TSA Drops Shoe Removal Screening for Airline Passengers

Apparently, according to multiple sources citing a TSA internal memo, U.S. airline travelers no longer need to remove their shoes when going through the security screening process. [There’s nothing on TSA website]

Perhaps the USA will soon catch up to The Netherlands, where everything including your personage are scanned as you pass through the newer tech systems/gateways and you do not need to take off anything, nor remove anything from carry on luggage.  It makes travel much faster.

YAHOO – In a sweeping update to airport security procedures, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has made a significant policy change: all travelers, regardless of PreCheck status, will now be allowed to keep their shoes on during security screening.

This marks the most significant revision to TSA’s screening process in more than two decades and effectively ends one of the most notorious post-9/11 requirements for air travel in the United States.

[…] Starting Monday, July 7, TSA officers nationwide will begin implementing the updated protocol. The policy applies to all U.S. airports and all passengers, whether they are enrolled in TSA PreCheck or not. The only known exception at this time is for individuals who are unable to present a REAL ID-compliant form of identification, a federal standard that was fully enforced back in May 2025. (read more)

ODNI Task Force To Interview Whistleblowers, Probe Election Vulnerabilities In Expansive Weaponization Inquiry

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist 

A task force launched by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to probe the weaponization of America’s intel apparatus is expanding its efforts to include interviewing agency whistleblowers and investigating election infrastructure vulnerabilities, The Federalist has learned.

According to an ODNI official, the Director’s Initiatives Group (DIG) is seeking to interview whistleblowers within the intel community who possess direct experience and “concrete evidence of the politicization of intelligence.” These efforts will include speaking with agency analysts to further bring to light the actions of bad actors such as former DNI James Clapper and others for their respective roles in some of the biggest scandals perpetuated by America’s intel agencies, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco.

Monday’s news came days after an assessment ordered by CIA Director John Ratcliffe found that former CIA Director John Brennan was instrumental in helping launch the infamous Russia collusion hoax during President Trump’s first term. As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd reported, the inquiry discovered “that the analysis touted by Brennan as evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin hoped to help his preferred political candidate Trump win the 2016 election was rushed, restricted in its access, and then far too widely disseminated for a highly classified report.”

“All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper and [James] Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals — all to get Trump. Thank you to the career [CIA] officers who conducted this review and exposed the facts,” Ratcliffe wrote on X.

Authorized by DNI Tulsi Gabbard in April, the DIG aims to reestablish “trust in the [intelligence community] — starting with investigating weaponization, rooting out deep-seeded politicization, exposing unauthorized disclosures of classified intelligence, and declassifying information that serves a public interest,” according to an agency press release. The group — which is comprised of individuals from across various intel agencies and the Pentagon — also seeks to improve efficiency and ax wasteful spending across the government intel sector.

According to the ODNI representative, the DIG is also carrying out forensic analyses of prior U.S. elections to identify potential infrastructure-related vulnerabilities that could be exploited by nefarious actors. These efforts include obtaining previous intel community assessments of current election infrastructure.

Last month, FBI Director Kash Patel handed over newly declassified documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he said contain “alarming allegations related to the 2020 U.S. election, including allegations of interference by the [Chinese Communist Party].”As The Federalist’s Beth Brelje reported, the “once-hidden report alleges that China was making thousands of fake U.S. driver’s licenses for use in the 2020 election to validate bogus mail-in ballots. The exact contents of that report, however, are under committee investigation because of how it was handled during former President Joe Biden’s administration.”

The DIG is additionally continuing its work probing past collusion between intel agencies and Big Tech to censor Americans, investigating the origins of the Covid-19 virus, and declassifying materials related to the Biden administration’s labeling of its political opponents as “domestic terrorists,” according to the ODNI official.

The Unelected Magistrate Judges Undermining Trump And Rule Of Law Are Completely Unconstitutional

Contrary to widespread perception, magistrate judges wield extraordinary power despite having no constitutional standing under Article III.

