Featured posts

    Government

    Home Government

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

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    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.

    Police Officer Chance Bretches was awarded a Lifesaving Medal with Valor for rescuing someone from a burning vehicle…But now radicals are trying to ruin his life just for doing his job. Officer Bretches and his family need your help.[Support Police Officers HERE]

    Appeals Court Allows Trump Administration to Continue Third-Country Deportations

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the Trump administration may continue swiftly deporting migrants while a legal challenge to the policy proceeds.

    In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit allowed the deportations to continue and moved to speed up the timeline for the next stage of the case. The panel issued its order without an accompanying explanation.

    The Trump administration has expanded the use of “third-country removals” as part of its broader immigration crackdown, deporting migrants to nations other than their countries of origin. The administration has reached agreements with several countries — including Cameroon, South Sudan and Eswatini — to accept deportees.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has defended the policy as a way to remove individuals it describes as particularly dangerous.

    In court filings, the administration has also argued that federal judges lack the authority to intervene in how immigration enforcement policies are carried out.

    The majority on the three-judge panel included Judge Jeffrey Howard, nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Judge Seth Aframe, a nominee of former President Joe Biden. Judge Lara Montecalvo, also nominated by Biden, dissented.

    The ruling lifts limits imposed by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, another Biden nominee, who is overseeing a class-action lawsuit filed last year by four noncitizens challenging the deportation policy.

    Murphy ruled last month that the administration could not deport migrants to third countries without first attempting to send them to their country of citizenship or another country with which they have ties.

    “It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his decision.

    His order required immigration authorities to first attempt deportation to a migrant’s country of citizenship or the country normally designated for removal. If that effort failed, Murphy said migrants must be given a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge their deportation once a third country is selected.

    Murphy delayed the implementation of his ruling to allow the appeals court time to weigh in. The 1st Circuit’s order keeps his decision on hold while the appeal moves forward.

    Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents the migrants, said the group welcomed the expedited timeline.

    “While the order unfortunately delays implementation of the decision, we appreciate that the First Circuit ordered a swift resolution of the merits of the government’s appeal,” Realmuto said.

    The dispute has already reached the Supreme Court once. Last year, the Trump administration successfully appealed to the high court after Murphy imposed earlier limits on the policy.

    In a statement following Monday’s ruling, a DHS spokesperson said the court’s decision supports the administration’s position.

    “The Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country, and the Trump Administration has the authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare,” the spokesperson said. “If these activist judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets.”

    URGENT MISSION: 35 brave House GOP members are in JEOPARDY! Today ONLY, you can donate ANY amount and it will go DIRECTLY to fending off attacks on our 35 brightest MAGA fighters in Congress in these vulnerable districts! [Rush Donation HERE]

    House GOP Moves To Censure Congressman After Interrupting Trump Speech – Again

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    6
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    A new effort is underway among House Republicans to censure Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) after he was removed from President Donald Trump’s primetime address for the second consecutive year.

    Green was ejected from Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night just minutes after the president entered the House chamber. As Trump approached the podium, Green stood holding a sign that read, in all capital letters, “Black people are not apes.” He remained standing with the sign visible as the president began speaking, prompting intervention by the Sergeant at Arms.

    Rep. Mike Rulli (R-Ohio) told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that he is seeking support for a formal censure resolution against Green.

    “His shenanigans at the State of the Union were uncalled for,” Rulli said. “We can’t really put up with that kind of conduct in Congress. Something had to be done.”

    Rulli added, “I’m looking for as many co-sponsors from our conference as possible. And I’m reaching across the aisle for anyone over there that was embarrassed by their own guy.”

    According to the text of Rulli’s resolution, first obtained by Fox News Digital, Green’s actions constituted a “breach of conduct.” The resolution further notes that it “was the second time in less than a year that the Representative from Texas had to be removed from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms due to unpatriotic disruptions that violated numerous House rules related to decorum.”

    This is not the first time Green has faced formal rebuke from the House. In March 2025, the House of Representatives voted to censure him after he disrupted a previous presidential address by waving his cane and shouting over Trump as the president attempted to deliver his remarks. Ten Democrats joined Republicans in passing that resolution.

    Green has long been one of Trump’s most vocal critics in Congress. During Trump’s first term, Green repeatedly introduced articles of impeachment against the president, beginning as early as 2017. His efforts, which cited allegations ranging from obstruction of justice to rhetoric he characterized as discriminatory or inflammatory, were unsuccessful and did not advance out of the House. While Democrats later pursued separate impeachment proceedings that led to two Senate trials, Green’s early impeachment resolutions did not gain sufficient support within his own party to move forward.

