California Congressman Adam Schiff (D) was reportedly a victim of a theft just hours before a swanky campaign dinner on Thursday.
According to The San Francisco Chronicle, thieves broke into his car that was parked in a downtown parking garage and stole his bags. Without business clothes to wear, Schiff still proceeded to the event in shirt sleeves and a hiking vest, according to the Chronicle, with others dressed in suits.
What’s your reaction to Rep. Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) being robbed in San Francisco, California, yesterday, Thursday, ahead of a campaign event? pic.twitter.com/vhKiK9Ekv2
At the dinner, Schiff thanked attorney Joe Cotchett for supporting Schiff’s bid to replace the late Dianne Feinstein and represent California in the U.S. Senate.
“I guess it’s ‘Welcome to San Francisco,’” joked Cotchett’s press agent Lee Houskeeper, who was at the dinner.
Schiff was not in the vehicle when it happened.
“Yes, they took my bags,” the California representative said, per the Chronicle. “But I’m here to thank Joe.”
The apparent theft came just days after the San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s security guard was assaulted in downtown San Jose Tuesday, according to KRON4, a local Bay Area news outlet.
“While interviewing Mayor Matt Mahan in downtown San Jose, a man was shouting at us and fought Mayor Mahan’s security guard,”KRON4 reporter Jack Molmud wrote in a post along with a video of the incident. “The fight lasted a couple minutes and the man was arrested by SJPD. Police said they were compiling evidence and sending it to the DA’s office.”
The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously shut down former President Trump’s attempt to stop a potential indictment for tampering with the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state.
In a five-page decision issued Monday afternoon, all nine justices of the Georgia Supreme Court said Trump’s lawyers had failed to make a persuasive case for shutting down the inquiry led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. She has signaled that indictments are possible in the election-related probe in the next few weeks as a grand jury convenes to consider possible charges.
The Georgia court said there was no reason to permit that in these circumstances.
“He makes no showing that he has been prevented fair access to the ordinary channels,” the high court wrote in an opinion not attributed to any specific justice. “He is asking this Court to step in and itself decide the motions currently pending in the superior court. This is not the sort of relief that this Court affords, at least absent extraordinary circumstances that Petitioner has not shown are present here.”
Willis’ probe reportedly focuses on pressure Trump and his allies put on Georgia officials the weeks after the 2020 election to try to reverse Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the Peach State. A key piece of evidence in the probe is an audio recording of a call Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to “find 11,780 votes,” which would have pushed Trump across the threshold to claim victory.
Various election officials and national GOP figures have testified during the special grand jury probe.
Trump’s attorneys also filed a petition in March with Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, asking that Willis’ probe be halted. However, McBurney has yet to rule on that motion.
A federal jury in New York City reached a decision Tuesday in the civil trial of E. Jean Carroll vs. former President Donald Trump.
The jury found that Trump was not guilty of rape, but was guilty of sexual abuse and forcible touching. The former president has been ordered to pay $5 million in damages.
The six men and three women on the jury began deliberating Tuesday morning on the ninth day of the civil trial, which took place in Manhattan federal court.
Carroll, 79, alleged that Trump raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman department store across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan at some point in 1996. According to Carroll, the two had a chance run-in at the store, where Trump was shopping for a gift for “a girl.” She said he asked for her advice, and the two shopped together before he pushed her into a dressing room and assaulted her. Trump and his legal team insist that Carroll’s allegations are fabricated, with the former president’s initial reaction including an accusation that Carroll was motivated by wanting to sell copies of her book, according to Fox News.
That denial resulted in Carroll slapping Trump with a defamation claim, claiming that his response caused harm to her reputation.
Trump said on Truth Social prior to the jury’s final verdict that he plans to appeal the decision, claiming he was “silenced” throughout the trial.
“Waiting for a jury decision on a False Accusation where I, despite being a current political candidate and leading all others in both parties, am not allowed to speak or defend myself, even as hard nosed reporters scream questions about this case at me. In the meantime, the other side has a book falsely accusing me of Rape, & is working with the press,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Tuesday.
“I will therefore not speak until after the trial, but will appeal the Unconstitutional silencing of me, as a candidate, no matter the outcome!” he added.
Trump did not testify during the trial, but he was deposed on camera in October.
