Breaking: Federal Judge Declares Appointment of Trump's Personal Lawyer As US Attorney Illegal

 

By streiff  | August 21, 2025 | RedState

A Barack Obama-appointed judge in Pennsylvania ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Alina Habba, has been unlawfully serving as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey since July 1. This calls into question all actions by that office after that date.

Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann ruled that, despite the "novel series of legal and personnel moves,” Habba’s term as the interim U.S. Attorney ended no later than July 28. 

To fully understand the story, let's look at the timeline.

It all started with a small-time drug dealer contesting a three-count drug and weapons indictment.

The Biden-appointed United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Philip R. Sellinger, resigned effective midnight on January 8, as a new administration was taking office. His First Assistant United States Attorney, Vikas Khanna,  became Acting United States Attorney and continued in that role until March 8, when John Giordano was appointed as Interim United States Attorney. He held the position until March 24, when President Trump used his Truth Social account to announce he had selected Alina Habba to be the Interim U.S. Attorney.

Pam Bondi swore in Habba on March 28. The term "Interim" is more than a descriptor. Under federal law, an "interim" official can only serve for a maximum of 120 days.

Interim appointments under section 546 are time limited. The statute provides that “[a] person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of” the Senate’s confirmation of the President’s nominee to the full position, or “the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.”11 For Ms. Habba, that meant that her term ended, at the latest, on Saturday, July 26, 2025.

President Trump did not nominate Habba until June 30, giving the Senate a maximum of 26 days to act—fat chance.

On July 22, the federal judges in the "District of New Jersey invoked their statutory power to appoint a United States Attorney upon the expiration of an Interim United States Attorney’s 120-day term pursuant to section 546(d)." Then the script descended into chaos.

The judges appointed Desiree Grace, Habba’s First Assistant, as the United States Attorney. As an aside, despite being "legal," the idea that federal judges can appoint officers in the Executive Branch makes as much sense as allowing them to appoint senators or Supreme Court justices; that is, it makes no sense. 

The Trump administration took umbrage, and rightfully so.

 Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused “[t]he district court judges in NJ [of] trying to force out [Ms. Habba] before her term expires at 11:59 p.m. Friday.” And after the Order was docketed, Ms. Bondi posted that “politically minded judges refused to allow [Ms. Habba] to continue in her position, replacing Alina with the First Assistant.

The day that Grace was appointed, Bondi fired her.

Despite being fired, Grace told the judges that she was ready to take charge. Underscoring her profoundly unserious nature, Grace took to LinkedIn (lolol) to announce she would “follow that Order [of the District of New Jersey] and begin to serve in accordance with the law.” Did I say "lolol?"

On July 25, a series of deft moves, or shenanigans, YMMV, began to keep Habba in place. President Trump withdrew her nomination to be U.S. Attorney. Habba resigned as Interim U.S. Attorney. Then Bondi appointed her "'Special Attorney to the Attorney General' pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515 and “authorized [her] to conduct in the District of New Jersey, any kind of legal proceedings, civil or criminal, including Grand Jury proceedings and proceedings before United States Magistrates, which United States Attorneys are authorized to conduct.” For good measure, Habba was also appointed as First Assistant United States Attorney and President Trump re-fired Grace "pursuant to his authority under 28 U.S.C. § 541(c) and Article II of the U.S. Constitution.”

The backstory was complicated enough, so I won't go into the judge's reasoning. The case was assigned to Judge Brann by the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit after the defendant demanded his indictment be quashed because Habba was not the legit U.S. Attorney. As the judge handling his case had voted to install Grace, a more neutral judge was appointed by the Circuit.

Brann said he’s putting his order on hold pending an appeal.

Because of Senator Thune's inability or unwillingness to break the logjam holding up nominations, several interim U.S. Attorneys are facing a vote by a group of judges. Most of those are going for the administration, but there are a couple that seem doomed to follow Habba's rejection.

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

AP Photo/Seth Wenig

The Senate GOP Should Call The Democrats’ Bluff

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

We are once again seeing the Democrats dreaming of the day when they have unrestrained power and can finally do all the things that will guarantee that the dismal half of the electorate – of which you and I are a part – are fully disenfranchised and can never challenge leftist power again. In the last couple of weeks, as they’ve gotten more desperate watching Trump put points up on the scoreboard, Dems like that election-fail furry Beto and Eric Swalwell, when he’s not being flatulent or ineptly tapping some hard- 5 ChiCom spy who is giving it all for her country, have pushed for trashing the rules. They’re both out there trying to dominate the no-quarter faction of the Democrat Party by demanding to pack the Supreme Court and make DC and Puerto Rico states, and to facilitate this by repealing the filibuster. 