Hans Mahncke reporting for The Federalist

As the legal wrangling continues over a magistrate judge’s decision to release accused human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia from federal custody, it’s worth taking a closer look not just at the role of Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in this case, but at the broader system of magistrate judges across the country. Contrary to widespread perception, reinforced by misleading media coverage, these judges wield extraordinary power despite having no constitutional standing under Article III.

Garcia is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who was deported there. Democrats and their media allies turned his case into a political flashpoint. Garcia was ultimately returned to the United States, where he was promptly arrested on two federal counts related to human smuggling.

One aspect of his case has gone largely unnoticed: Magistrate Judge Holmes’ authority to make critical decisions in a case with national political implications.

Despite being referred to as a “federal judge” by corporate media outlets such as The New York Times, Holmes is not an Article III judge under the U.S. Constitution, which requires that federal judges be nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and granted life tenure. Holmes meets none of these conditions. She was appointed by other judges, not elected officials, and she serves a renewable term, not a lifetime post.

Yet she holds immense power to approve arrests, authorize surveillance, and issue rulings that can shape lives, sway political outcomes, and alter the course of national events.

Her role in the Garcia case is just the latest reminder of how much judicial authority has been delegated to unelected magistrates operating outside the constitutional framework and how little scrutiny that quiet power grab has received.

Another example is Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who authorized the brazenly political FBI raid on President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022. He, too, sits outside the Constitution’s judicial framework, yet signed off on what may have been the most consequential search warrant in modern American history. And he did so with the full legal authority of a real judge, despite never having been through the vetting, scrutiny, or constitutional process required of one.

The American people are told they live under a government of checks and balances, where power is diffused and public officials are held accountable through a transparent process. The rise of magistrate judges represents a dangerous end-run around that system. These bureaucrats now wield a level of authority that the Framers never envisioned.

Article III vs. the Administrative State

Under Article III, judges are nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for life. Life tenure is a shield against mob rule, and Senate confirmation is meant to serve as a check on executive power. The federal judiciary was to be a separate, coequal branch of government.

Created by Congress in 1968 under the Federal Magistrates Act, magistrate judges were originally conceived as administrative helpers to relieve overburdened district courts. They were never meant to be full judges. Their job was to assist with pretrial matters, handling bail, reviewing warrants, and conducting preliminary hearings so that Article III judges could focus on trials and major rulings.

But as is so often the case with government, what began as a limited role has steadily expanded. Today, magistrate judges routinely sign arrest and search warrants, preside over evidentiary hearings, recommend case outcomes, and in many instances, determine the fate of defendants before an Article III judge is ever involved. In civil cases, parties can consent to have a magistrate oversee the entire trial. In criminal matters, they handle initial appearances, order pretrial detention, and issue either binding rulings or non-binding recommendations depending on the type of case.

They also preside over misdemeanor cases, sometimes with — and sometimes without — the defendant’s consent, depending on the nature of the offense.

Perhaps most concerning of all, magistrate judges are not appointed by elected officials, nor through any public or constitutional process. They are selected by panels of sitting district judges behind closed doors, often with little transparency and no public input.

The judiciary has effectively created a shadow bench.

Power Without Accountability

This setup may have been tolerable when magistrates stuck to clerical tasks. But the moment they began authorizing politically explosive raids and mass-arrest campaigns, the stakes changed entirely.

Nowhere is the quiet power of magistrate judges more visible than in Washington, D.C., where they became the legal engine behind the Jan. 6 detentions and prosecutions. These unelected officials signed off on hundreds of arrest and search warrants that were part of a legal dragnet that ensnared Trump supporters, many of whom were charged with nonviolent offenses.

Two of the most egregious examples are Magistrate Judges Zia Faruqui and G. Michael Harvey. They approved many Jan. 6 arrest warrants, including a long list of pretrial detention orders. That means people who had never been convicted of anything spent months — or even years — behind bars in what has become known as the J6 gulag in Washington, D.C.

They functioned as little more than rubber stamps for the very prosecutors many once worked alongside.

