Home Blog Page 3

Appeals Court Reopens Path to Dismiss Trump’s Hush Money Conviction

0

A federal appeals court has reopened a potential path to dismissing President Donald Trump’s controversial hush money conviction, a major development that could upend the first criminal verdict ever rendered against a U.S. president.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit revived Trump’s bid to move the case out of New York state court and into federal court—where he plans to argue that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity shields him from prosecution for actions connected to his time in office.

The appeals panel said it “cannot be confident” that the lower court properly evaluated Trump’s arguments before rejecting his request last year.

“The court bypassed what we consider to be important issues bearing on the ultimate issue of good cause,” the panel wrote.

The judges did not express an opinion on whether Trump’s strategy should prevail, but sent the case back to the lower court for further review.

“We leave it to the able and experienced District Judge to decide whether to solicit further briefing from the parties or hold a hearing to help it resolve these issues,” the panel added.

Trump’s team has long maintained that the Manhattan prosecution was politically motivated and orchestrated by Democratic officials seeking to damage his 2024 campaign. The conviction—34 counts of falsifying business records—stemmed from what prosecutors described as a “hush money” payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump has denied the alleged affair and consistently argued that the payments were legal expenses.

The move to federal court, if successful, could provide a new venue for Trump to challenge what many conservatives view as an abuse of prosecutorial power and a double standard in the justice system. The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in July strengthened Trump’s position, establishing that presidents are entitled to significant constitutional protections against criminal prosecution for official acts.

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

Nancy Pelosi Attacks ‘Vile Creature’ Trump In Wild CNN Interview

2
Nancy Pelosi via Gage Skidmore flickr

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called President Donald Trump “a vile creature,” adding that he is “the worst thing on the face of the earth” during an unhinged interview.

Pelosi made the comments during a sit-down interview with CNN that aired on Monday. The hostile remarks come as political violence in the United States continues to rise, following two assassination attempts on President Trump in 2024 and the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk in September.

“He’s just a vile creature, and the worst thing on the face of the earth, but anyway,” Pelosi said of Trump.

“You think he’s the worst thing on the face of the earth?” asked CNN journalist Elex Michaelson.

“I do, yeah,” Pelosi replied.

She defended her harsh words about Trump, arguing that he “does not honor the Constitution of the United States.”

“In fact, he’s turned the Supreme Court into a rogue court. He’s abolished the House of Representatives. He’s chilled the press,” Pelosi added. “He’s scared people who are in our country legally.”

The 85-year-old congresswoman was not asked to explain how Trump has made the Supreme Court a “rogue court” or what she meant by arguing that the House of Representatives has been “abolished.” The CNN interview focused on California’s special election on Tuesday, when voters will cast their ballots on Proposition 50, which aims to redraw the state’s congressional maps to further favor Democrats.

On Thursday, the 20-term Congresswoman announced her retirement.

In a video posted to social media, Pelosi described her love for San Francisco, saying that in the midst of all the titles she’s held, “there has been on greater honor for me than to stand on the House floor and say I speak for the people of San Francisco.”

“I will not be seeking reelection to Congress. With a grateful heart I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” she added. “As we go forward my message to the city I love is this. San Francisco, know your power. We have made history, we have made progress, we have always led the way. And now we must continue to do so by remaining full participants in our democracy and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.”

California GOP Sues Over Democrat-Drawn Congressional Map

2

The Dhillon Law Group has filed a major lawsuit on behalf of the California Republican Party, state Rep. David Tangipa, and 18 California voters, arguing that Proposition 50 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit, led by attorneys from the prominent conservative firm, comes amid growing concerns that Democrats are manipulating redistricting nationwide to entrench their political power.

Dhillon Law Group Takes Aim at Racially Driven Redistricting

The legal challenge was filed shortly after voters approved Proposition 50 with 64% support on Tuesday. The measure, crafted and championed by California Democrats, was designed to redraw congressional districts under the claim of improving representation for Latino voters. But Republicans argue that the move is a blatant racial gerrymander that violates the 14th and 15th Amendments.

“This violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, and the right under the 15th Amendment to not have one’s vote abridged on account of race,” said Dhillon Law Group partner Mike Columbo at a press conference. “When drawing the Proposition 50 map, the chief consultant who drew the map has stated that the first thing that he did was to increase the power of Latino voters.”

