Latest

    News

    Home News Page 2

    Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Seeks Trump Pardon

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4

    The attorney representing Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy is appealing directly to President Donald Trump after a jury failed to decide whether she was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three young children.

    There is just one major obstacle: Trump does not have the constitutional authority to pardon Clancy on state murder charges.

    Kevin Reddington made the extraordinary request Tuesday during an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” days after Clancy’s closely watched trial ended with a deadlocked jury.

    “Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady and the person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington said.

    Trump Signals Clancy Will Face ‘A Price’

    Trump has not publicly responded directly to Reddington’s pardon request, and no response from the White House or another top administration official had been reported as of Tuesday afternoon.

    The president did, however, weigh in on the case after the mistrial—and his comments gave no indication that he was considering clemency.

    Trump described the deaths as a “horrible tragedy” and said he expected Clancy to face consequences.

    “I assume there’s going to be another trial,” Trump told reporters Friday. “There’ll be a price. It’s going to be a mental institution or jail or something.”

    Clancy faces three counts of murder in connection with the Jan. 24, 2023, deaths of her children at the family’s Duxbury home. Her daughter Cora was 5, her son Dawson was 3 and her youngest son, Callan, was 8 months old.

    Clancy has not denied killing the children. She pleaded not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility, with her attorneys arguing that she was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis and could not understand the wrongfulness of her actions.

    Prosecutors rejected that defense and portrayed the killings as calculated and premeditated.

    Pardon Request Faces Constitutional Roadblock

    Although Reddington directed his appeal to Trump, the Constitution limits a president’s pardon authority to federal offenses. Clancy was charged in a Massachusetts court under state law, placing the case beyond the reach of a presidential pardon.

    Any pardon involving Massachusetts charges would have to come through the state’s clemency system. Democratic Gov. Maura Healey holds the state pardon power with the consent of the Governor’s Council, according to the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth.

    Neither Healey nor the Governor’s Council had been publicly reported as considering clemency for Clancy.

    Defense Seeks Deal After 11-1 Split

    Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after jurors deliberated for more than 38 hours without reaching a unanimous decision. Court notes indicated that the jury was divided 11-1, although the court did not formally disclose how the majority intended to vote.

    Reddington has said the 11 jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible and accused the lone holdout of refusing to apply the court’s reasonable-doubt instructions.

    Before the mistrial was finalized, Clancy’s attorneys unsuccessfully asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to intervene and require further questioning of the dissenting juror. The emergency petition was denied.

    Reddington now hopes to avoid putting Clancy—and the children’s family—through another grueling trial.

    He said Tuesday that he wants Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz to reconsider the case after hearing weeks of testimony from medical experts, relatives and other witnesses.

    Cruz has not announced whether prosecutors will pursue another trial. After the mistrial, he emphasized that his office remains focused on securing justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan.

    Clancy is scheduled to return to court for a status conference on Sept. 29. A new trial could be held as soon as the fall, though prosecutors could also negotiate an agreement with the defense.

    Trump Crosses ‘Mexico’ Off The Map — Floats ‘New America’ Rename

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54325633746/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159707159

    President Donald Trump has found a new target for his growing campaign to rebrand America’s map: New Mexico.

    Trump ignited a political firestorm Sunday after sharing a map on Truth Social that showed a large “X” over “Mexico” in the state’s name and replaced it with “America.”

    The result: “New America.”

    The official White House account quickly reposted the image on X, giving the provocative proposal an even bigger platform.

    Hours later, Trump suggested the idea may have staying power.

    “Many people suggested changing the name of New Mexico,” the president wrote in a follow-up post, calling the proposed name “so much more prestigious and beautiful.”

    “Wow, I Love It!!!” Trump added.

    A Hoax Becomes A Presidential Talking Point

    The idea did not originate with the White House.

    According to Snopes, a satirical social media account falsely claimed on Sept. 1 that Trump had signed an executive order changing the state’s name. The fabricated announcement quickly spread across multiple platforms.

    No such executive order had been issued.

    Trump nevertheless picked up the idea days later, first circulating the altered map and then openly praising the potential name change. The president did not say whether he plans to pursue any formal action.

    The distinction could prove significant. A previous analysis prepared for the New Mexico Legislature concluded that the state itself “probably has the authority to change its own name.” A proposed state constitutional amendment in 2001 would have sent a name change to New Mexico voters.

    Democrats Dig In

    New Mexico’s Democratic congressional delegation wasted little time pushing back.