“She’s accusing me of rape, a woman that I have no idea who she is. It came out of the blue. She’s accusing me of rape — of raping her, the worst thing you can do, the worst charge,” Trump told Kaplan at his law office in October. “And you know it’s not true too. You’re a political operative also. You’re a disgrace. But she’s accusing me and so are you of rape, and it never took place. And I will tell you I made that statement, and I said, while it’s politically incorrect, she’s not my type. And that’s 100 percent true. She’s not my type.”
Trump was recently indicted in New York City on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
This is a breaking news story. Click refresh for the latest updates.
Former New York Republican congressman George Santos walked free on Friday after President Donald Trump commuted his federal sentence — but the move may not end his legal ordeal. A local prosecutor on Long Island appeared to signal that state-level charges could be used to sidestep the president’s act of clemency.
Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly said on the social platform X that her office had been “at the forefront” of the effort to “bring Santos to justice.” Donnelly’s jurisdiction includes part of the district Santos once represented in Congress.
“I am proud of the work my office has done, and the conviction achieved in partnership with the U.S. Attorney’s office,” Donnelly said. “While the office cannot comment on ongoing investigations, suffice it to say that I remain focused on prosecuting political corruption wherever it exists regardless of political affiliation.”
Her statement — vague but pointed — has fueled speculation that prosecutors could seek state charges mirroring the federal case, a move critics say would effectively undermine Trump’s commutation and keep Santos entangled in the court system despite his early release.
A spokesperson for the Nassau County D.A.’s office declined to elaborate when asked whether an investigation was ongoing.
Trump’s Message: “Unequal Justice” and Political Targeting
Announcing the commutation on Truth Social, President Trump praised Santos’s “Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN,” suggesting the former lawmaker’s punishment was disproportionate.
“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump wrote.
Santos had served just 84 days of a seven-year sentence after pleading guilty last summer to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Prosecutors had accused him of multiple financial and campaign-related offenses — including money laundering and falsifying records — but supporters argue that he faced harsher treatment because of his party affiliation and outspoken loyalty to Trump.
Possible State Move Seen as Political
Republicans are already warning that a state prosecution would represent another example of “lawfare” — the use of legal mechanisms to target political opponents.
Santos himself, who had initially said he wouldn’t seek clemency before later telling interviewer Piers Morgan he’d accept “whatever the president is willing to give me,” has yet to comment on Donnelly’s remarks.
For now, the former congressman is free — but the signals from Nassau County suggest that the battle between Trump’s justice reform message and New York’s prosecutors may be far from over.
A federal grand jury has indicted U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) on two felony counts and one misdemeanor charge related to a physical altercation with federal officers outside a Newark immigration detention facility.
🔥🚨BREAKING: Democrat Congresswoman Rep. LaMonica McIver has been indicted by federal grand jury on 3 counts for obstructing federal law enforcement at Newark, NJ ICE facility and now faces up to 17 years in prison. pic.twitter.com/pB1mwyMtV0
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) June 10, 2025
The incident occurred on May 9 at Delaney Hall, during what was described as a congressional oversight visit. McIver was joined by several Democratic colleagues and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, McIver allegedly struck two federal officers — once with her forearm and again while attempting to block the arrest of Mayor Baraka. Baraka had entered a restricted area without authorization. He was briefly detained for trespassing, but the charges were later dropped.
JUST IN: Rep. LaMonica McIver has been indicted and faces up to 17 years in prison for allegedly assaulting federal law enforcement officers.
US Attorney Alina Habba made the announcement on X.
“Today a federal grand jury seated in Newark, New Jersey returned a three-count… pic.twitter.com/0o6axUEy7t
Video released by the Department of Homeland Security showed McIver rushing after the agents as they tried to arrest Baraka outside the facility’s gates and shouting to protesters outside to “surround the mayor.” At one point, McIver’s elbows appear to make contact with a masked officer amid the crush of the crowd.
The two other members of Congress have not been charged.
Habba and McIver havepublicly said that prosecutors tried to reach a resolution with McIver without pressing charges but were not successful, though neither provided details.
“The Justice Department and Alina Habba wanted me to admit to doing something that I did not do, and I was not going to do that,” McIver said on CNN last month. “I came here to do my job and conduct an oversight visit, and they wanted me to say something differently, and I’m not doing that.”
Federal prosecutors claim McIver’s actions constituted assault and obstruction of federal officers in the performance of their duties.
McIver has denied the allegations, claiming the charges are politically motivated and amount to intimidation over her work on immigration oversight. Her attorney, Paul J. Fishman, called the case “political retaliation against a dedicated public servant who refuses to shy away from her oversight responsibilities” and vowed to prove her innocence in court.
