakota governor has since changed her tune, opting out of a White House bid and offering support for Trump. But Noem is still angling to be in the 2024 discussion. She’s remained in contact and on good terms with the former president, according to sources familiar with their interactions. Ads touting her state’s low taxes and job openings aired during last month’s first Republican presidential debate and since then on Fox News. She also attended that debate, bringing donors as guests.

          Noem has another connection: Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager and confidant, has advised her since 2020. Lewandowski’s on-again-off-again relationship with the former president has leveled, according to sources, and he now regularly speaks to Trump.

          “The fact is, none of them can win as long as Trump’s in the race. And that’s just the facts. So why run if you can’t win,” Noem, who has been in touch with Trump and his team, said of the former president’s primary rivals in an interview on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends.”

          Noem has generally demurred when asked about her interest in the vice presidency. Still, she told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “Of course [I] would consider it” if Trump offered.

          This article first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

          Trump DOJ Declines To Indict 6 Democrats In ‘Illegal Orders’ Video

          1

          Department of Justice prosecutors were unable on Tuesday to secure indictments against multiple Democratic lawmakers following scrutiny over a controversial video urging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders, according to a new report.

          The New York Times reported Tuesday — citing four individuals familiar with the matter — that prosecutors led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro failed to persuade a grand jury to support indictments. NBC News also confirmed the development.

          The lawmakers involved in the video include Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Chris Deluzio (D-PA). All have military or intelligence backgrounds.

          In the video, the lawmakers urged service members not to comply with what they described as illegal directives and warned of internal threats to the Constitution.

          “You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” the lawmakers said.

          The remarks drew sharp backlash from President Trump and others, who argued the video crossed a dangerous line by encouraging disobedience within the armed forces — something many conservatives view as undermining military discipline and chain of command.

          “IT WASN’T, AND IT NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in November.

          In another post, Trump warned that sedition is “punishable by DEATH.”

          Kelly Escalates Fight With Pentagon Over Rank and Benefits

          Sen. Mark Kelly has since launched a separate legal battle tied to the fallout. Last month, he announced he filed a civil lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth after the Defense Department reportedly took steps to reduce Kelly’s rank and pension based on the video.

          Kelly framed the move as retaliation for political speech, though Republicans have argued that elected officials — particularly those with prior military service — should be especially cautious about messaging that could be interpreted as encouraging insubordination in the ranks.

          “Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly said in a statement.

          “His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”

          The case adds to a broader debate over whether political figures should be using their platform to issue guidance to troops — especially at a time when conservatives have warned about growing politicization within federal institutions, including the military itself.

          Slotkin Claims Victory After Grand Jury Declines to Indict

          Following the grand jury’s decision not to proceed, Sen. Slotkin celebrated the outcome and criticized the administration.

          “Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed. Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good,” Slotkin wrote Tuesday night on X.

          “But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country,” she added.

          Slotkin argued that even pursuing the case reflected misuse of federal power.

          “Whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love,” Slotkin said.

          Still, many Republicans counter that the central issue is not politics but accountability — particularly when lawmakers make statements that could be interpreted as urging troops to question lawful authority.

          “No matter what President Trump and Pirro continue to do with this case, tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” Slotkin added.

          Ongoing Debate Over Civil-Military Boundaries

          While prosecutors were unable to secure indictments this week, the controversy underscores a growing national debate: how far elected officials can go in addressing service members directly without undermining military order or injecting partisan rhetoric into the armed forces.

          Why Secret Service Officers Missed Intruder at Biden Official’s Home

          3
          The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

          ALERT – If you’re reading this on your cell phone, and you are a Secret Service agent or officer on duty, please stop and put away the phone – immediately. 

          Otherwise, you can continue reading.

          Ok. Now that we got that out of the way, we can inform you of how an intoxicated intruder was able to enter the home of Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor – Jake Sullivan – back in April.

          While Sullivan isn’t particularly impressive (and I’m being gracious), he is one of Biden’s top national security officials. By virtue of his position, he is a very big deal.