    “Three things I will always call by their actual names,” Sen. Martin Heinrich wrote on X, listing the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Ontario and New Mexico.

    Rep. Melanie Stansbury delivered a blunter response: “Oh hell no!”

    “Our state’s name carries generations of history, culture, and family — and it belongs to us,” Stansbury wrote.

    Rep. Gabe Vasquez, who faces Republican Greg Cunningham in his reelection campaign, accused Trump of attempting to “erase” the state’s history and culture.

    California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu also seized on the controversy, arguing that the White House should focus on fuel prices and the ongoing Iran war.

    But Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee appeared entertained by the proposal, calling “New America” “kind of catchy.”

    A Name Older Than The United States

    Any attempt to remove “Mexico” from the state’s name would immediately collide with centuries of history.

    Spanish explorers used “Nuevo México” in documents dating to the late 1500s, according to a historical review by the New Mexico Legislature. The National Archives notes that Spain formally established the colony of New Mexico in 1598 — nearly two centuries before the United States declared independence.

    New Mexico later came under Mexican rule before the United States took control in the 1840s. President William Howard Taft admitted it to the Union under its current name in 1912.

    Trump’s Growing Map Makeover

    The latest proposal follows Trump’s moves to replace the Gulf of Mexico with the “Gulf of America” and rename Lake Ontario “Lake America.”

    The Lake Ontario order drew fierce opposition from Canadian officials, tribal leaders and congressional Democrats. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that its traditional name would remain in use for Canadians and “the rest of the world.”

    Even Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., whose district includes much of the lake’s American shoreline, suggested Trump’s move was likely designed to troll Canada during an escalating trade dispute.

    Trump-Appointed Judge Blocks DOJ Bid To Clear Steve Bannon

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has thrown a temporary roadblock in front of the Justice Department’s effort to erase Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress case.

    U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols declined to dismiss the indictment underlying Bannon’s 2022 conviction, ruling that federal prosecutors failed to provide an adequate explanation for abandoning the case.

    The Justice Department’s request “does not explain its motivations for seeking dismissal,” Nichols wrote, according to Bloomberg Law.

    Nichols said the government must provide “a statement of reasons and underlying factual basis” supporting its request—not merely a broad assertion that dropping the case would serve the interests of justice.

    The ruling leaves Bannon’s conviction intact for now, but it does not necessarily represent a lasting defeat. Nichols denied the motion “without prejudice,” allowing prosecutors to return with a more detailed justification.

    DOJ’s One-Sentence Explanation Falls Short

    Bannon, who served as Trump’s White House chief strategist during the president’s first term, was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

    The committee sought documents and testimony related to Bannon’s communications with Trump and efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    Bannon maintained that he declined to comply after Trump asserted executive privilege. He was nevertheless convicted by a Washington jury in 2022 and served a four-month federal prison sentence in 2024.

    After Trump returned to office, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington moved in February to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment with prejudice, which would prevent prosecutors from bringing the same case again.

    “The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” prosecutors wrote.

    That explanation, signed by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, did not satisfy Nichols. According to ABC News, the judge found that prosecutors had failed to comply with local court rules requiring the government to explain its reasons for seeking dismissal.

    Pirro and Nichols were both appointed by Trump.

    Supreme Court Cleared The Path—But Did Not End The Case

    The procedural showdown comes months after the Supreme Court handed Bannon a significant victory in his appeal.

    In April, the justices vacated the federal appeals court judgment that had upheld Bannon’s conviction and returned the case for further consideration in light of the government’s pending motion to dismiss the indictment.

    The high court did not directly dismiss Bannon’s charges. Its brief April 6 order instead cleared the procedural path for Nichols to consider the Justice Department’s request.

    In its Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department argued that Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits prosecutors—with a judge’s approval—to dismiss an indictment even after a jury has returned a guilty verdict and the court has entered judgment.

    Bannon had asked the Supreme Court to examine whether someone “willfully” defies a congressional subpoena when acting on a good-faith assertion of executive privilege. He also challenged the composition of the House Jan. 6 committee.

    The Justice Department’s reversal made it unlikely that the justices would reach those broader constitutional questions. Instead, the court vacated the appellate judgment and sent the case back down.

    Nichols’ latest ruling means the conviction remains on Bannon’s record while prosecutors decide whether to submit a renewed motion with the detailed factual and legal explanation the judge demanded.

    Because Bannon has already completed his prison sentence, the immediate consequences are largely symbolic. Clearing the conviction, however, would still deliver an important legal victory to one of Trump’s most prominent and outspoken allies.