The Bureaucratic Capture of Justice

There’s something fundamentally dishonest about this arrangement. Americans are told their rights are protected by a constitutional judiciary, but more and more of the actual judging is being done by people who don’t meet any of the Constitution’s standards.

In effect, the judiciary has built its own administrative subclass, parallel in function but subordinate in process. It’s the same pattern we’ve seen across the modern administrative state: elected branches outsource responsibility to unelected bureaucrats, who operate with legal force but no political legitimacy. Whether it’s Environmental Protection Agency regulators writing environmental law, Centers for Disease Control officials issuing nationwide eviction bans, or magistrate judges approving politically explosive search warrants, the story is always the same: authority without accountability.

What has emerged is a growing cadre of substitute judges wielding real power without a public mandate. This structure invites abuse by severing power from accountability.

This isn’t just a legal problem. It’s a democratic one. A free people cannot remain free if fundamental decisions about their liberty are made by unelected substitutes. The Founders understood this. That’s why they wrote Article III the way they did. They didn’t envision a judiciary composed of administrative assistants.

Brennan’s Fake Russia Collusion Assessment Even More Corrupt Than Current Report Shows

In a letter to President Trump last week, current HPSCI Chair Rick Crawford noted there was a strong public interest in the report being declassified.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

A still-classified staff report compiled by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) found the John Brennan-led 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (“ICA”) on Russian Election Interference significantly worse and significantly more corrupt than conveyed in the memorandum released last week by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, according to sources familiar with the report. The HPSCI staff report also reveals more details of the corruption, the sources told The Federalist.

Revelations that the ICA crafted by Brennan was even more corrupt than exposed last week in CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s release of the internal “tradecraft review” of the ICA suggests Brennan may finally face justice for his role in the Russia-collusion hoax. In fact, sources familiar with closed-door testimony Brennan provided to Congress suggest perjury charges are in the offing.

According to Breitbart News, members of Congress and senior staff maintain that “Brennan had testified behind closed doors that he did not advocate for the dossier to be included in the ICA.” That testimony, however, conflicts with the findings from the newly released CIA review, which detailed how Brennan included the Steele Dossier in the ICA “over the objections of career intelligence officials.”

The CIA report released last Tuesday by Director Ratcliffe includes many more problems with both the procedure and the substance of the ICA — a report then-Director John Brennan took the lead in drafting. Among other things, the CIA concluded the ICA report should not have attributed “high confidence” to the conclusion that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances.” Nor should the ICA have included the Steele Dossier in its annex or referenced it in the text of the report, the CIA concluded.

But those problems and the others detailed in the CIA report pale in comparison to the real corruption at play, according to sources familiar with a separate HPSCI staff report. Those sources told The Federalist that HPSCI, under the leadership of then-Chair Devin Nunes, “found the ICA significantly worse and significantly more corrupt than was conveyed in the CIA report.” The staff report also reveals more details related to the ICA’s report on Russia’s 2016 influence campaign.

The HPSCI staff report, however, remains classified. In a letter to President Trump last week, current HPSCI Chair Rick Crawford, R-Ark., noted there was a strong public interest in the report being declassified. A HPSCI spokesperson told The Federalist that “it is the Committee’s view that the information in this report should be released to the public.” The spokesperson added that Chairman Crawford has raised this issue with CIA leadership.

When reached for comment, CIA spokesperson Liz Lyons told The Federalist that “no one has done more to expose the truth and confront politicization in the intelligence community than Director John Ratcliffe.” Lyons added that “from leading the charge on uncovering COVID-19 origins to exposing the gross political bias behind the 2016 Election ICA, Director Ratcliffe has consistently pushed to make critical information public and has put transparency and accountability first.”

Given his record, there is no reason to doubt that Director Ratcliffe will ensure the HPSCI staff report will be declassified when the time is right. Here, the public would be well advised to remember that transparency and accountability may sometimes be at cross purposes: It may well be that Director Ratcliffe or the other members of the Trump Administration working to rid D.C. of the Augean-stable levels of corruption have not yet finished investigating the additional details and/or individuals implicated in the HPSCI staff report. And if that is the case, perjury may be the least of Brennan’s worries.