This indictment is no more justified than the original charges. I will not be intimidated. My full statement: pic.twitter.com/C0aZyrnNx8
Fishman previously served as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey from 2009 to 2017.
The case is unusual. Criminal indictments of sitting members of Congress are rare — especially ones that don’t involve financial misconduct or corruption. This case centers instead on conduct during an official visit tied to immigration enforcement.
Legal experts say the indictment could reignite debate over how much leeway lawmakers have in conducting oversight of federal agencies, particularly those involving immigration detention practices.
An arraignment date for McIver has not yet been set. If convicted, she faces up to eight years in prison for each felony count, and up to one year for the misdemeanor.
On Friday, a Georgia judge released the report from the special grand jury who investigated former President Donald Trump’s actions after the 2020 election.
The report, which included charging recommendations for 3 US senators, led to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s recent indictment on racketeering charges.
Included among the list of recommended indictments were two former senators from Georgia who ran for reelection in 2020, former Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, as well as Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Georgia Lt. Gov Burt Jones.
Willis eventually indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants in the case.
Trump was charged with one count of violation of the Georgia RICO Act, three counts of criminal solicitation, six counts of criminal conspiracy, one count of filing false documents and two counts of making false statements.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered the partial release of the special grand jury’s report in February but, at the time, did not release its recommendations on who should or should not be prosecuted. The partial report indicated a majority of the grand jury believed one or more witnesses may have committed perjury in their testimony and recommended that prosecutors pursue indictments against them.
A federal judge in Florida refused to delay the start of the classified documents trial involving former President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled Friday that she would dismiss the motion from Trump’s legal team “without prejudice” against taking it up again in the future. The trial’s start date could be reconsidered at a scheduling conference March 1, she wrote.
The order is a small victory for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which had strongly argued against any delays in the case by suggesting that the former president wanted to push the case until after the 2024 presidential election. Trump is the undisputed front-runner in the GOP presidential primary.
The Florida judge noted the 1.3 million pages of evidence — plus thousands of hours of security video shot at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort — that prosecutors in the Mar-a-Lago case gave to the defense in discovery, in addition to the former president’s other legal woes with schedules of their own.
“I am not quite seeing a level of understanding on your part to these realities,” Cannon said at the time to prosecutor Jay Bratt, a member of special counsel Jack Smith’s team.
Trump is facing Espionage Act charges in the Mar-a-Lago case after refusing to return classified records from his time as president, as well as obstruction of justice charges for his efforts to conceal them from prosecutors.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The Committee on House Administration has released transcripts confirming that former President Donald Trump explicitly ordered the Pentagon to secure the U.S. Capitol ahead of Jan. 6, 2021. These transcripts, conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) inspector general’s office, reveal that Trump gave clear directives to keep the protests around the Jan. 6 certification of the electoral vote peaceful, which were allegedly ignored by senior military leaders.
Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) published the full transcripts, which include testimony from Gen. Mark Milley, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Milley confirmed that Trump pre-approved the use of National Guard troops or active-duty military to maintain peace in Washington, D.C., during a Jan. 3 meeting.
A press release from the Committee on House Administration shows that Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives, contradicting the conclusion in the IG’s report regarding the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
“Pentagon leadership prioritized concerns of optics over their duty to protect lives,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to ensure that any events on January 6, 2021 were safe. It is very concerning that these senior Pentagon officials ignored President Trump’s guidance and misled Congressional leaders to believe they were doing their job when they were not. The DoD IG’s report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions from the interviews they conducted but pushes a narrative to keep their hands clean. We have many questions for them, and we will continue to dig until we are satisfied the American people know the truth.”
The committee’s finding includes a full breakdown of the senior Pentagon leadership’s conscious decision to disregard Trump’s commands:
Days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, recalls a conversation between the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and President Trump:
Milley: “The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protestors here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’… [POTUS said] I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.’ [SecDef] Miller responds by saying, ‘Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.’”
On January 5, the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, placed unprecedented restrictions on DCNG Commander Major General William Walker to prevent any movement to the Capitol without Secretary McCarthy’s explicit permission on January 6 and 7.
On January 6, 2021, the outer perimeter on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol was breached by rioters at 12:53pm. The DCNG arrived five hours later. Click here to view the timeline.
Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
These transcripts prove President Trump’s senior Pentagon leaders were focused on OPTICS, instead of doing their job, as the Capitol was breached:
Miller: “There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.”