          He has direct access to the president, the White House, and to the nation’s most classified intelligence and national security information.

          Terrorists or spies would love to get their hands on some of that stature, or just get into their homes undetected.

          And one unidentified person did just that. But how?

          Well, sadly the agents protecting Sullivan were distracted, at least in part, because they were using their personal cell phones while on duty.

           A scourge that is affecting most of society.

          This is according to an internal investigation by the Secret Service.

          The incident at Sullivan’s home occurred in the early morning hours. Sullivan reportedly confronted the intruder inside his home and later told investigators that he believed the person, who was later seen on surveillance video entering and exiting the property, was intoxicated and entered the home by mistake. 

          Sullivan made the confused man leave his home and then went outside to tell the agents what happened.

          Whether the intruder was really just a drunk nobody, or just pretending to be one, is still to be determined.

          Meanwhile, Sullivan and his family were unharmed, but the Secret Service officers won’t be so lucky.

          As CNN reported: “A law enforcement official familiar with the internal investigation said the agents on duty that night and their supervisors, are likely to be subject to disciplinary action, including an evaluation of whether they can maintain their federal security clearance, a requirement for their positions.”

          So, basically, they could lose their jobs over this. And they probably should.

          More importantly, the Secret Service, and all federal law enforcement agencies, and their private security contractors, must enforce rules limiting personal cell phone use while on duty.

          Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle appears to be doing just that when last week she ordered increased penalties for employees who violate agency policies while on duty, including the use of personal electronic devices on the job.

          According to CNN, Cheatle ordered “disciplinary penalties be increased to up to 21-day suspensions, and up to removal for infractions that lead to operational failure. Those include for the use of personal phones or the use of alcohol while on assignments.”

          Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi stated:

          We have zero tolerance for anything that jeopardizes operational success. While human errors may occur, what sets us apart is our unwavering commitment to maintaining very high professional standards and ethics. This includes enhanced penalties for incidents involving alcohol and a strict policy regarding personal cell phone use while on duty.

          Well, that’s a start. The Secret Service is our nation’s, and perhaps the world’s, leading dignitary protection agency. It simply can’t allow things like this to happen. 

          Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

          Trump Official Refers New York AG Letitia James For Prosecution – Again

          0
          Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

          A senior Trump administration official has made new criminal referrals against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

          Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte said in a letter Wednesday to prosecutors in Florida that James may have falsified information on a homeowner’s insurance application submitted to Fort Lauderdale-based Universal Property Insurance. In a separate letter to prosecutors in Illinois, Pulte alleged that James may have also provided false information on an application to Allstate.

          The referrals mark the latest development in a series of legal actions pursued by officials in President Trump’s administration against James, a longtime political adversary. In a Truth Social post Wednesday night, President Trump wrote that James had been “referred again for criminal prosecution for alleged homeowner insurance fraud.”

          One of the referrals was sent to Jason Reding Quiñones, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Quiñones is currently leading an investigation into Obama-era officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, related to intelligence findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump. Last year, Quiñones also sought records connected to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump.

          The second referral was sent to Andrew Boutros, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

          Abbe Lowell, an attorney for James, rejected the allegations and criticized the administration’s actions.

          “abusing their power to pursue a vendetta against her by trying to rename, refile, and repeat baseless allegations.”

          “These desperate tactics will fail — just as every previous attempt has failed — and exposes an Administration that has abandoned its responsibility to the American people in favor of petty political payback,” Lowell said.

          The new referrals follow a previously dismissed federal case against James. Last fall, she was charged in federal court with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution, based on allegations that she misrepresented details about a property in Virginia to secure more favorable mortgage terms. James denied wrongdoing, and the charges were later dismissed.

          The earlier indictment came after Pulte referred James for possible mortgage fraud, though the charges ultimately focused on a different property than the one cited in his referral. A federal judge dismissed the case in November, ruling that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed. A separate case brought by Halligan against former FBI Director James Comey was also dismissed, and two federal grand juries later declined to re-indict James on bank fraud charges.