Time for Trump To End Ukraine Conflict by Boosting Ukraine’s Ability To Wage War, Forcing Russia To Negotiate

 Conrad Black writes:

As events in Iran confirm, sometimes the only way to end a conflict is to escalate it judiciously.

It is time to force an end to the Ukraine War. President Trump has had a spectacularly successful relaunch. Practically his entire fiscal and social program has been enacted in the proverbially Big Bill, Iran’s nuclear military program has been shattered, and the president has made it clear that if further overflights are necessary to keep it in that condition he will not hesitate to order them.

Almost all of America’s tariff relationships are under review and the trade imbalance has been substantially reduced, while inflation and unemployment have declined. The fingers of the Obama-Biden green terror have been forcibly removed from the throat of the American economy.

The one area that has been a conspicuous disappointment, and is more or less constantly waved in the president’s face because of his overconfident promise to end it quickly, is the Ukraine War. Prior to Mr. Trump’s inauguration, it appeared reasonable that he would be able to agree with President Putin on what Moscow could take from the former borders of Ukraine, provided it was now understood that Ukraine was a legitimate sovereign country with the right to exist entirely independently of Russia, which would no longer be subject to debate. 

If Mr. Putin did not agree to reasonable terms, it would be a fairly straightforward matter of simply putting more powerful and longer-range weapons in the hands of Ukraine, so that they could familiarize the public of Russia with the war to a comparable extent that Mr. Putin had inflicted it upon the civilian population of Ukraine. Once that point had been reached, it was widely presumed, including by me, that it would be again a straightforward, if perhaps somewhat brusque matter of telling President Zelensky that this was the best he could get and he should settle for four-fifths of a loaf.

Then it would be a conceptually simple matter of assisting in the reconstruction of Ukraine from the war damage and flight of population it has endured and of preparing it for membership in the European Union. The issues at stake were extremely important: Russia’s claimed right to reassume the borders of Peter the Great or even of Stalin on the one hand, and on the other hand the rights of the Ukrainians — who, before 1991, had forged a separate nation only between 1918 and 1922 — to be a sovereign country if they wished, along with most of the other so-called republics of the late Soviet Union. 

Also at stake was the right of the Western Alliance to retain the principal elements of its great and bloodless strategic victory in the Cold War, as Ukraine was the largest single jurisdiction, along with Poland, to escape from the yoke of the Kremlin. This question also would answer the inference that had been incited by the general enfeeblement of the Biden administration that the Western Alliance was now a paper tiger and America had lost the will to attempt to exercise any influence even on the defeat of aggression in central Europe.   

Though it was uneven and fluctuated, the Western European response was in general much more robust than anyone had anticipated. With the election of a new and more purposeful government in Germany, and the recent agreement by NATO to double or even triple their national commitments to defense matters, augurs well for a level of assistance to Ukraine that will materially prevent a Russian victory. Spain, for the time being governed by a socialist eco-infatuated delusionist, is not in step but there is always at least one laggard in an alliance of 32 countries.

The surprise is Russia. This war has been a disaster for Russia. It believed, and the belief was shared by the chairman of America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, that Russia would overrun all Ukraine within a month. It has been effectively stalled for well over a year, having occupied perhaps 15 percent of Ukrainian territory, roughly corresponding to the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine, which from all accounts would prefer to be in Ukraine than Russia anyway, and Mr. Putin has graciously conferred over 1 million casualties on his countrymen by his aggressive invasion of Ukraine.

Desertion rates are alarming and as the Wagner mercenaries demonstrated when they abruptly defected last year and purported to march on Moscow to considerable popular enthusiasm, Mr. Putin’s attempt to turn Ukraine into a showcase of Russian military strength has been an unmitigated fiasco.