“Additionally, the state legislature has announced that the maps increase the power of Latino voters,” Columbo added.

Expanding Democratic Power Through the Ballot Box

The measure’s approval followed the Democratic-led legislature’s redistricting initiative that added five new congressional seats likely to favor Democrats — mirroring similar partisan efforts in states like New York, Illinois, and Maryland, where Democratic majorities have aggressively redrawn lines to lock in electoral advantages.

California Democrats justified the move by pointing to redistricting in Texas, where Republicans are expected to gain five seats under their new map. But GOP leaders argue that Proposition 50 goes far beyond a political counterpunch — instead crossing into unconstitutional racial engineering.

President Donald Trump weighed in on Tuesday, calling Prop 50 a “giant scam.” He added, “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review.” While it’s unclear whether Trump’s remarks referred directly to the lawsuit filed the next day, they reflect widespread frustration among conservatives about what they view as systemic manipulation of elections by Democrats.

Legal Challenge: Prop 50 Fails the Supreme Court’s “Gingles Test”

According to the complaint, Proposition 50 expands the number of districts where Hispanic voters are likely to play a decisive role — from 14 to 16 out of California’s 52 congressional districts. The lawsuit points to the 1986 Supreme Court decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, which established a three-part test allowing states to draw minority opportunity districts under limited conditions.

Dhillon Law Group attorney Mark Meuser, who ran as the GOP Senate candidate in 2022, said California’s new map fails that test.

“We believe that the Supreme Court Gingles Test cannot be satisfied by the state, as such under the 14th and 15th Amendments, the maps drawn by Prop 50 will be considered unconstitutional,” Meuser said.

The lawsuit argues that Hispanics, now the largest ethnic group in California, cannot be considered a racial minority in the sense contemplated by the Gingles ruling — making Proposition 50’s race-based districting unjustifiable under federal law.

Rep. Tangipa: “Voices Are Being Diminished to Benefit Others”

Republican state Rep. David Tangipa, one of the plaintiffs, blasted the measure as a cynical ploy by Democrats to reshape the electorate in their favor.

“As the first Polynesian elected ever to the state legislature, I understand the diversity and the beauty that this state has,” Tangipa said. “And what we have seen with Prop 50, these maps, they are completely diminishing the voices of [some] groups to benefit other groups.”

A National Pattern of Democratic Redistricting Power Plays

The fight over California’s Proposition 50 is part of a broader national battle over redistricting, where Democrats have used state legislatures and ballot initiatives to secure long-term electoral advantages. In New York, Democrats are redrawing congressional lines to overturn a previous court-ordered map that favored Republicans. In Illinois, gerrymandering has been used to eliminate multiple GOP-leaning districts. And in Maryland, courts have repeatedly intervened to stop maps that heavily favored Democrats.

Republicans argue that Proposition 50 is the latest example of Democrats weaponizing race and redistricting to tilt elections.

Trump Offers Explanation In First Comments Since Democrats’ Election Success

3
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump offered an explanation on Wednesday morning after Democrat candidates swept the 2025 elections.

In his first remarks since the elections, President Donald Trump said that the ongoing government shutdown was partly to blame for Republican losses on Election Day.

Trump told reporters during a breakfast with GOP lawmakers at the White House that election night on Tuesday “was not expected to be a victory,” and provided the 36-day government shutdown as one of two possible reasons.

“I think, if you read the pollsters, the shutdown was a big factor,” Trump said. “Negative for the Republicans, and that was a big factor.”

Trump added: “And they say that I wasn’t on the ballot and was the biggest factor. But I don’t know about that. But I was honored that they said that.”

His remarks come after Democrats won resoundingly in multiple states on Tuesday, with exit polls showing economic worries were very much on the minds of voters.

“I don’t think it was good for Republicans,” Trump said of the election results. “I don’t think it’s good. I’m not sure it was good for anybody.”

Some major losses for Republicans included the New York City mayoral race, and contests for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. Democrats also secured another expected win in California, where voters approved a new congressional map that is designed to help their party win five more U.S. House seats in next year’s midterm elections.