Would the Democrats actually do this if they won the Senate? That’s the rub, winning the Senate. The map is bad for them next year, but who knows in 2028? Heck, something could happen in 2026 where we patriots could lose five seats and hand them a majority. But the reality is that, someday, they are going to get the Senate, and if they have the House and presidency at the same time, they will be able to do these things – assuming Democrats are shortsighted and corrupt enough to do them, which would probably be a safe assumption. 

But right now, we have the presidency, the House, and the Senate. We can repeal the filibuster. As you know, except in rare cases like reconciliation, which is highly structured and narrowly focused for only certain kinds of bills, the filibuster essentially allows the minority party to refuse to end debate and move to a final vote on a bill. You need 60 votes to pass a law, and there are 47 Democrats right now, so Democrats can do any bill they don’t like. This super-majoritarian rule is not in the Constitution. It is a Senate rule, and because of the arcane rules of the Senate, it can be nuked by a simple majority – hence the term “nuclear option.” So far, the nuclear option has been invoked only rarely. Robert Byrd, the Grand Cyclops of the Democrat Party, had his majority nuke it for some judgeships years ago. Mitch McConnell, before he became a cartoon villain, warned him that the Dems would regret it. And boy did they when the Republicans nuked it to confirm Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. 

If John Thune wanted to nuke for all legislation and could convince his caucus to go along, he could do it tomorrow. Since we currently have the House and the presidency – it really only matters when you have all three – this could lead to a whole bunch of glorious outcomes. Just think of it. We could pass laws, glorious laws, not just issue executive orders. Concealed carry reciprocity across the fruited plain. Defunding of even more of the communist feed trough system. Bans on DEI. Criminalizing the mutilation of children and outlawing perverted weirdos swinging their unwanted junk as they parade through women’s spaces. Reforming the military, the education system, the healthcare system, and slashing government payrolls. It’s so exciting. Just thinking of it makes you want to grab a cigarette and have a cuddle. 

There’s an upside, but there’s also a downside. Political winds shift. At some point, the Democrats are going to win the trifecta. Now, we can hope this only happens after the Democrats become sane again, or less insane, as the case may be. But the fact is that if we take that power for ourselves, somewhere down the road, they’re going to get access to that same power. Keep in mind that most countries don’t have a super- majoritarian requirement. In places like Great Britain and Canada, a bare majority is enough to do the things the majority wants to do, like ban free speech, mandate euthanasia, and generally turn their countries into frigid banana republics. That’s not exactly a selling point. 

But the Democrats want to do this. They would have done it back when they had total control if not for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. All the other Democratic senators supported it, but some of them probably didn’t want to. They were scared of their lunatic base, and so they let the mavericks take all the heat. But what if there are no mavericks? There are no mavericks now. Everybody in their garbage caucus is a pinko or too scared not to be. In other words, they’re very likely going to do this given the chance. There is a non-zero chance that cooler heads prevail, because it would mean the destruction of the Senate to the extent it hasn’t already been destroyed by Democrat obstructionism. But let’s just say you’d be better off doubling down on a 16 against the dealer’s king showing than betting against the Democrat Democrats repealing the filibuster the first chance they get. 

With that understanding, the ball is in the Republicans’ court. We’re at what’s called a decision point, and we have several courses of action. The first course of action is the one typically preferred by Republicans, which is to bury their heads in the sand and pretend none of this is happening. That is, do nothing. Just run out the clock until the Democrats have a chance to seize power, and then ruthlessly use the elimination of the filibuster to pass an agenda that prevents us from ever gaining power again. Think about month-long election days, bans on voter ID, and election spending laws that end up only being enforced against Republicans and leave Democrat dark money with an empty field to play on. They would no doubt impose redistricting commissions, like the co-opted independent commission (sic) in California, where the Republicans appointed to it donate to Planned Parenthood, think The Bulwark is too right-wing, and drink oaky Chardonnay. The newly 15-justice Supreme Court would rubber-stamp anything they did, so kiss your country goodbye and hello to the world of my new novel, American Apocalypse: The Second American Civil War. 

