Joe Biden’s team got caught red-handed. Judicial Watch’s latest document haul reveals a desperate scramble by the Biden White House and the former president’s lawyers to snag an early peek at Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on their client's classified document mishaps, as Just the News reports, and apparently, some folks thought they could charm their way into a sneak preview.
Through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Judicial Watch pried loose 49 pages of Justice Department records showing the Biden administration’s relentless pressure on Hur. The conservative legal group’s victory exposes a saga of four requests for an advanced copy of the report, spanning October 2023 to January 2024. It’s like they thought persistence would wear down the special counsel.
The first salvo came via email on Oct. 18, 2023, just days after Hur grilled Biden about his handling of sensitive documents. Special counsel to the president, Richard Sauber, and Biden’s attorney Bob Bauer fired off a letter demanding an overview of the investigation and a chance to review the report before it hit the attorney general’s desk. Talk about trying to get ahead of the narrative.
Sauber and Bauer’s Oct. 18 letter didn’t stop at asking for a preview. They warned Hur that his report could stir up trouble in “every foreign capital” if it touched on national security procedures. Sounds like a not-so-subtle attempt to spook the special counsel into playing ball.
Hur, to his credit, didn’t budge right away. He told Biden’s team he’d “take their requests under consideration” but wasn’t ready to comply, according to the records. That’s the kind of spine you’d hope for when the White House comes knocking.
Undeterred, Biden’s crew kept up the pressure with additional requests on Oct. 31, 2023, Dec. 15, 2023, and Jan. 3, 2024. It’s almost comical how they thought spamming Hur’s inbox would get them the report early. Persistence is one thing; desperation is another.
By Jan. 9, 2024, Hur had had enough of the pestering and sent a nondisclosure agreement to Sauber and Biden’s legal team. That move screams, “Fine, but you’re signing on the dotted line first.” Smart play to keep things above board.
But Biden’s attorneys weren’t just after an early copy -- they had gripes about the report’s content. In a letter, they whined that Hur’s criticism of Biden’s memory was “prejudicial” and “inaccurate,” especially since the report concluded no charges were warranted. Cry me a river; if the shoe fits, wear it.
“We do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate,” Biden’s lawyers wrote, clutching their pearls over the report’s language. They called it “highly prejudicial” to note Biden’s foggy recall of years-old events. Funny how they’re fine with selective memory until it’s called out.
Biden’s legal team went on to argue that discussing Biden’s memory was pointless since no trial would ever happen. “If the evidence does not establish guilt, then discussing the jury impact of President Biden’s hypothetical testimony at a trial that will never occur is entirely superfluous,” they huffed. Sounds like someone’s worried about public perception more than legal technicalities.
Judicial Watch's president, Tom Fitton, didn’t mince words about the findings. “These new records further show how desperate the Biden gang was to hide the full truth about Biden’s failing memory -- and criminality,” he said. Fitton’s got a point; this smells like a cover-up attempt from a mile away.
The records paint a picture of a White House scrambling to control the narrative around Biden’s document-handling fiasco. Four requests in four months? That’s not diligence; that’s panic.
Thanks to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, the public gets a front-row seat to this political maneuvering. The 49 pages of documents lay bare the Biden team’s efforts to get ahead of Hur’s findings. Transparency: 1, White House spin: 0.
What’s particularly galling is the Biden team’s attempt to paint Hur’s memory jabs as unfair. If you’re going to handle classified documents like they’re grocery lists, don’t be shocked when your recall gets questioned. Actions have consequences, folks.
This saga proves one thing: no one’s above scrutiny, not even a former president. Judicial Watch’s dogged pursuit of the truth has exposed a White House more concerned with optics than accountability. Here’s hoping more documents come to light -- because this story’s far from over.
In a bold strike against narco-terrorism, the U.S. Department of Justice has unleashed unprecedented charges against leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel.
Federal prosecutors have targeted the Beltran Leyva Organization, a violent faction within the cartel, with accusations that hit at the heart of their criminal empire, as Breitbart reports, and the move marks a historic moment in America’s fight to protect its citizens from the scourge of fentanyl and cartel violence.
The DOJ unsealed an indictment naming Pedro “Sagitario” Inzunza Noriega and his son, Pedro “Pichon” Inzunza Coronel, as key figures in the Beltran Leyva Organization, alongside five other men, charging them with seven counts, including narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and money laundering. These charges stem from their alleged role in flooding American communities with fentanyl, a deadly drug tearing families apart. The indictment signals a new era of accountability for those who prey on American lives.
The Beltran Leyva Organization, operating as a brutal arm of the Sinaloa Cartel, has long been one of Mexico’s most ruthless criminal groups. Prosecutors say the group, under the Inzunzas’ leadership, is responsible for large-scale shootouts, kidnappings, murders, extortion, and torture. Their reign of terror has destabilized communities and fueled chaos across borders.