    Following his removal Tuesday night, Green defended his actions.

    “I refuse to tolerate this level of hate that the president is in fact putting into policy. We must take a stand against this level of invidious discrimination,” Green told reporters.

    “I wanted him to know, and I wanted them to see it and hear it. Up close. But judging from the expression on his face, he got the message. He saw it,” Green said.

    Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stopped short of committing to a vote on Rulli’s latest censure resolution but indicated he would allow members to decide.

    “Al Green was removed pretty quickly. I don’t know if censure is going to be appropriate. I’ll let our colleagues decide that,” Johnson said. “The point of a censure, is to bring someone to the House floor and bring shame upon them for their actions. I think they showed the American people shame already.”

    It’s Don Jr. To the world, he’s President Trump — to me, he’s just Dad. That’s why I’m personally inviting you to the MAGA Presidential Circle — our closest team of trusted patriots. Don’t wait. Accept your invitation by answering a few quick questions today!

    GOP Congressman Floats Prospect Of Contempt Charges For Pam Bondi

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4
    Image via Pixabay

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) suggested this week that holding Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt remains an option as Congress presses the Justice Department over its handling of the long-awaited Epstein files.

    Massie, who helped author legislation requiring the release of government records tied to convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein, said lawmakers are still not receiving full access to unredacted documents — despite the deadline set by Congress.

    Appearing Tuesday on CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Massie accused the Justice Department of failing to deliver what the law requires and raised concerns that redactions appear inconsistent and unjustified.

    “We have not had access to totally unredacted files,” Massie said, adding that names such as Epstein associate and former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner have been blacked out “for no apparent reason.”

    Massie said the DOJ’s refusal to acknowledge gaps in its production makes it difficult for Congress — and the public — to trust that the full truth is being released.

    “If they’ll admit that they’re making mistakes and that their document production is not done, I could trust them,” Massie said. “But I can’t trust them if they say… this is it, there’s no more.”

    The Kentucky Republican noted he would have limited time to question Bondi when she appeared Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, warning that stronger measures could follow if answers are not forthcoming.

    Massie first raised the possibility of using Congress’s “inherent contempt” powers against Bondi in a weekend interview, calling it the most direct way to force compliance.

    “The quickest way… to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” he said.

    Still, Massie acknowledged the challenge of pursuing contempt charges against the nation’s top law enforcement official, noting that referrals often run through the same department under scrutiny.

    “You know, it’s hard to refer a contempt charge… on an attorney general to the attorney general,” Massie said. “This is the problem that you run into.”

    Instead, he suggested Congress may need to compel testimony from individuals named in the documents, similar to efforts already underway by the House Oversight Committee.

    Bondi’s appearance on Wednesday quickly turned tense as Democrats confronted her over the Justice Department’s redaction process — particularly allegations that some victims’ identities were improperly exposed while other information, including references to powerful individuals, was withheld.

    Watch:

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) pressed Bondi to apologize directly to Epstein survivors seated in the hearing room, accusing the DOJ of mishandling sensitive records.

    Bondi declined to issue a direct apology for the department’s release process, offering general sympathy for victims but defending the DOJ’s actions. The exchange escalated into a sharp back-and-forth, with Bondi accusing Jayapal of engaging in “theatrics.”

    Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) struggled to bring the room back to order as lawmakers debated whether the Justice Department has been transparent — or selective — in what it has released.

    URGENT MISSION: We just launched a 50k goal that EXPIRES tonight at midnight. Will you step up and RUSH a donation NOW to save our Majority? One donation helps 29 districts! WIN THEM ALL [Rush Donation HERE]

    Letitia James Sues Federal Government

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued the federal government Tuesday, arguing that a new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy unlawfully ties major federal funding streams to compliance with the Trump administration’s new restrictions on gender-related medical care for minors.

    The lawsuit challenges an HHS policy that, according to the attorneys general, conditions billions of dollars in health, education and research funding on compliance with a presidential executive order addressing sex and gender-related treatments.

    Fox News reports:

    “The federal government is trying to force states to choose between their values and the vital funding their residents depend on,” James said in a statement. “This policy threatens healthcare for families, life-saving research, and education programs that help young people thrive in favor of denying the dignity and existence of transgender people.”

    The dispute stems from President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order directing HHS to take steps to curb what the administration calls “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. President Trump has made limits on transgender-related medical care for minors a central part of his second-term domestic agenda.