Russia has a GDP smaller than Canada’s and while high oil prices made the sanction regime ineffectual for a time, Russia is now plunging headfirst into economic recession. The Slavonic masses of that country are legendarily patient and only resort to outright revolt infrequently, but they appear to be prodigiously unmoved by Mr. Putin’s attempt to represent this as a great patriotic war. What is almost inexplicable is why Mr. Putin has not grasped the olive branch that Mr. Trump has offered him. 

Mr. Trump has even exempted Russia from his tariff reforms, presumably in order to make a comprehensive arrangement with Russia that will give it something in Ukraine to reflect its historic interest, give Ukraine unconditional independence and sovereignty, and create the desirable conditions for inducing Russia out from under the smothering wing of Communist China and resuming its place as a Western rather than an Oriental state with opportunities for improved relations with the West. Any settlement should enable any Ukrainian to live in Russia or Ukraine, and assist them in relocating if necessary.

No serious person had uttered a word about peace in Ukraine prior to Mr. Trump but Mr. Putin has shown an inexplicable and shortsighted stubbornness. Surely the time has now come to endow the Ukrainians with the ability to make the war more intolerable for Russia on the firm understanding that as soon as Russia advances or accepts reasonable terms, the war will end.

Apart from the initial goals of securing Ukrainian independence and proving the viability of the Western alliance, and as Mr. Trump is one of the few Western statesmen to have recognized, the other important goal for the West was to help emancipate Russia from its status as a Chinese vassal, particularly as this could ultimately lead to a greater Chinese access to the unexploited resources of Siberia than would be convenient to the West.

As events in Iran have confirmed, sometimes the only way to end the conflict is to escalate it judiciously. We seem to have reached this point in Ukraine. Victory has become Mr. Trump’s habit, and Ukraine is the logical next place to demonstrate it

https://www.nysun.com/article/time-for-trump-to-end-ukraine-conflict-by-boosting-ukraines-ability-to-wage-war-forcing-russia-to-negotiate

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

 

Shooter Attacked Border Agents Hours After Dems Said Their Voters Want ‘Blood’

Abigail Nichols reporting for The Federalist 

In a Monday article published by Axios, Democrat leaders told the outlet their supporters want more from them, including blood, to fight against Trump’s illegal immigration efforts. That same day, a man with a rifle and tactical gear shot at Border Patrol agents and local law enforcement in McAllen, Texas, resulting in a police officer being injured and the shooter being killed, according to Fox News.

“Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough … [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public,” one anonymous House Democrat told Axios. The congressman said that “grassroots” supporters are telling lawmakers that when they enter ICE facilities, they need to be “willing to get shot.”

Axios reported that more than two dozen Democrat representatives who spoke to publication are seeing more anger from constituents over the Democrats “not doing enough to counter President Trump’s agenda.” It has even “morphed into a disregard for American institutions, political traditions and even the rule of law,” according to Axios.

“What I have seen is a demand that we get ourselves arrested intentionally or allow ourselves to be victims of violence, and … a lot of times that’s coming from economically very secure white people,” another anonymous House Democrat told Axios.

In recent months, multiple Democrat politicians have come under fire for their behavior undermining the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani he screamed as he tried to rush at border czar Tom Homan, forcing security to hold him back. Senator Alex Pedilla yelled, approached the podium, and resisted security’s effort to remove him during a Department of Homeland Security press conference. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed Trump for the chaos and violence in L.A.

“The rhetoric against the men and women of ICE is skyrocketing, especially by members of Congress,” border czar Tom Homan said on Monday as he responded to law enforcement officers in Texas being shot at by a “typical protestors who go from protestor to criminal.” 

“We have senators, we have Congress people that compare ICE to the Nazis, compare ICE to racists, and it just continues,” Homan stated.

Homan said that attacks on ICE had been up 500 percent just a few weeks ago, but are now up 700 percent.

“The Department has zero tolerance for assaults on federal officers or property and will bring the full weight of the law against those responsible,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on X on Friday.

People Flee Taxation

 Posted Jul 8, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

I have written about how Rome fell, and just by mapping the population of Rome, you can see the fate of many current nations and states operating under poor fiscal policies – people sell and just leave. It is different this time because, under socialism, the government has become abusive. When it came to integration, they sought to implement it by sheer force.