    Coast Guard Pilots Save The Day After DHS Chief’s Plane Loses Engine

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Image via Pixabay

    Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is thanking a team of U.S. Coast Guard pilots after they calmly guided his aircraft to safety following a frightening midair engine failure.

    Mullin was traveling from Georgia to Washington, D.C., on Wednesday when the right engine of his Coast Guard-operated C-37A jet suddenly failed, forcing the crew to declare an emergency and request an immediate landing at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

    “We just lost our right engine and would like to declare an emergency and immediate landing at DCA,” the pilot told air traffic controllers, according to audio cited by CBS News.

    There were 14 people aboard the aircraft, including Mullin and other senior Department of Homeland Security officials. The pilot reported that the plane still had approximately two and a half hours of fuel.

    Despite the potentially dangerous situation, the Coast Guard crew brought the jet down safely—and apparently made the entire ordeal look far easier than it was.

    “The United States Coast Guard pilots made the single-engine landing feel routine,” Mullin wrote on X. “No panic, just straight professionalism.”

    Then came a stunning admission from the crew.

    “After we landed, the pilots told me that was a first for them!” Mullin revealed. “We could not have been in better hands.”

    The aircraft landed safely, was inspected by Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority fire and rescue personnel and then moved off the runway. No injuries or significant disruptions to other flights were reported.

    But the close call is already reviving questions about the age of the aircraft used to transport America’s top homeland security officials.

    The C-37A is a military version of the Gulfstream V and is routinely used to carry senior Coast Guard and DHS leaders. Fox 5 DC, citing Fox News, reported that the aircraft had been flagged in 2025 because of its age.

    DHS previously said the Coast Guard’s executive jet was 22 years old and suffered from “significant avionics and communications obsolescence issues.” The department argued that replacing it was a matter of safety, noting that the aircraft had exceeded the normal operational life of a corporate jet.

    The aging aircraft is part of a broader challenge confronting the Coast Guard. A Government Accountability Office review found that several Coast Guard aircraft were approaching the end of their original service lives and that maintenance problems had contributed to the fleet repeatedly missing its availability target.

    FBI Busts Ohio Man Over Chilling Threats Against Trump, GOP Lawmaker

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Image via Pixabay

    An Ohio man is facing federal charges after allegedly threatening to burn down a Republican congressman’s home, murder his family and parade the lawmaker’s body through the streets — all while calling for the death of President Donald Trump.

    The FBI arrested Alex Justin Miller, 26, of Columbus, Ohio, on one count of interstate transmission of a threat to injure, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

    Fox News Digital identified the alleged target as Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., a Jewish lawmaker who said the profanity-laced email went far beyond the vicious political messages members of Congress routinely receive.

    “It was so graphic,” Fine told the outlet. “I reported it immediately.”

    According to the federal criminal complaint, the message arrived on the morning of Aug. 18 with a subject line threatening to shoot the congressman.

    The sender allegedly vowed to travel to Fine’s home, set it on fire and kill the lawmaker and his family while they slept. The message also threatened to behead Fine, repeatedly invoked Nazis and ended with calls for the deaths of both Fine and Trump.

    Fine was attending a meeting in Flagler County when the email arrived, while his family was at their Brevard County home, according to the complaint.

    Investigators quickly began following the message’s digital trail.

    Emergency records obtained from Google allegedly connected the email account to a Google Voice number and Google Pay records bearing Miller’s name. Login data then led investigators to an IP address registered to a Columbus residence that matched the address listed on Miller’s Ohio driver’s license, the complaint states.

    Fine told Fox News Digital that authorities identified and arrested the suspect within 36 hours.

    “I’m incredibly grateful to the U.S. attorney, the FBI, the Capitol Police, and all the law enforcement in Florida who took this seriously,” Fine said.

    The congressman said the episode reinforced his belief that members of Congress need stronger security protections, particularly as political threats become increasingly personal and graphic.

    Fine also stressed that violence against elected officials should never be tolerated, regardless of party.

    “You want to call us bad people? Be my guest,” Fine told Fox News Digital. “But do not do this sort of thing.”

    The FBI and Brevard County Sheriff’s Office investigated the case with assistance from the Secret Service and U.S. Capitol Police. Assistant U.S. Attorney Courtney D. Richardson-Jones will prosecute it.

    Miller faces up to five years in federal prison if convicted.

    Trump’s White House Ballroom Scores Another Supreme Court Lifeline

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    White House image via Wikimedia Commons

    President Donald Trump’s sprawling White House ballroom project just dodged another potentially devastating legal roadblock.