    NYC Public Advocate Tish James via Wikimedia Commons

    Last month, HHS announced a sweeping package of proposed regulatory actions aimed at ending what it described as “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors. In guidance accompanying the announcement, the department warned that doctors and health systems could be excluded from federal health programs — including Medicare and Medicaid — if they provide treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender surgeries to minors.

    James’ lawsuit argues that the federal government is using funding leverage to pressure states, hospitals, universities, and other institutions to change policies on transgender care.

    The attorneys general also claim HHS lacks legal authority to impose the conditions and is attempting to rewrite federal law through executive action. They argue the policy is vague and fails to spell out what recipients must do to remain compliant, creating uncertainty for states and institutions that rely on federal dollars.

    Failure to comply with the policy could lead to termination of grants, repayment of funds already spent, or potential civil or criminal penalties, according to the complaint.

    The lawsuit asks a federal court to declare the policy unlawful and block HHS from enforcing it, allowing states and institutions to continue receiving federal funding without changing existing policies.

    The legal fight also adds to the long-running political and courtroom clash between Trump and James. James has positioned herself as one of the country’s most aggressive state-level opponents of Trump, repeatedly using New York’s legal powers to pursue high-profile cases involving his businesses and allies. Trump has frequently accused James of pursuing politically motivated investigations.

    Trump officials have defended the executive order as a child-protection measure and a pushback against what they say is ideological medicine being imposed through federal agencies and school systems.

    The case is expected to intensify a national debate already playing out in Congress and state legislatures, where Republican-led states have moved to restrict or ban gender-related treatments for minors, while Democrat-led states have expanded protections and access.

    READ NEXT: Sen. Marsha Blackburn Pushes To Make Fraud A Deportable Offense

    A plea to Trump’s most loyal supporters: Will you complete the Official CITIZENS ONLY SURVEY in the next 30 minutes? I need you! [Respond HERE]

    Trump Issues Dire Midterm Warning To GOP: Win Or I’m Impeached

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2

    President Trump warned House Republicans on Tuesday that losing the midterms would all but guarantee another impeachment push from Democrats, underscoring the high stakes of November’s elections.

    “You gotta win the midterms. Because if we don’t win the midterms…they’ll find a reason to impeach me,” Trump told the Republican conference during its retreat at the Kennedy Center.

    “I’ll get impeached,” he continued. “We don’t impeach them because you know why? They’re meaner than we are. We should have impeached Joe Biden for a hundred different things.”

    “They are mean and smart, but fortunately for you, they have horrible policy,” Trump added.

    Trump’s remarks reflect growing concern among Republicans that Democrats are prepared to weaponize impeachment once again should they regain control of the House. That warning has been echoed by GOP leadership.

    Watch:

    Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) issued a similar message late last month at Turning Point USA’s America Fest in Arizona.

    “If we lose the House majority, the radical left as you’ve already heard is going to impeach President Trump,” Johnson said. “They’re going to create absolute chaos. We cannot let that happen.”

    The concern is not hypothetical. Trump was impeached twice during his first term—first in 2019 after Democrats regained control of the House, and again in early 2021, just days before his administration ended. Both impeachments failed to result in a conviction in the Senate, reinforcing Republican claims that the proceedings were politically motivated rather than constitutionally grounded.

    Since then, impeachment has increasingly been used as a political threat rather than a last-resort constitutional remedy. Over the past year alone, Democrats have repeatedly floated impeachment articles against Trump and other Republican officials, often without clear legal grounding or broad party consensus.

    Most recently, some Democrats have suggested impeachment following the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last week—an operation praised by many Republicans as a decisive national security action. Critics on the left, however, have argued the move exceeds executive authority.

    “These individual actions are impeachable offenses in their own right, but their ever mounting cumulative impact on our country’s stability and health puts everything in a new light. I now believe that our Democratic Caucus must imminently consider impeachment proceedings,” said Rep. April McClain-Delaney (D-Md.), who is facing a primary challenge from former Rep. David Trone (D-Md.).

    The renewed calls echo earlier efforts that failed to gain traction. Progressive lawmakers previously introduced impeachment resolutions over Trump’s border policies, energy decisions, and foreign policy actions—none of which advanced beyond committee stages or garnered broad Democratic support.

    This race is a coin flip and Vivek NEEDS your help. Vivek Ramaswamy is defending the fundamental truths of America but he can’t do it alone. Join the fight and donate today!