Now, there are two other possible courses of action. One is a preemptive nuclear option strike. The Republicans in the Senate could act now to blow up the filibuster and start passing all those laws that we have always dreamed of. This would take a lot of testosterone and fortitude from the GOP Senate caucus, so it’s out of the question. Also, there are some downsides. The filibuster acts as a hedge against extremism. If we get rid of it, it’s gone for sure and forever. That’s going to change the way this country works in ways we can’t fully imagine. We are conservatives, and we should look at major structural changes that have unknowable consequences with skepticism. 

There’s a third course of action. It’s one that addresses all the issues and all the concerns. We don’t want to unilaterally disarm, and we also don’t want to allow them a free shot at our jaw. So, why don’t we ask them to put their money where their mouth currently is? Of course, their mouth is currently uttering the words, “The filibuster is sacred and a key component of Our Democracy.” They don’t mean that or believe that. They just don’t want us to exercise our power. But we can still take them up on it. 

Let’s give them the choice. They can do one of two things. Turn down our deal, and we Republicans can nuke the filibuster, then go to town with all the laws we’ve always wanted. If they think they don’t like the administration now, just wait until we can do whatever the hell we want. Or we can take our deal. 

Our deal is that we can all agree to make the filibuster effectively permanent. We do that by requiring a 2/3 vote to change the filibuster rules going forward. The exact process of doing that is for the goblins in the Gringotts Wizarding Bank of the Senate to determine, but if everybody agrees to something, it’ll happen. This would effectively agree to make the filibuster permanent for everybody. 

So, we tell the Democrats that they’ve got a choice about the filibuster as to whether it gets eliminated, but not when it gets eliminated. If they don’t take the deal, they’re essentially saying they’re going to nuke it themselves when it’s to their advantage, making it to our advantage to preemptively strike. But if they want to make the filibuster effectively permanent, we can do that. They get to choose whether we have a filibuster, but if they choose not to, they get fili-busted. 

GOP senators, call their bluff.

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- August 21

 

Just wanted to say 'Hey!'.

In Ukraine, the ‘Buts’ Win in the End

American  Thinker 

I love you, BUT I’m not “in love” with you.  You don’t have to go home, BUT you can’t stay here.  You may continue fighting, Martial Law President Zelensky, BUT the American people won’t be following you into World War III.

No matter how agreeable the first half of a sentence might sound, the “buts” change everything on a dime.  

President Trump has been clear that he wants the Russia-Ukraine War to end, but he says Zelensky must choose to end the conflict.  When the war began, 73% of Ukrainians wanted to fight Russia until Ukraine secured victory, but 69% now want the war to end as soon as possible through negotiations!  Perhaps that is why Z-Man agreed to meet President Trump in D.C.  It was widely rumored that U.S. officials encouraged the battledress-wearing comedian to don a real suit for the occasion, but the holdover-president wore a military-style jacket in all black.  The guy who plays piano with his penis still looks out of his element at the White House, but he does dress like someone attending his own funeral.

With the titular head of the Ukrainian government back at the White House — surrounded by an entourage of European honchos eager to butt in — we will finally discover whether some kind of peace between Russia and Ukraine is tenable.  To be sure, there are many powerful people in the United States and across Europe who would prefer to keep Ukraine a battlefield for years to come.

Why?

As a man holding onto the presidency eighteen months beyond his elected term, Zelensky might finally bring peace to his war-torn country, but he will likely be voted out of office once the exigencies of martial law disappear.

U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen may publicly express their desire for lasting European peace, but the Russian bogeyman has long been the perfect scapegoat and distraction for European societies self-immolating from mass immigration, censorship, and “climate change” communism.

The World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and other august organizations ostensibly dedicated to global welfare might applaud an end to bloodshed, but all of their depopulation enthusiasts will no doubt regret the loss of a conflict zone chalking up more deaths than births.

BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and other international investment houses will be happy to make money from lucrative rebuilding projects in Ukraine, but they will lament that the war did not topple President Putin and open up Russian lands to their profit-seeking conquest.

Weapons manufacturers will be glad to have so much demand from American and European militaries desperate to restock munitions after years of supplying Ukraine, but their boards of directors will be busy finding new places around the globe to slaughter in the cutthroat business of war.

So there may well be happy faces and cheers over the next few days and weeks when it comes to the prospect of Ukrainian peace, but there will be plenty of villains scowling behind the scenes — all hoping that the tentative peace breaks and the carnage resumes.  