As “optics” concerns were being discussed and Secretary McCarthy claims he was ‘developing a plan’, the DCNG was ready to move, less than 2 miles from the Capitol – awaiting Secretary McCarthy’s authorization.
Walker’s General Counsel, Colonel Earl Matthews: “We were seeing the Congress of the United States being overrun, and the Guard – and the Capitol Police, the MPD, they need help. We had people at the D.C. Armory who are able to help, and they’re not moving. They’re not allowed to move.”
DCNG Command Sergeant Major Michael Brooks: “They were ready to go, and they just couldn’t understand why they were still sitting there. Literally sitting on a bus, just waiting to drive to the Capitol and do the best they could do to support Capitol Police.”
Tyler Merbler, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
At 3:04pm, Miller provided verbal approval to Secretary McCarthy for immediate deployment of the DCNG. What was Secretary McCarthy doing between receiving this approval, and 5:08pm, when the order eventually reaches the D.C. National Guard? Why didn’t he communicate this approval for a full two hours?
At 3:18pm, Secretary McCarthy told Congressional Democrat Leadership that the DC National Guard had the “green light” and “is moving”. Two hours would pass before Secretary McCarthy’s deployment order would ACTUALLY be communicated to the DCNG.
In these vital hours, the DCNG had been trying but was unable to reach Secretary McCarthy.
DCNG Adjutant General Aaron Dean: “[Walker] tried to call Secretary McCarthy three times between 2:30 and 5pm. He said, ‘I haven’t heard from him all day.‘ When he tried to call his cell phone, it went straight to voicemail.”
These revelations challenge the conclusions of the original DOD IG’s report on Jan. 6, disclosing that Trump’s orders to ensure security were deliberately disregarded by Pentagon leadership and prove he took steps to prevent violence on that day.
This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. It is republished with permission.
On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump moved to throw out his criminal election charges in Georgia after winning the 2024 election.
The new filing aims to toss Trump’s fourth and final criminal case, which accuses him of entering a months-long unlawful conspiracy to overturn President Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia.
“Accordingly, well before the inauguration of President Trump, this Court should inquire into its jurisdiction to continue to hear this appeal,” wrote Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, in the filing.
“That inquiry should result in this Court deciding that both this Court and the trial court lack jurisdiction to entertain any further criminal process against President Trump as the continued indictment and prosecution of President Trump by the State of Georgia are unconstitutional,” Sadow continued. “President Trump respectfully submits that upon reaching that decision, this Court should dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction with directions to the trial court to immediately dismiss the indictment against President Trump.”
The Georgia case has not yet reached trial and has been raised for months as an appeals court takes up Trump’s argument that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) should be disqualified over her romance with a top prosecutor on the case who was forced to step aside.
Trump was charged in the case alongside more than a dozen of his allies, who could still face trial even if his charges are dismissed.
After securing the presidency Trump’s two federal indictments were also tossed out.
Trump’s filing comes hours after one of his co-defendants who pleaded guilty, Kenneth Chesebro, filed court documents seeking to invalidate his plea deal struck in October of last year.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks in National Statuary Hall on the one-year anniversary of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Thursday, January 6, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)
There’s no going back now…
On Tuesday, Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D) became the first sitting Democrat U.S. Congressman to call on Joe Biden to withdraw from the 2024 presidential contest.
“Instead of reassuring voters, the President failed to effectively defend his many accomplishments and expose Trump’s many lies,” Doggett said in a statement.
INBOX: Rep. Lloyd DOGGETT (D-Texas) becomes the first sitting Democratic lawmaker to publicly call on BIDEN to withdraw from the 2024 race.
"Rep. Doggett Calls on President Biden to Withdraw"
“I represent the heart of a congressional district once represented by Lyndon Johnson. Under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw,” he later said. “President Biden should do the same.”
Doggett, who is 77, praised the president’s legislative achievements in his years in Washington but argued that now is a moment to pass the torch in the Democratic Party.
“While much of his work has been transformational, he pledged to be transitional,” Doggett said. “He has the opportunity to encourage a new generation of leaders from whom a nominee can be chosen to unite our country through an open, democratic process.”
“My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved,” he continued.
“Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden’s first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so.”
Andy for President? @GovAndyBeshear’s comments when asked about his name being mentioned as a candidate if President Biden were to drop out. Beshear has been named by several national media outlets as a potential replacement. @WLKYpic.twitter.com/QDRnG5NDjh