    Report: Dan Bongino Quietly Clearing Out His Office in Preparation for FBI Exit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino is reportedly preparing to leave the Bureau in the coming weeks, fueling speculation that he may soon return to the conservative media landscape where he built a powerful national following. According to The New York Times, several individuals familiar with the situation say Bongino is already packing up his office and sending personal items back to Florida—an indication that an official announcement may be imminent.

    These sources told the Times that Bongino could depart “as soon as this week or as late as mid-January,” though he has not yet publicly confirmed his plans. The former Secret Service agent and best-selling author was appointed to the FBI leadership team earlier this year by President Donald Trump, who tasked him with bringing greater transparency, accountability, and ideological clarity to an agency long accused by conservatives of political bias.

    Dan Bongino via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Conflicting Signals About Bongino’s Plans

    Other reports offer mixed signals. Fox News Digital, citing its own sources, noted Monday that Bongino has “not made a final decision” and disputed claims that his office was already empty. However, Fox’s sources did acknowledge that he is expected to clarify his future “in the coming weeks.”

    If Bongino does leave the Bureau, many expect him to reenter the conservative media sphere in time for the 2026 midterm elections, when Republican strategists anticipate a major national referendum on the direction of the country.

    Potentially Strategic Timing for His Exit

    According to the Times, Bongino has privately floated the idea of aligning his departure with a major law-enforcement development—specifically a press conference connected to the long-running federal investigation into the pipe bombs planted near the DNC and RNC headquarters on January 5, 2021.

    The incident, still unsolved after nearly four years, remains a source of public frustration. Conservatives argue the lack of progress underscores deep institutional failures at the FBI—failures Bongino has long criticized both before and during his time at the agency.

    Repairing Tensions With Attorney General Pam Bondi

    Behind the scenes, Bongino is also said to be smoothing tensions with Attorney General Pam Bondi, whom he sharply criticized earlier this year. In July, Bondi’s office released a memo stating that the much-discussed “Epstein client list” did not exist, contradicting years of speculation amplified in part through Bongino’s own podcast prior to his government service.

    The Times reports that Bongino was so dissatisfied with Bondi’s handling of that matter that he threatened to resign at the time. Since then, he has reportedly worked to repair the relationship—an indication that he may be trying to ensure a clean exit from the Bureau, should he choose to move on.

    Broader Political Context

    Bongino’s potential departure comes at a pivotal moment for federal law enforcement. Republicans continue to push for sweeping reforms at the FBI, citing concerns about political motivations behind high-profile investigations dating back to the Russia probe. Bongino, viewed by many grassroots conservatives as a no-nonsense reformer, entered the FBI leadership at a time when trust in federal agencies has been sharply divided along partisan lines.

    A return to broadcasting would position him once again as one of the most influential voices in conservative politics—a role he previously used to energize Republican voters, challenge media narratives, and champion pro-Trump policy priorities.

    For now, the timeline remains unclear. But by all accounts, Bongino’s next move—whether announced this week or early in the new year—will be closely watched

    Dems have filed a desperate IMPEACHMENT attempt against Trump’s War Secretary. We need 1,000,000 signatures before TONIGHT at MIDNIGHT help save Pete Hegseth. Sign the letter TODAY!

    Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Block Trump From Putting Face on Dollar Coin

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

    Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) introduced legislation Tuesday aimed at preventing President Trump—or any sitting or living former president—from appearing on U.S. currency. Their proposal, titled the Change Corruption Act, comes as the U.S. Treasury considers issuing a commemorative $1 coin featuring Trump’s image in recognition of America’s 250th anniversary.

    The bill, cosponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), states plainly: “No United States currency may feature the likeness of a living or sitting President.” The lawmakers argue that the measure reflects historical practice, noting that U.S. currency has traditionally featured only deceased presidents and statesmen.

    A Preemptive Strike on a Potential Semiquincentennial Honor

    The U.S. Mint is reportedly close to announcing whether it will release a limited-run Trump coin as part of the nation’s celebration of the 250th birthday of the United States in 2026. Commemorative coins—distinct from circulating coins—are historically used to honor major anniversaries, public achievements, and historic figures. Past presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, have been featured posthumously on such special-issue coins.

    A draft image circulating within the Treasury Department shows Trump’s profile above the word “Liberty,” a standard placement for American coinage.

    Democrats Frame the Coin as a Threat to Democratic Norms

    In unusually heated language for a discussion about commemorative currency, Merkley compared Trump’s potential appearance on a coin to the behavior of authoritarian regimes:

    “President Trump’s self-celebrating maneuvers are authoritarian actions worthy of dictators like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, not the United States of America,” Merkley said in a statement.