On the morning following the defeats, Trump called on lawmakers to bring the 36-day government shutdown, now the longest on record, to an end. 

“We must get the government open,” Trump said, going on to push Republican senators to end the filibuster.

“It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do,” he said. “Terminate the filibuster.”

Anti-Trump Judge Boasberg Hit With Articles of Impeachment

4

Just in…

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) isn’t backing down. On Tuesday, he filed impeachment articles against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — the same judge who signed off on subpoenas in the secretive “Arctic Frost” probe targeting Republican lawmakers.

“Chief Judge Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis,” Gill told Fox News Digital. “He is shamelessly weaponizing his power against his political opponents… Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators.”

Gill’s impeachment resolution hits Boasberg with one count of abuse of power, accusing him of authorizing “frivolous nondisclosure orders” that blocked telecom companies from alerting lawmakers their phone records were being subpoenaed.

Documents released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) show that Verizon followed those gag orders — while AT&T refused. Both the subpoenas and the gag orders bore Boasberg’s signature, igniting outrage from GOP senators like Ted Cruz, who called the operation “worse than Watergate.”

The judge’s defenders point out that the Stored Communications Act gives him discretion in approving such orders — but it’s unclear what evidence Boasberg reviewed before granting them.

Republicans say the surveillance trampled on the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which protects lawmakers from law enforcement over their legislative work. Legal experts note that protection isn’t absolute — and the balance of power between Congress, the courts, and the executive branch is now back in the spotlight.

This isn’t Gill’s first attempt to oust Boasberg. He threatened impeachment earlier this year when Boasberg halted Trump-era migrant deportation flights but backed off after GOP leaders said it wasn’t the right moment.

Read the entire resolution:

Report: Jack Smith Quietly Plotting ‘Counterattack’ On Trump

3
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,

Jack Smith, the special counsel who tried to bring down Donald Trump over classified documents, is still talking tough — even after his cases fell apart.

According to The New York Times, Smith made the remarks last month during a discussion at University College London with former Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. Smith said the evidence demonstrated Trump’s “willfulness”—a key legal element that distinguished Trump’s case from the separate investigation into President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents, which resulted in no charges.

“The rule of law allows for different outcomes when the facts are different,” Smith said. “One of the major differences between the two cases is the obstructive conduct in the case that I investigated.”

He explained that to prove illegal possession of classified documents, prosecutors must show the defendant knowingly broke the law.

“In my particular case, we had tons of evidence of willfulness,” Smith said, pointing to Trump’s repeated public claims that the documents were his and his refusal to return them after investigators demanded their return.

Smith even cited Trump’s social media posts as proof of guilt — saying Trump’s insistence that the documents were his somehow showed “willfulness.” Critics say that sounds more like criminalizing free speech than proving a crime.

Trump fired back on Truth Social: “He is a CRIMINAL AND SHOULD BE IN JAIL. A MAJOR LOWLIFE AND FAILURE.”

But the facts tell a different story: Biden walked free, Trump’s case got tossed, and Smith’s record of political prosecutions is in tatters.

Both of Smith’s cases have since been dismissed. A federal judge threw out the classified documents case in July 2024, and Smith dropped election-related charges after Trump’s November victory. The Justice Department’s own guidance bars the indictment of a sitting president, and the Supreme Court expanded presidential immunity in a ruling last year.

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans have referred Smith to the Justice Department for allegedly overstepping his authority by subpoenaing metadata from lawmakers’ phones during his probe into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Illinois Man Charged After Repeated Calls For Trump’s Execution

3

Federal authorities say an Illinois man repeatedly posted videos calling for President Donald Trump’s execution, prompting a Secret Service investigation and a federal charge for making interstate threats.

A criminal complaint filed Oct. 31 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and unsealed Monday identifies the defendant as Trent Schneider, 57, of Winthrop Harbor. He is charged with making a true threat to injure another person in interstate commerce.

Authorities say Schneider posted violent videos and memes on Instagram as his home faced foreclosure. In a video posted Oct. 16, the complaint alleges he looked into the camera and said, “People like me have suffered real f—ing crimes from f—ing judges, doctors, lawyers, police. They all should be killed. All of them should be executed for what they’ve done.”