Those European and Chinese power-players who have long seen war between the Russian Federation and the United States as an opportunity to diminish both countries simultaneously will say all the right things in upbeat social media postings praising compromise, but they will regret that the America-last Biden administration is no longer around to stumble recklessly into nuclear war.  Spy agencies across the West may pause their “color revolution” activities long enough to install a new Ukrainian puppet into the presidency, but they will continue their hybrid warfare operations in former Warsaw Pact countries.  

London and New York City bankers will perhaps allow Russian citizens to access their overseas assets once again, but Western central banks will pursue monetary policies that cause enough domestic turmoil in target countries to return the West to a state of war in the near future.  In sound bites, everyone loves peace, but in the world of big business, war means profits.

War is big business, but it is also a convenient political distraction.  

During the destructive interregnum of the Biden installation, Democrats laundered trillions of dollars in “Green New Deal” spending through the Build Back Better Act (cynically relabeled the Inflation Reduction Act to appeal to idiotic members of the press).  While that legislation stole from taxpayers and accomplished nothing for the American people, it put enormous sums of money into the bank accounts of Democrat-run NGOs structured as “social justice” and “environmental justice” front groups.  

Combined with Democrats’ ongoing war against inexpensive hydrocarbon energies, the inflation-triggering money-printing of that harmful legislative handout to Establishment insiders and crony capitalists doubled grocery prices in the United States.  How did Democrats explain away their disastrous handling of the economy to struggling American families?  They simply blamed Russia (as they have for the last decade) and called the spike in the cost of living “Putin’s price hike.”  

Sure, the cost of food, fuel, and basic necessities rose precipitously during the bungling Biden administration, but Russia, Russia, Russia!  Americans were even encouraged to view their growing household bills as a patriotic form of suffering worth enduring in America’s undeclared alliance with Ukraine against the Russian Federation.  First, Democrats blamed Hillary’s 2016 election loss on imaginary Russian bots and contrived Russian collusion.  Then they blamed the massive spike in prices on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  

Europe has played the same cynical game against its citizens.  Instead of admitting that “green energy” totalitarianism is destroying the continent’s industrial competitiveness and household wealth, mendacious politicians blame the War in Ukraine for their crumbling economies.  Of course, the rise in energy costs across Europe might also have something to do with ineffective sanctions against Russian energy companies (that merely divert Russian products to China and the greater Global South); the convenient sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines; and Ukraine’s military attacks on key pipelines transporting oil and natural gas from Russia to households in Hungary, Slovakia, and other parts of Europe.  The more expensive ordinary goods become, the louder Eurocrats insist that the problem is not “green energy”–induced inflation but rather Russia’s war in Ukraine!

For European politicians, the Russia-Ukraine War supplies many ancillary benefits.  It provides already indebted nations an excuse to borrow more money for defense spending.  It creates a common enemy for the European Commission to exploit as a life-and-death reason for member states to relinquish national sovereignty.  It creates a distraction from the rising frequency of social conflicts related to rampant illegal immigration.  It provides a pretext for canceling inconvenient election results in Romania and designating popular political parties as national security threats.  It allows the prevailing Establishment to entrench its control over the European bureaucracy.  As Democrats in America and socialists in Europe are fond of whispering, Never let a crisis go to waste.

Turning Russia into an irredeemable bugaboo and Ukraine into some saintly bastion of “democracy” worthy of every European’s sacrifice is how we have gotten to the point when all of Europe’s problems are brushed aside.  Serious people may be warning about a looming civil war in the United Kingdom, but Ukraine’s territorial integrity is all that matters.  Churches in France may be burning down for unexplained reasons, but Russians are the real threat.  The German economy may be fundamentally unsound, but military spending will create jobs.  

Americans and Europeans should want the killing in Ukraine to end, but there are just so many politicians and bankers who find that outcome disappointing.  In all likelihood, this war would have continued for many more years.  But, thankfully, the American people elected President Trump.

Why Would We Want Bad People Here?

Townhall 

This week, news emerged that the Trump administration has been setting new standards with regard to incoming immigrants. According to Axios, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will not take into account the "positive attributes" of migrants entering the country; such attributes can include community involvement and educational level. Instead of simply seeking to rule out those with records of misconduct, the new system seeks to screen for better immigrants -- immigrants who will enrich America. 