The Inzunzas, father and son, are accused of orchestrating the cartel’s fentanyl trafficking operations. Authorities allege their leadership led to the movement of massive quantities of the lethal drug into the United States. This poison has claimed countless American lives, hitting working-class communities the hardest.
In December 2024, raids in Sinaloa linked to the Inzunzas resulted in a historic seizure. Law enforcement confiscated over 1,500 kilograms of fentanyl, the largest such bust in global history. This staggering amount underscores the scale of the threat posed by the cartel’s operations.
The charges against the seven men are not mere drug-related offenses but include narco-terrorism and providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. These accusations reflect the DOJ’s view that the Sinaloa Cartel’s actions go beyond crime, threatening national security. The cartel’s fentanyl trade is seen as a direct assault on American sovereignty.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi has taken a hardline stance against the cartel. “The Sinaloa Cartel is a complex, dangerous terrorist organization and dismantling them demands a novel, powerful legal response,” she declared. Her words resonate with Americans tired of seeing their communities ravaged by drugs and violence.
Bondi’s resolve is clear in her promise to seek justice. “Their days of brutalizing the American people without consequence are over -- we will seek life in prison for these terrorists,” she stated. This commitment reflects a return to law-and-order principles that prioritize protecting citizens over coddling criminals.
The indictment’s focus on narco-terrorism tied to fentanyl trafficking is a game-changer. It elevates the fight against cartels to the same level as combating global terrorism. This approach aligns with the values of Americans who demand strong borders and safe streets.
The Beltran Leyva Organization’s violent legacy is well-documented. Federal prosecutors have detailed years of atrocities, from shootouts that endanger innocent lives to torture that instills fear. These acts are not just crimes but attacks on the fabric of civilized society. The group’s involvement in extortion and kidnappings has crippled communities in Mexico and beyond. Their actions ripple across the border, threatening American families and small businesses. The DOJ’s charges aim to cut off this cycle of destruction.
Fentanyl, the cartel’s weapon of choice, has devastated working-class neighborhoods. Unlike the elite’s obsession with performative social causes, this crisis demands real action. The DOJ’s move is a step toward restoring hope for those hit hardest by the drug epidemic.
The seven counts in the indictment cover a range of crimes, from conspiracy to money laundering. Each charge reflects the cartel’s multifaceted threat to American security. Prosecutors are sending a message that no aspect of this criminal enterprise will go unpunished.
The Sinaloa Cartel’s grip on fentanyl trafficking has fueled an epidemic that knows no borders. By targeting the Inzunzas and their associates, the DOJ is striking at the heart of this deadly trade. It’s a fight for the soul of America’s heartland.
This historic indictment is more than a legal maneuver; it’s a stand for national sovereignty and traditional values. The Biden administration’s globalist policies have often ignored the cartel threat, but Bondi’s DOJ is putting America first. For families, workers, and communities, this is a long-overdue reckoning with those who profit from our pain.
Sen. John Fetterman’s unraveling health and erratic behavior are driving away key staffers, raising alarms about his fitness for office.
Two legislative assistants, Madeleine Marr and Caroline Shaffer, abruptly left Fetterman’s team just before a revealing New York Magazine feature exposed the Pennsylvania Democrat's alleged struggles, as the Daily Mail reports.
The feature painted a grim picture of a senator grappling with untreated depression and displaying troubling conduct. This exodus follows a pattern, as Fetterman has lost multiple communications staffers, a legislative director, and his former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, over the past 18 months.
Marr and Shaffer, who joined Fetterman’s staff when he took office in early 2023, were critical to his legislative efforts. Their sudden departure underscores the chaos within his office. The New York Magazine report cited anonymous staffers who described Fetterman as increasingly unstable since his treatment for depression.
An old video recently resurfaced, showing Fetterman acting disruptively on a plane, adding to concerns about his conduct. Staffers also reported an incident where he reduced a colleague to tears during a heated meeting with union representatives. These episodes suggest a senator struggling to maintain composure under pressure.
At least two liberal senators have acknowledged holding strategy meetings to address Fetterman’s challenges. One Senate Democrat, speaking anonymously, admitted to being “involved in discussions” about ensuring Fetterman’s safety. This intervention highlights the gravity of the situation, as colleagues fear for his well-being.
The New York Magazine report included accusations from several sources that Fetterman was neglecting his prescribed medication. Only one staffer was willing to speak publicly, and Fetterman has firmly denied these claims. Despite his denials, the allegations have fueled doubts about his stability.
Anonymous staffers also revealed tensions in Fetterman’s personal life, citing marital strife and political disagreements with his wife, Gisele. These private struggles appear to compound his professional difficulties. The senator’s behavior has raised red flags among those closest to his operation.