The affidavit quotes Schneider continuing, “They need to be killed. They need to be executed, ok? They are frauds, ok? I think it’s time. I’ve waited long enough. I’m going to get some guns. I know where I can get a lot of f—ing guns and I am going to take care of business myself. I’m tired of all you f—ing frauds. People need to f—ing die and people are going to die. F— all of you, especially you, Trump. You should be executed.”

Prosecutors contend Schneider reposted the same video nearly 20 times, often tagging Trump Tower Chicago; each post included the caption: “THIS IS NOT A THREAT!!! … AFTER LOSING EVERYTHING and My House Auction date is 11.04.2025 @realDonaldTrump SHOULD BE EXECUTED!!!”

A viewer in Florida reported one post to authorities, which led the Secret Service to identify Schneider’s Instagram account and open an investigation. Agents visited his Winthrop Harbor home on Oct. 22 and observed cameras on tripods in the driveway. Schneider reportedly came outside, ordered officers off his property and later posted a video showing them leaving, again with the execution caption.

The complaint notes prior encounters with law enforcement: Schneider was interviewed in 2022 over violent posts targeting public officials and later arrested that year after allegedly threatening to “shoot up” a T-Mobile store. A court found him unfit to stand trial in 2023.

According to prosecutors, Schneider’s social-media anger appeared linked to his home’s impending foreclosure, set for auction on Nov. 4. He allegedly referenced “losing everything” and blamed judges and other officials he labeled “frauds.”

CBS Chicago reported the Secret Service enlisted the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and a SWAT team to execute arrest and search warrants; Schneider was taken into custody without incident.

If convicted on the federal charge, he faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, the Justice Department says.

Conservative Commentator Warns Droves Of Minorities On Cusp Of Abandoning GOP

    2

    Veteran conservative commentator and pro-Trump pundit Dinesh D’Souza cautioned over the weekend that continued attacks on non-white conservatives could drive minority voters away from the Republican Party.

    The warning came after former presidential candidate and current Ohio gubernatorial contender Vivek Ramaswamy faced a wave of xenophobic comments online. On Friday, Ramaswamy posted a Halloween photo of himself and his two sons, which drew several racist replies. One user wrote, “I see this year Vivek went as an H1B immigrant here to steal your jobs. Very scary. Like the brown version of the Grinch.”

    D’Souza, who shared Ramaswamy’s post on Sunday night, condemned the abuse and called out the growing tolerance for such rhetoric within certain corners of the right.

    “Look at the abuse Vivek is getting for posting an innocuous photo with his boys. This is the sh*tshow that Heritage and Tucker have brought upon us. If this continues, I would not be surprised to see mass desertions of blacks, Latinos and other minorities from the GOP. Unreal,” D’Souza wrote.

    His comments referenced the backlash surrounding Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes and the Heritage Foundation president’s subsequent defense of Carlson. (RELATED: Newsweek Editor Receives Backlash For Calling For Tucker Carlson Should Be ‘Neutralized’)

    Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance also faced scrutiny in recent days over remarks about his interfaith marriage. During a Turning Point USA event, an audience member asked whether Vance hoped his Hindu wife would convert to Christianity.

    “Do I hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved by in church? Yeah, I honestly do wish that because I believe in the Christian Gospel, and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way,” Vance said in response.

    Vance later clarified his remarks on X, emphasizing his respect for his wife’s beliefs while reaffirming his own faith.

    “First off, the question was from a person seemingly to my left, about my interfaith marriage. I’m a public figure, and people are curious, and I wasn’t going to avoid the question,” he wrote. “Second, my Christian faith tells me the Gospel is true and is good for human beings. My wife—as I said at the TPUSA—is the most amazing blessing I have in my life. She herself encouraged me to reengage with my faith many years ago. She is not a Christian and has no plans to convert, but like many people in an interfaith marriage—or any interfaith relationship—I hope she may one day see things as I do. Regardless, I’ll continue to love and support her and talk to her about faith and life and everything else, because she’s my wife.”

    Report: Trump Administration Planning New Mission In Mexico Against Cartels

    2
    By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54325633746/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159707159

    The Trump administration has launched detailed planning for a bold new mission to send American troops and intelligence officers into Mexico to dismantle violent drug cartels, according to two current U.S. officials and two former senior officials familiar with the effort.