Along the same lines, the CIS will now disqualify applicants who engage in or support "anti-American activity." As USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser explained, "America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies. ... Immigration benefits -- including to live and work in the United States -- remain a privilege, not a right." Metrics for anti-Americanism include "circumstances where an alien has endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused the views of a terrorist organization or group, including aliens who support or promote anti-American ideologies or activities, antisemitic terrorism and antisemitic terrorist organizations, or who promote antisemitic ideologies." 

Shockingly, there are those who are concerned about such standards. Presumably, America can't be truly free unless we allow in those who support terrorist groups; one day, if we're lucky, they can even run for mayor of New York or Congresswoman of Michigan. Such are the supposed blessings of liberty bestowed on foreigners by the free speech clause of our Constitution. 

Professor of sociology Jane Lilly Lopez of Brigham Young University told the Associated Press, "For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome." This, of course, ignores that there are evidentiary standards for any allegations of anti-Americanism; skin color or country of origin wouldn't presumably be enough to bar someone on grounds of anti-Americanism. But for the left, the only excuse for a pro-American ideology must be some form of subtle racism. 

Meanwhile, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, objected that the new standards were reminiscent of McCarthyism. This ignores the fact that during the Cold War, America did in fact screen for membership in the Communist Party under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, and that refugees and immigrants were screened by American law enforcement agencies to ensure that they were not agents of a foreign power or sympathetic to America's enemies. 

Undergirding all of these objections is a simple and ugly proposition: that becoming an American requires no actual investment in America, and that America ought to be a gigantic agglomeration of disassociated populations. Such a proposition would have been de facto impossible before the rise of the welfare state; people immigrating to the United States generally left places with greater security for an America without security but with grand opportunity, which meant that new immigrants had to learn English, learn a trade, and embrace the Anglo-American cultural and legal traditions of the country in order to succeed. With the rise of an enormous and durable social safety net, the math suddenly changed: People could immigrate to the United States without assimilating in any serious way, and could maintain their pre-American cultures in toto. Multiculturalism, as a philosophy, can only survive if effectuated by a state that subsidizes fragmentation. 

That process must now be reversed. And that can only be done by raising the bar to admission. Good immigrants make America stronger. Bad immigrants make it weaker. Treating all immigrants similarly isn't just foolish; it's dangerous. And the Trump administration is right for recognizing that root reality. 

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Yes, Adam Schiff Can Be Prosecuted For Deliberately Leaking Classified Information To Hurt Trump

According to past Supreme Court rulings on the Speech and Debate Clause, Schiff could potentially face legal consequences.

The  Federalist 

If recent reports are true, Sen. Adam Schiff could have some explaining to do. According to newly-released documents, a Democratic whistleblower told the FBI that Schiff approved leaking classified information regarding the alleged Russiagate scandal to smear President Donald Trump. According to the report:

“When working in this capacity, [redacted staffer’s name] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF. In this meeting, SCHIFF stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP.”

If this information is accurate, Schiff could potentially face legal consequences. However, before entertaining this possibility, questions remain as to whether this alleged conduct would enjoy immunity under the speech or debate clause of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution states, “…for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” According to legislative attorney Todd Harvey, one purpose of this provision is to “protect the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the legislative branch by barring executive or judicial intrusions into the protected sphere of the legislative process.”

One of the leading cases discussing the speech or debate clause is Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund. There, the Supreme Court explained that a broad interpretation of the relevant clause protects legislators acting within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity from litigation, the results thereof, and the need to defend themselves.

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court in Eastland discussed the types of activities that fall within the legislative sphere other than those involving actual speech or debate. Specifically, the Court stated they must decide whether the activities are “an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings.”

As the Eastland court explained, legislators acting within the sphere of legislative activity enjoy absolute immunity from interference. Moreover, the motivation behind those acts is also typically protected.

In another case, Gravel v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that the clause protects acts like voting by members, committee reports, and a member’s conduct at legislative committee hearings. However, as the court noted, “While the Speech or Debate Clause recognizes speech, voting, and other legislative acts as exempt from liability that might otherwise attach, it does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts.”

Therefore, in line with Gravel, the speech and debate clause does not provide free rein to engage in illegal conduct or to violate one or more laws. According to The Heritage Foundation:

If a Member’s actions meet the “legislative process” test, his immunity is absolute; and that is so even if he has acted contrary to law. Accordingly, although the government may prosecute a Member for a criminal act, such as accepting a bribe in exchange for a vote, it may not pursue the case if proof of the crime “depend[s] on his legislative acts or his motive for performing them.” Thus, the government may not prove that the Member voted a particular way on the House floor in exchange for a bribe; the government, however, may prove (by other means) that the Member promised to vote a particular way in exchange for the bribe. The former (the vote) requires proof of what happened on the House floor whereas the latter (the promise to vote) does not.