A year after Fetterman’s release from Walter Reed Hospital’s traumatic-brain-injury and neuropsychiatry unit, Jentleson sent a 1,600-word email to the unit’s director. In it, he expressed deep concern, writing that Fetterman was on a “bad trajectory” and needed urgent help. Jentleson’s warning underscored the senator’s deteriorating condition.
Jentleson also noted Fetterman’s purchase of a gun, though he emphasized the senator took “necessary precautions” for safety. Living in Braddock, a gritty small town where he once served as mayor, Fetterman’s desire for personal protection was understandable, Jentleson added. Yet the revelation added to anxieties about his mental state.
Accusations against Fetterman include neglect of medication, excessive indulgence in fast foot, and conspiratorial thinking. Staffers described him as prone to self-centered monologues and megalomania, traits that alienate those around him. These behaviors suggest to some a man spiraling out of control.
Fetterman’s obsession with social media, despite admitting it worsened his depression, has alarmed his team. Staffers reported he remains fixated on online platforms, which they believe exacerbates his mental health struggles. This addiction undermines efforts to stabilize his condition. Reckless driving has also become a concern, with staffers refusing to ride with Fetterman due to his dangerous habits. A police officer remarked it was a “miracle” no one died after a June accident involving the senator.
Fetterman’s campaign has suffered financially since his controversial meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Small-dollar donors have pulled back, and his campaign is reportedly bleeding money. This shift reflects growing unease among supporters about his judgment.
Jentleson, reflecting on Fetterman’s potential, called his decline a “tragedy” in an interview. He lamented that Fetterman, once a promising leader, was struggling in ways that “shouldn’t be hidden” from the public. The former chief of staff’s candor highlights the depth of concern among those who know Fetterman best.
The senator’s alleged refusal to adhere to his recovery plan has driven away those tasked with supporting him, Jentleson noted. With key aides like Marr and Shaffer gone, Fetterman’s office faces a leadership vacuum. His inability to retain staff threatens his effectiveness as a senator and raises questions about his future in public life.
Sen. John Fetterman’s bold defiance of Democratic Party dogma has unleashed a firestorm of criticism from within his own ranks.
Since taking office in 2022, Fetterman has charted a maverick course, prioritizing pragmatism over progressive ideology, and the Pennsylvania lawmaker's actions have drawn ire from party loyalists and media outlets eager to enforce ideological conformity, as Fox News reports.
Fetterman assumed his Senate seat after a grueling 2022 campaign marred by a stroke. His tenure has been marked by a willingness to break ranks with his party on key issues like border security and unwavering support for Israel. This divergence has positioned him as a target for those who demand lockstep allegiance to the party line.
Recently, media outlets have amplified allegations questioning Fetterman’s cognitive health and party loyalty. Reports from New York Magazine have speculated about his mental stability, while the Associated Press highlighted an alleged outburst at a union meeting. Politico noted a growing disconnect between Fetterman and Pennsylvania Democrats, signaling a deepening rift.
Several Capitol Hill colleagues have dismissed these media reports as a coordinated smear campaign. They argue that Fetterman’s critics are punishing him for his refusal to bow to progressive pressures. Fetterman himself has brushed off questions about his mental fitness, standing firm in his convictions.
His bipartisan outreach has further fueled tensions within his party. Fetterman has forged an unlikely alliance with newly elected Republican Sen. Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania. What began as playful jabs has evolved into joint dinners and collaborative efforts, showcasing a rare willingness to bridge the partisan divide.
McCormick’s election, a recent development, has given Fetterman a partner in his quest for practical governance. Their cooperation stands in stark contrast to the rigid partisanship that dominates Washington. Yet, this camaraderie has only intensified scrutiny from Democratic hardliners.
Fetterman’s willingness to engage with President Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks has raised eyebrows. His decision to meet with these figures reflects a commitment to dialogue over ideological purity. Such actions have drawn comparisons to other Democrats who faced similar backlash for defying party orthodoxy. In a notable legislative win, Fetterman partnered with Sen. Katie Britt, a Republican from Alabama, to pass the Laken Riley Act earlier this year, and while that collaboration underscores his focus on results over party loyalty it further alienated him from progressive factions within the Democratic Party.
Even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has felt the ripple effects of Fetterman’s independence. Earlier this year, Schumer faced criticism from progressive Democrats for siding with Fetterman to pass a Republican-backed spending bill. The move, which averted a government shutdown, highlighted the growing tension between moderates and the party’s left wing.
Fetterman’s experience mirrors that of other moderate Democrats who dared to challenge the status quo. Former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, once a Democrat, registered as an independent in 2022 while continuing to caucus with her former party. Sinema’s opposition to eliminating the filibuster and to President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan earned her scorn from party loyalists.