    In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court allowed construction of the new East Wing complex to continue while the Trump administration presses its appeal against a lower-court injunction.

    The unsigned majority concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacks the legal standing necessary to challenge the project. The justices also found that halting construction could inflict “irreparable harm” on the government and interfere with critical security work.

    That means crews can keep building the massive ballroom and underground military facility—even as the explosive fight over the project’s legality remains unresolved.

    Trump wasted no time celebrating.

    “The United States Supreme Court has just ruled, 5-4, that the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex can continue, without any further contingency, doubt, or threat,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, according to Fox News.

    “We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.”

    Trump said the project remains on track for completion in summer 2028 and predicted it will become “something that the entire Country is very proud of.”

    He also insisted the ballroom is being financed entirely by private donors and corporations, calling it a “Gift” that will come at no cost to taxpayers.

    Justices Cite Serious Security Concerns

    The administration has argued that the ballroom cannot simply be separated from the fortified military installation being built beneath it.

    In its ruling, the Supreme Court pointed to declarations from senior national-security officials—including the directors of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service and Office of the Director of National Intelligence—warning about the dangers of freezing construction midway through the project.

    The Army secretary told the court that the planned ballroom’s height and mass are crucial to shielding the underground facility from potential attacks. Officials also warned that delays could disrupt Secret Service operations, expose the unfinished site to foreign intelligence gathering and create serious structural problems.

    The majority stressed that it was not issuing a final ruling on whether Trump had the legal authority to undertake the project without congressional approval.

    Instead, the court concluded that the National Trust’s lawsuit likely falters at the starting line because its alleged aesthetic and historical injuries do not amount to the concrete harm required to sue in federal court.

    Roberts Breaks With Conservative Majority

    The decision produced an extraordinary split, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent.

    Roberts argued that the project is “likely unlawful” because federal law prohibits the construction of structures on government parkland in Washington without express authorization from Congress.

    “The ballroom is a building or structure being erected on federal park grounds—President’s Park—in the District of Columbia,” Roberts wrote. “Yet Congress has not passed any law resembling ‘express authority’ for the Executive’s construction of it.”

    Roberts accused the majority of allowing a likely infringement on Congress’ power over federal spending and property to continue.

    “Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” he wrote.

    The National Trust seized on that dissent while acknowledging the painful setback. President and CEO Brent Leggs said the organization was “deeply disappointed” but emphasized that the court did not decide whether the ballroom itself is legal.

    “This is not the final decision on the merits of our case,” Leggs said in a statement.

    Tyler Robinson To Undergo Trial In Charlie Kirk Assassination Case

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    The man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk will stand trial on all seven charges against him—and prosecutors are still free to seek the death penalty.

    Utah District Judge Tony Graf handed prosecutors the major victory Tuesday, ruling that the evidence against Tyler Robinson, 23, was sufficient to advance the case to trial. Robinson entered not-guilty pleas moments later.

    “Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this evidence is sufficient at this stage” to identify Robinson as the alleged gunman, Graf said, according to Fox News.

    Graf stressed that prosecutors did not have to prove Robinson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt during the preliminary hearing. They only needed to establish probable cause.

    The higher burden will come at trial.

    Judge Rejects Bid To Derail Capital Case

    Robinson’s defense team had pushed the court to block the death penalty, arguing that the single shot that killed Kirk did not place other people at a sufficiently high risk of death to support an aggravated murder charge.

    Prosecutors countered that the alleged gunman fired a high-powered rifle from a rooftop more than 400 feet away while thousands of people—including children—were gathered around Kirk.

    Graf sided with the state, finding enough evidence to support the aggravating allegation that the attack created a grave risk for others. He also allowed prosecutors to move ahead with their claim that Kirk was deliberately targeted because of his political views.

    Prosecutor Ryan McBride told the court that there was a “mountain of evidence” tying Robinson to the killing, including surveillance footage, DNA allegedly recovered from the rifle and messages prosecutors say contained admissions.

    According to the New York Post, prosecutors also pointed to a handwritten note in which Robinson allegedly said he had an opportunity to “take out Charlie Kirk.”

    Defense attorney Staci Visser argued that the state was stretching Utah’s aggravated murder statute because only one shot was fired and only one person was struck.

    Graf ultimately rejected that argument and ordered Robinson to face trial for aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child.