This is in line with what the Supreme Court said in Johnson. There, the court stated that the government should not be barred from bringing a prosecution “purged of elements offensive to the Speech or Debate clause through the elimination of all references to the making of the speech.”

Schiff’s alleged statements or orders to leak classified information about Trump to the public for the purpose of smearing and hurting Trump could be shielded if they are deemed to be within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity. Yet, aside from allegedly taking place at a formal meeting, it is unclear how the alleged order to intentionally leak classified information to the public constitutes legitimate legislative activity.

The only nexus between the activity and the legislative process is the fact that it allegedly occurred during a meeting. In United States v Brewster, the Supreme Court stated, “The only reasonable reading of the Clause, consistent with its history and purpose, is that it does not prohibit inquiry into activities that are casually or incidentally related to legislative affairs but not a part of the legislative process itself.” The court also distinguished between legislative acts, which are protected, and acts that are political in nature and do not have such protections.

While the motivation behind this activity cannot be considered, the activity itself must still fit within the legislative framework described by the Supreme Court. For example, if the same meeting involved a plot to kidnap someone, rather than to leak classified information, would the discussions involving this plot be considered part of the legislative process merely because they took place during a formal meeting?  

Tangentially, it is unclear if any other related activity allegedly took place at any other time or place, and outside the legislative sphere. If so, this could remove the insulation provided by the clause.

Finally, if any laws were broken by leaking this information or putting the idea in motion, the clause may not afford protection if evidence of this alleged wrongdoing can be established independent of what transpired at the alleged meeting. Schiff should lawyer up.

MSM and Jessica Tarlov, Run With Another 'Cruel ICE' Story, End Up With Egg All Over Their Faces

RedState 

You'd think some lessons would be learned after the umpteenth time the press ran with another "ICE is cruelly detaining innocent people" story, only to have the facts blow them out of the water. But that would assume those stories are being written to inform and not build a false narrative, and we all know it's the latter. 

Sure enough, that happened again on Wednesday when NBC Washington reporter Aimee Cho rushed to social media to post a video of an illegal immigrant being detained on the National Mall. She says he tried to escape before being tackled to the ground, at which point he began shouting (in Spanish, of course), "Please, I'm not a criminal. I work here. I want to be with my family."

Cho knew what she was doing when she posted that video without first getting confirmation from ICE on who it was they were detaining. The entire point was to paint the man in a sympathetic light while villainizing immigration authorities. That worked exactly as planned, and the usual suspects quickly chimed in, including Fox News' Jessica Tarlov, who plays the Democrat foil on "The Five."

Both of the following tweets were deleted (which is why I had to screenshot them), and you'll find out why momentarily. 

As it turns out, the supposed family man wasn't what he claimed to be, nor was he what various "journalists" conveniently assumed he was for obvious political reasons. 

According to Tricia McLaughlin, the Assistant Director of Homeland Security, who oversees ICE, the man's name is David Perez-Teofani. He's a Mexican national and an illegal immigrant who has a final removal order. He's entered the United States illegally no less than three times, and worse, he was arrested in 2024 in Fairfax County for aggravated sexual battery against a minor. 

So why is he not currently in jail? That would be because Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano dropped the charges. He has a history of making such moves to shield illegal immigrants from prosecution. In other words, an alleged child rapist was allowed to walk free so some liberals in Northern Virginia could virtue signal. It's a disgusting scenario that has played out far too many times over the last decade. 

Well, the Trump administration isn't going to sit idly by. They are rounding these people up and deporting them, as they should. Meanwhile, I'd suggest the journalistic class calm down and take a step back before they end up with even more egg on their faces. Not that they care. 

'Ignore These Stupid White Hippies' Who Need a Nap: Vance, Hegseth, and Miller Visit Nat'l Guard in D.C.

RedState 

In a show of solidarity and support today, Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller personally visited our National Guard troops in D.C. The men brought hamburgers to the guardsmen to lift their spirits and remind them of just how important their work in securing the capital is to the American people. Vance quickly highlighted how the gesture pales in comparison to what they truly deserve: 

We wanted to bring you guys some burgers. We appreciate everything that you’re doing. So, you know, you guys bust your ass all day, and we give you a hamburger. Not a fair trade, but we're grateful for everything you guys do. 