You can’t legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. Jobs are created by the wealthy who become wealthy because of their innovative vision – i.e., Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and so on. Henry Ford’s vision created the auto industry. Bill Gates, in bringing DOS to life, created the personal computer industry, as did Steve Jobs. How much employment did just those three men create? Far more than government.

Government creates nothing to advance society or to increase GDP in any positive manner. It is a natural human response not to pay taxes and this is why taxes have been the number one reason for civil war and revolution. It is always resentful to pay taxes, whereas giving money to help someone is rewarding. Taxes tend to support politicians and their pensions. If they must sell some assets to take a government job, it is tax-free. Few leave government without growing their net worth far beyond what one could typically earn through income or investments.

The great welfare state has produced a large segment of fraud and kept many people down since they would rather be taken care of than work to take care of themselves. Even in prison, many people are sentenced to 10 or 20 years, and the first thing they do is commit a crime to get back in, where they do not have to pay taxes, and they are taken care of. You destroy people’s lives for such a long period for non-violent crimes, and then expect them to have a fulfilling life thereafter?

In the United States, we have witnessed a significant shift in the population since the COVID-19 pandemic. People are continuing to flee authoritarian states with high taxes like California, New Jersey, and New York in favor of financially friendly states like Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

New Zealand once had a program where if a woman was pregnant and she had no idea who the father was, the government provided everything right down to a free home. They ended up with the highest percentage of women who had no idea who the father of their child was. Naturally, they did know the identity of the biological father, and he would jump out the back window when the social worker visited. They got everything for free then.

Any of these types of programs employ a divide-and-conquer strategy. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take from somebody else.  When you reach a state where 50% of the people depend upon the other 50% to pay their bills, you end up with class warfare and bitterness. This is the cycle where civilization rises, peaks, and then crashes when government becomes the enemy of the people.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/people-flee-taxation/

Karen Bass Has Another Meltdown, Shows She Doesn't Know How Things Work

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

Mayor Karen Bass threw a fit on Monday when federal agents did a big enforcement operation in the MacArthur Park area of Los Angeles. Members of the military were there to protect the agents since agents have faced a lot of attacks and threats. Bass arrived on the scene of the operation and demanded that the agents leave. Why is she showing up when they're trying to conduct an operation and making a circus out of it? 

The agents didn't leave. Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino spoke with Bass on the phone, then told Fox's Bill Melugin that he didn't work for Bass. "Better get used to us now, because this is going to be normal very soon," he said. "We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles."

In response, Bass gave another briefing showing she doesn't understand how any of this works. 

She ranted it was "outrageous and un-American" to have members of the U.S. Marines involved in the operation. 

No, what's outrageous and un-American is a mayor who is trying to stand in the way of the enforcement of federal immigration law. What's outrageous and un-American is demonizing law enforcement the way Democrats have been doing. What's outrageous and un-American is having to deploy those members of the military to protect the agents because of the attacks and threats from leftists. 

Where is her condemnation of those threats and that violence against federal agents? 

---

Attempted Ambush of Border Patrol Agents in Texas, Suspect Did Not Survive (Updated)

---

A reporter asked her if it felt like she wasn't in control of things. 

She said that they didn't feel helpless, that wasn't in their "DNA." 

"We're going to continue fighting," she said. Someone chimed in, calling it the "summer of resistance." 

Then she claimed that she would never "get used" to it in response to Bovino's comment. 

"Last I checked, I was elected to be mayor of the city. That did not include a federal takeover. So either you believe in democracy, or you don't."

That's a delusional statement. But that is a typical Democrat twisting of the facts. 

There's no federal takeover in having the feds enforce federal law. That's the normal process, whether she likes it or not. She doesn't have the power to stop it. It's fighting it like this that's abnormal, un-American, and unacceptable. 

She talks about "democracy" but doesn't seem to believe in the right of the democratically elected president to have immigration law enforced. 

She's making things worse by refusing to work with them.  But they aren't going to stop their actions.