    Prosecutors formally announced the seven charges in September 2025, alleging that Robinson planned the attack, concealed the weapon and instructed another person to delete incriminating messages, according to the Utah County Attorney’s Office.

    Kirk Family Demands Swift Justice

    Kirk, 31, was fatally shot on Sept. 10, 2025, while speaking before thousands of people at a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in Orem.

    Before Tuesday’s hearing concluded, attorney Jeff Neiman, speaking on behalf of Kirk’s family, urged the court to prevent needless delays.

    “The defendant is entitled to a fair trial,” Neiman said. “But nothing more is owed.”

    Kirk’s family later called Graf’s ruling “an important step” in its pursuit of justice.

    “Every step in this process carries the weight of all that Charlie’s murder has taken,” the family said, pointing especially to Kirk’s children, who will grow up without their father.

    The family said it remains committed to seeking justice while praying for “a transparent and timely process.”

    Trump Previously Condemned The Assassination

    President Donald Trump had not issued a verified public response specifically addressing Tuesday’s ruling as of Wednesday morning.

    Trump, however, has repeatedly condemned Kirk’s assassination and celebrated his friend and political ally as a martyr for American freedom.

    At Kirk’s September 2025 memorial service, Trump called the assassination an attack on the nation’s fundamental liberties and declared that the killer had failed to silence Kirk’s movement.

    “The gun was pointed at him, but the bullet was aimed at all of us,” Trump said, according to the White House.

    Robinson is scheduled to return to court on Oct. 23 for a status conference, where Graf could set a trial date. He has been ordered to appear in person.

    Until then, the cameras Robinson’s lawyers fought to remove will remain in the courtroom under restrictions imposed by the judge.

    Trump Reportedly ‘Expressed Concern’ Over Hegseth’s Army Purge In Closed-Door Meeting

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

    President Donald Trump was reportedly caught off guard by the scale of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s purge of senior Army leaders—just days before the service’s top civilian official abruptly resigned.

    Outgoing Army Secretary Dan Driscoll personally warned Trump about the leadership shake-up during a private White House meeting last week, according to The Atlantic.

    The magazine, citing four people familiar with the conversation, reported that Trump was surprised to learn how many generals and other senior officers had been fired, pressured to leave or denied promotions under Hegseth.

    Driscoll argued that the upheaval was undermining the Army’s ability to modernize and prepare for future threats.

    Trump “expressed concern about the deep cuts to the Army’s senior leadership,” one person familiar with the meeting told the magazine.

    During the same closed-door conversation, Driscoll informed Trump that he planned to resign. His departure became official Monday evening, escalating a months-long power struggle inside the Pentagon.

    The White House confirmed the resignation but did not publicly address Trump’s reported concerns about Hegseth.

    “Secretary Driscoll has been highly effective in advancing President Trump’s agenda to Make America Strong Again at the Department of the Army,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told CBS News.

    Kelly credited Driscoll with providing “outstanding leadership during historic military operations,” restoring the Army’s focus on “readiness and lethality” and assisting with negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

    “The United States Army is more powerful than ever thanks to his work alongside the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of War,” she added.

    Trump has not personally commented in public on Driscoll’s exit or indicated whether he intends to rein in Hegseth’s personnel overhaul.

    Driscoll, a former Army officer who served in Iraq, became the youngest Army secretary in history when he took office at age 38. The close friend and former Yale Law School classmate of Vice President JD Vance quickly earned a reputation as a reformer determined to drag the Army’s weapons and drone programs into the future.

    But personnel decisions became a major flashpoint between Driscoll and Hegseth.

    Driscoll strongly supported former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, whom Hegseth forced out in April without publicly explaining the decision. Gen. Chris Donahue, the commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, later filed for retirement.

    Driscoll and George had worked together on the Army Transformation Initiative, an ambitious modernization effort emphasizing drones and other unmanned systems. The Army has since moved to phase out a European drone battalion supported by both men, CBS News reported.

    The leadership purge has left a striking vacuum at the top of America’s largest military branch.

    The Army now lacks both a permanent civilian secretary and a Senate-confirmed chief of staff. NPR reported that the number of active-duty Army four-star generals has fallen from 10 when Hegseth took office to just five.

    Gen. Christopher LaNeve, Hegseth’s choice for the Army’s No. 2 position, has served as acting chief of staff since George’s departure. According to The Atlantic, LaNeve repeatedly bypassed Driscoll and took major decisions directly to Hegseth.

    Hegseth is now expected to nominate LaNeve for the permanent chief of staff position, although Senate opposition could complicate his confirmation.