Since President Trump sent the National Guard into the District, ridiculous protests have been ongoing. The presence of the guardsmen has already dropped crime throughout the city, with robberies and carjackings declining significantly. One can only assume that the liberal protestors would rather have homeless encampments and drugs in the street? Seems like a losing issue, but it’s hard when many on the left make their living by becoming paid protestors. 

VP Vance had a special message for the protesters, specifically:

It's bizarre that we have a bunch of old, primarily white people out there protesting the policies that keep people safe when they've never felt danger in their entire lives.

Not to be outdone, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller went scorched earth on the protestors: 

The voices that you hear out there, those crazy communists, they have no roots, no connection to this city, no families they’re raising here. They have no jobs in this city. But they’re the ones advocating for the 1% — the criminals, the killers, the rapists, the drug dealers…We're gonna ignore these stupid white hippies. They all need to go home and take a nap, because they're all over 90 years old. And we're gonna get back in the business of protecting the American people and the citizens of Washington, D.C.

This is the JD Vance and Stephen Miller we all know and love. To Miller’s point, it’s the families and historical residents who are robbed (both figuratively and literally) when the city they live in is not safe. For the elite, crime of course is not an issue. When you live off of Foxhall Road, dine at the nicest restaurants, and take jogs through the narrow streets of Georgetown, crime and filth are not something you notice. For the rest of us, however, it’s a constant concern.

One thing is clear: President Trump made the right decision by bringing the National Guard into the city. Residents on the ground are already feeling the positive impact. Joining VP Vance, Secretary Hegseth, and Stephen Miller, we give a special thank you to our National Guard troops and leadership for your service and work in the nation's capital—Americans see the value of what you’re doing, and we are grateful. 

Ana Navarro Is Furious at Melania Trump. The Reason Why Is Insane.

Townhall 

Folks on the left are still throwing temper tantrums because President Donald Trump is working to end the bloody war in Ukraine, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives since it started four years ago.

First Lady Melania Trump recently sent a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin after the meeting between the two leaders on Friday. She urged Putin to end the war, which has killed over 500 children so far.

This didn’t sit well with “The View” co-host Ana Navarro, who blasted Melania’s letter in a video on Instagram. “This all falls under the category of stuff that’s so hypocritical you almost can’t believe it,” she began.

Navarro read some excerpts from Melania’s letter to Putin. “As leaders, the responsibility to sustain our children extends beyond the comfort of a few,” the letter reads. “Undeniably, we must strive to paint a dignity-filled world for all, so that every soul we may wake to peace, and so that the future itself is perfectly guarded. A simple yet profound concept, Mr. Putin, as I’m sure you agree, is that each generation’s descendants begin their lives with a purity and innocence which stands above geography, government, and ideology.”

“Think about what her husband, Donald Trump, is doing to the children of immigrants in America—and to U.S. citizen children of immigrants,” Navarro said. “How many of those children are living with the fear of their parents being dragged through the streets of America, their car windows smashed in, their parents beaten by masked men and disappeared?”

The commentator brought up “the children in the LA school system that have been grabbed by ICE” and “the Brazilian boy in Massachusetts who was going to soccer practice when he was grabbed by ICE.”

Navarro then bashes Donald Trump for supposedly ending SNAP benefits for children in America and slashing the USAID program.

The commentator’s diatribe reflects that of many members of the left-wing chattering class, who are raging at the Trump administration for trying to end the killing in Ukraine. She attacks Melania as if she were the one setting policy, which is absurd to anyone with an IQ higher than my shoe size.

Yet, for all of her bloviating about protecting children, Navarro kept her mouth shut when children were being deported under Biden and Obama. I wonder why that is?

Also, has Navarro spoken out against the wholesale killing of children in the womb? Of course not. She’s just fine with that.

If Navarro cares about children as much as she claims, then why would she attack someone for trying to stop the killing of kids in Ukraine? These lines of attack coming from the left are not doing Democrats any favors. One can disagree with Trump’s other policies while still supporting an effort to end a bloody war.

It almost seems as if these people would rather the war continue — with more children dying — than have to admit that a Republican president brought an end to it. In the end, they don’t care about children in Ukraine, America, and anywhere else in the world. At the end of the day, they view these children as nothing more than political ammunition to use against their political opponents.