    Initial training for this potential operation — which would include ground operations inside Mexico — is already underway, though a full deployment is not, at this moment, imminent. The officials say the scope is still being debated and no final decision has been made.
    Under the proposed plan, U.S. troops — many drawn from the elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) — would operate under Title 50 status (the U.S. intelligence framework) and coordinate with officers from the Central Intelligence Agency.


    This would mark a sharp departure from previous administrations, which generally confined U.S. efforts in Mexico to support roles (advising local police or army units) rather than direct action. The new approach signals that the Trump team views cartels as an insurgent threat to U.S. national security — not simply a law-enforcement challenge.


    If green-lit, the mission is expected to remain largely covert, without public fanfare. The administration is framing this as part of an “all-of-government” approach to protect American communities from cartel violence and drug flows.
    Key to the plan will be drone strikes targeting drug laboratories and cartel leadership. Some of these drones require operators on the ground, hence the need for special forces and intelligence personnel inside Mexico.


    This push builds off an earlier move: the State Department designated six Mexican cartels — along with MS‑13 and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua — as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. That step unlocked sweeping legal authorities for U.S. spy agencies and military units to go after their networks.


    Furthermore, President Trump has publicly acknowledged authorizing covert CIA action inside Venezuela and has signaled that land-based strikes on cartel targets could follow.


    The reported move into Mexico thus reflects a two-front strategy: continuing pressure on Venezuela-based narcotics networks while now looking to tackle the land routes and infrastructure of cartels operating in North America. According to the officials, both the intelligence community and military assess that the “hemisphere war” on narco-terror must intensify — and that the U.S. has both the sovereign interest and legal authorities to act.


    Context on the Venezuela Campaign

    Here are some of the key developments and background on the recent Trump administration effort against drug trafficking and narcoterrorism in Venezuela.

    • In early September 2025, U.S. forces struck a vessel off the coast of Venezuela carrying illegal narcotics. The administration described the target as operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization.
    • In October 2025, President Trump announced that another strike resulted in six “narcoterrorists” killed aboard a boat allegedly trafficking drugs from Venezuela toward the U.S.
    • The administration formally told Congress that the U.S. is now in a “non-international armed conflict” with certain drug cartel organizations, marking a shift in legal posture from purely interdiction to armed confrontation.
    • The region’s deployment has included U.S. Navy warships in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, paired with surveillance platforms and special operations forces.
    • The Trump team argues this is justified by the scale of the drug-flow threat: ships carrying huge loads of narcotics destined for U.S. streets and deaths — making the fight one of national security, not just crime-control.
    • On the flip side, critics argue there are serious legal, sovereignty and human-rights concerns: whether strikes in international waters or even near foreign shores are consistent with U.S. and international law when the targets are suspected smugglers rather than declared enemy combatants.

    Trump Responds To Reports Of Impending Military Strikes Against Venezuela

    1

    The White House refuted media reports suggesting that President Donald Trump’s administration was poised to strike military targets within Venezuela. 

    Although Trump has signaled for weeks that he’s prepared to launch land operations against Venezuela, the White House cast doubt on the new media reports.

    “Unnamed sources don’t know what they’re talking about,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a Friday statement to Fox News. “Any announcements regarding Venezuela policy would come directly from the President.”

    The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the Trump administration had identified military targets within Venezuela that are being used to transport drugs, although the news outlet said that Trump hadn’t formalized a decision on whether he would launch land strikes against these targets.

    Trump told reporters Friday on Air Force One a decision hadn’t been made about whether he would strike military targets within Venezuela, Bloomberg News reported. 

    Additionally, the Miami Herald reported Friday that the administration had decided to conduct strikes against these military installations within Venezuela that could come “in a matter of days or even hours.”

    Both the Journal and the Miami Herald cited anonymous sources familiar with the plans. 

    The Herald reported that the pending strikes were part of a larger effort the Trump administration is initiating to crack down on the Cartel de los Soles, which Attorney General Pam Bondi has said Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro heads up.

    The Trump administration does not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state, and the administration has increased pressure to remove him from power.

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