    Meanwhile, Deputy Army Undersecretary Dave Fitzgerald, a Driscoll ally, is also expected to step down this week, according to CBS News.

    Pentagon officials are reportedly watching closely to see who Trump selects to replace Driscoll. Hegseth ally and chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell has emerged as a possible contender, a move that could give the secretary even tighter control over the Army and its personnel.

    One defense official offered The Atlantic a grim assessment of what could follow if an intensely political Hegseth loyalist takes the job.

    “What happens then?” the official asked. “Generational damage.”

    White House Teleprompter Operator Pays $172K After Betting on Trump’s Speeches

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    A former longtime White House teleprompter operator will hand over more than $172,000 after federal regulators found he used advance knowledge of President Trump’s speeches to cash in on prediction-market bets.

    Gabriel Perez, who ran the teleprompter for Trump since 2016, settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Friday. He must return $107,539 in profits and pay a $65,000 civil penalty. A three-year trading ban is also in place.

    According to the CFTC, Perez traded so-called “mention market” contracts on Kalshi between December 2025 and February 2026. These contracts pay out based on whether specific words or phrases appear in a speech. As teleprompter operator, Perez saw the prepared remarks before the President delivered them and used that nonpublic information to place winning bets.

    The agency said he misappropriated the material “in breach of his duty of trust and confidence,” generating over $107,500 in profits. The $65,000 penalty was reduced because of Perez’s “exemplary cooperation” with investigators. Kalshi flagged the activity and assisted the probe.

    Former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed earlier that Perez was placed on unpaid administrative leave after the allegations surfaced. He is no longer employed by the federal government. The White House has long maintained strict ethics rules and previously warned staff against using nonpublic information for prediction-market bets.

    ABC News first reported the investigation last month. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan were notified but declined to pursue a criminal case.

    Kalshi’s lead lawyer welcomed the outcome, stating that no one is above the rules. The settlement closes the matter on a staffer who broke trust—and underscores that even in the White House, the rules apply.

    Report: Letitia James Prosecutor Says He Was Told To Target Trump Allies

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    New York Attorney General Letitia James is facing a stunning accusation from inside her own office.

    Assistant Attorney General Daniel Wiesenfeld claimed he was instructed “to find and pursue crimes committed by specific individuals and organizations affiliated with Donald Trump,” according to an agency-wide email obtained by the Times Union.

    The Friday email reportedly landed in the inboxes of more than 2,000 employees before abruptly vanishing from the office’s computer servers.

    Wiesenfeld, a prosecutor in the office’s Investor Protection Bureau, specifically accused bureau chief Shamiso Maswoswe of directing him to target Trump, his Truth Social platform and Hewlett Packard without a credible underlying reason.

    The reference to Hewlett Packard apparently involved Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, a deal James’ office has opposed despite its approval by the Justice Department.

    Wiesenfeld accused the attorney general’s office of spending taxpayer money pursuing politically convenient enemies while failing to act aggressively against nonprofit homeless-shelter fraud and antisemitic crimes near synagogues.

    He also urged his colleagues to prosecute known crimes and identify those responsible instead of “targeting individuals and then finding crimes,” the Times Union reported.

    The email was quickly followed by another agency-wide message from James’ general counsel, Kumiki Gibson, describing the controversy as an “internal” matter and assuring employees that no one was in danger.

    James’ office then placed Wiesenfeld on administrative leave with full pay.

    “This is a personnel matter,” a spokesperson told the Daily Caller, adding that the office protects New Yorkers regardless of their political beliefs and “strongly reject[s] any assertion to the contrary.”

    Wiesenfeld is no fringe employee. A former Brooklyn assistant district attorney, he recently worked on one of James’ major cases: an April lawsuit accusing Coinbase and Gemini of operating illegal prediction-market gambling platforms in New York, according to the attorney general’s office.

    The allegations are especially explosive given James’ history with Trump. During her 2018 campaign, the Democrat pledged to investigate and prosecute Trump over his New York business dealings.

    Her office later secured a civil fraud judgment against Trump, his sons and his company. An appeals court upheld the fraud finding in 2025 but eliminated the enormous financial penalty after determining it was excessive, Courthouse News Service reported.

    New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox accused James of turning her office into a “political hit squad,” according to the New York Post.

    Even Melissa DeRosa, a former top aide to Democratic ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, condemned the alleged conduct, arguing that politicized prosecutions are “wrong when either side does it.”

    123...148Page 2 of 148
    © Great America News Desk 2022