          According to the original indictment, James purchased a Virginia home in 2020 using a mortgage that required the property to be used as a second residence, but she allegedly rented it out as an investment property to obtain a lower interest rate.

          James has argued that she is being targeted for political reasons, particularly after she sued Trump in civil court during the period between his presidential terms. A New York judge found Trump and his company liable for fraud and ordered them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars, though an appellate court later overturned the financial judgment.

          In court filings last year, James’s attorneys accused Pulte of using the Federal Housing Finance Agency — which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — as a “weapon to be brandished against President Trump’s political enemies.”

          CBS News previously reported that prosecutors have also examined financial transactions between James and her longtime hairdresser, Iyesata Marsh, as part of a separate line of inquiry. Pulte has since sought a protective security detail, citing threats he said were connected to the case.

          Ex-White House Lawyer Says Supreme Court Could Rule Unanimously In Trump Case

            3
            Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

            Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb predicted the U.S. Supreme Court will rule “9-0” in favor of former President Trump in a potential appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling.

            On Tuesday, The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to remove Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot. (RELATED: Colorado Supreme Court Rules On Trump Ballot Ban)

            Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, has already vowed the Trump campaign will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and includes three justices nominated by the former President. 

            “The Supreme Court though will not hesitate to move quickly on this; they know what the stakes are. They know what their responsibility is,” Cobb continued. “And they can delay some of these Colorado dates to the extent that they feel they’re obligated to or have to.”

            “I think this case will be handled quickly. I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump,” Cobb said in an interview on CNN, adding later, “I do believe it could be 9-0, because I think the law is clear.”

            “The real key issue in this case is — is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Cobb said. “And in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.”

            Cobb further argued the ruling “vindicates” Trump’s “insistence that this is a political conspiracy to interfere with the election and that … he’s the target and people shouldn’t tolerate that in America.”

            Colorado’s Supreme Court put its ruling on hold until Jan. 4 to allow Trump to first seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. 

            Appeals Court Panel Upholds Nearly $1M Sanctions Against Trump

              1

              A federal appeals court has upheld almost $1 million in financial penalties imposed on President Trump and his attorney Alina Habba for filing what a lower court labeled “frivolous” lawsuits connected to the long-running Russia-collusion controversy—an episode many conservatives continue to view as a politically motivated attempt to damage Trump’s presidency.

              The case centers on Trump’s 2022 lawsuit alleging that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), former FBI Director James Comey, and more than two dozen other political and government figures conspired to falsely tie his 2016 presidential campaign to Russia. Trump argued that this network of Democratic operatives and intelligence officials sought to “discredit, delegitimize and defame” him through misleading documents and coordinated political attacks—what he has consistently referred to as the “Russia, Russia, Russia” hoax.

              Appeals Court Agrees With Lower Court’s Penalties

              On Wednesday, Chief Judge William Pryor Jr. of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals—appointed by President George W. Bush—affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that Trump and Habba engaged in “sanctionable conduct.”

              Pryor wrote that the pair “give us no reason to reverse the district court’s ruling that these claims were frivolous,” a position supported by the full appellate panel, including Circuit Judges Andrew Brasher (a Trump appointee) and Embry Kidd (appointed by President Biden).

              Their decision leaves in place the original sanctions imposed by District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, an appointee of former President Clinton, who ruled in January 2023 that the lawsuit “should never have been brought.” Middlebrooks ordered Trump and Habba to pay nearly $1 million in legal fees to the defendants—many of whom were high-profile Democratic figures or Trump rivals.

              Trump Legal Team Vows to Keep Fighting

              In response to Wednesday’s ruling, a spokesperson for the president’s legal team told The Hill that Trump “continues to fight back against all Democrat-led Witch Hunts, including the ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ hoax and un-Constitutional and un-American weaponization of our justice system” by the Biden administration.

              The spokesperson added that the president would “continue to pursue this matter to its just and rightful conclusion,” signaling that his team may take further legal steps, potentially including an appeal to the Supreme Court.