    He argued Congress must take action to limit the executive branch’s influence over commemorative designs:

    “We must reject his efforts to dismantle our ‘We, The People’ republic and replace it with a strongman state by demanding strong accountability to prevent further abuse of taxpayer dollars.”

    Cortez Masto echoed Merkley’s claims, asserting that any depiction of a living president on U.S. coinage would resemble an outdated monarchical tradition:

    “While monarchs put their faces on coins, America has never had and never will have a king.”

    She added:

    “Our legislation would codify this country’s long-standing tradition of not putting living presidents on American coins. Congress must pass it without delay.”

    Sen. John Kennedy needs 300 more patriots by MIDNIGHT. Only 53 stepped up after the deadline extension — we must close the gap now. CONTRIBUTE NOW before the clock runs out.

    Supreme Court Intervenes In Trump Plan To Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    The Supreme Court stopped President Donald Trump from firing Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook on Wednesday, pausing her removal until the court can hear the case.

    The Supreme Court denied Trump’s request and said Cook can remain in her position through January, when the court is likely to make a final ruling on the issue.

    Trump fired Cook from her position after his Federal Housing Finance Agency chief, Bill Pulte, accused her of mortgage fraud

    The update comes roughly two weeks after Trump officials appealed the case to the high court for emergency review. 

    Oral arguments are expected to be closely watched, given the unprecedented nature of the case, and the seismic shift that any ruling could have on U.S. economic decisions. 

    In appealing the case to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the Fed’s “uniquely important role” in the U.S. economy only heightens the government’s and public’s interest in reviewing the case.

    This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

    The Hoover Institution supports conservatives. Discover what it takes to turn around a bad situation in this FREE eBook. [Download the free Ebook NOW]

    Former FBI Director Indicted But Trump Remarks Signal Potential Problems

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Image via Wikimedia Commons

    A grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has indicted former FBI Director James Comey.

    Comey was reportedly indicted on one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice for allegedly lying under oath to Congress. The 12 grand jurors reportedly declined to indict on additional charges.

    Comey declared he’s “not afraid” in a video posted to his Instagram responding to his historic indictment on two charges.

    “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either,” began Comey. “Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant and she’s right. But I’m not afraid and I hope you’re not either. I hope instead you are engaged. You are paying attention. And you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does.”

    “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I’m innocent,” he concluded. “So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

    Comey’s son-in-law, a senior federal prosecutor, abruptly resigned Thursday just hours after the former FBI director was indicted on charges of false statements and obstruction.

    Troy A. Edwards Jr., a national security prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, stepped down Thursday night with a brief note to his boss.

    “To uphold my oath to the Constitution and country, I hereby resign as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Department of Justice effective immediately,” Edwards wrote in the letter, posted to X.

    The case follows the firing of Comey’s daughter, Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor who has since sued the Justice Department, claiming retaliation tied to her family name.

    President Donald Trump unloaded on James Comey, deeming him a “destroyer of lives” in an early morning Truth Social post Friday that also saw him brand the former FBI director a “DIRTY COP.”

    On Friday morning, the president unleashed on Comey as “corrupt,” insisting that the former FBI boss “lied” in his testimony and demanding he pay “a very big price”:

    Whether you like Corrupt James Comey or not, and I can’t imagine too many people liking him, HE LIED! It is not a complex lie, it’s a very simple, but IMPORTANT one. There is no way he can explain his way out of it. He is a Dirty Cop, and always has been, but he was just assigned a Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge, so he’s off to a very good start. Nevertheless, words are words, and he wasn’t hedging or in dispute. He was very positive, there was no doubt in his mind about what he said, or meant by saying it. He left himself ZERO margin of error on a big and important answer to a question. He just got unexpectedly caught. James “Dirty Cop” Comey was a destroyer of lives. He knew exactly what he was saying, and that it was a very serious and far reaching lie for which a very big price must be paid! President DJT

    Trump followed minutes later with an all caps quip:

    JAMES COMEY IS A DIRTY COP. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

    Since the indictment, some legal analysts have warned that Trump’s social media posts about Comey could arm the defense with an argument for a selective prosecution motion to dismiss the indictment.

    The “We Are Charlie Kirk” wristband is more than just a symbol — it’s a tribute to Charlie’s legacy and a reminder to live boldly for faith, family, and freedom. [CLAIM YOURS NOW]
    123Page 1 of 3
    © Great America News Desk 2022