Sinema, reflecting on her decision, declared, “Nothing will change about my values.” Her shift echoed that of Sen. Arlen Specter, who in 2009 switched from the Republican Party to the Democrats, citing electoral viability. Specter’s candid admission that the change would aid his re-election underscored the political realities moderates face.
Former Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia also clashed with Democrats, particularly over environmental policies tied to his state’s fossil fuel industry. In one memorable incident, then-Gov. Jim Justice publicly rebuked actress Bette Midler for disparaging West Virginia after a Manchin vote, famously telling her to “kiss her heinie” while holding up his bulldog, Babydog. Manchin’s independence often put him at odds with party leadership.
Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, once a Hawaii Democrat, faced similar party backlash during the 2019 Democratic Party primary. Hillary Clinton’s advisor labeled Gabbard a “favorite of the Russians,” a jab that underscored the party’s willingness to ostracize dissenters. Gabbard later joined Trump’s Cabinet, cementing her break from Democratic Party ranks.
During Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as House Speaker, Rep. Heath Shuler, a moderate Blue Dog Democrat and former NFL quarterback, challenged her leadership after the 2010 midterm losses. Shuler’s bid failed, and he retired soon after, a cautionary tale for those who defy party bosses. These examples illustrate a recurring pattern of retribution against Democrats who prioritize principle over party.
Fetterman’s office did not respond to inquiries about the ongoing controversy. His steadfast commitment to bipartisanship and traditional American values -- security, sovereignty, and practical governance -- has made him a lightning rod for criticism. Yet, like Sinema, Manchin, and others before him, Fetterman appears undeterred, carving out a path that challenges the progressive stranglehold on his party.
President Donald Trump is set to receive a lavish Boeing 747-8 from Qatar’s royal family, a move that’s stirring both admiration and controversy.
This luxurious aircraft, dubbed a “flying palace,” is poised to temporarily replace the aging Air Force One, offering a state-of-the-art solution to a delayed government contract. The deal, if finalized, would mark a historic gift from a foreign nation to the United States, as Breitbart reports.
The Trump administration is preparing to accept the jet to serve as Air Force One during the president’s term. After Trump leaves office, the plane’s ownership would transfer to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation. This arrangement has sparked debate, with critics questioning the optics of accepting such an extravagant gift.
In February, Trump toured the Boeing 747-8 to inspect its advanced technology and hardware. The visit underscored Boeing’s struggles to deliver new Air Force One planes on schedule. A 2018 contract, finalized by Trump, had promised two replacement planes by 2024, but delays have pushed completion to 2027 and 2028.
Boeing’s failure to meet the 2018 contract deadlines left the administration seeking alternatives. Qatar’s offer of the luxury jet emerged as a practical, cost-free solution to bridge the gap. The plane’s temporary use as Air Force One could save taxpayers millions while showcasing American ingenuity in navigating bureaucratic setbacks.
The proposed transfer is under review by legal teams from both Qatar’s Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Department of Defense. No final decision has been made, as both sides ensure compliance with international and domestic laws. This careful scrutiny reflects a commitment to transparency in the process.
White House and Department of Justice lawyers have analyzed the deal’s legality. Their draft report, sent to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, concludes that the Defense Department can legally accept the jet and later transfer it to the Trump Library Foundation. This legal groundwork aims to preempt any challenges from political opponents.
Trump has publicly championed the deal, blasting Democrats for opposing what he calls a “gift, free of charge.” He argues that rejecting the jet would force taxpayers to pay exorbitant costs for a new plane. “Anybody can do that!” Trump declared, slamming critics as “world-class losers.”
The president’s supporters see the deal as a win for fiscal responsibility and national pride. They argue that accepting the jet sidesteps Boeing’s delays while showcasing Trump’s dealmaking prowess. The move aligns with a broader push to prioritize American interests over elitist posturing. Democrats, however, have raised concerns about the gift’s implications. They question whether accepting such a valuable asset from a foreign government could set a problematic precedent. Critics argue that the deal demands greater scrutiny to ensure it serves the public, not personal interests.
Qatar’s government has pushed back against reports suggesting the deal is complete. Ali Al-Ansari, a Qatari official, clarified that the jet’s transfer remains under consideration. “No decision has been made,” Al-Ansari stated, emphasizing that legal reviews are ongoing.
The jet, described as the most valuable gift ever offered to the U.S. by a foreign nation, has drawn global attention. Its luxurious features and cutting-edge technology make it a fitting, if temporary, stand-in for Air Force One. The “flying palace” label underscores its unmatched opulence.
Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, defended the process. “Any gift given by a foreign government is always accepted in full compliance with all applicable laws,” she said. Leavitt stressed that the administration remains committed to transparency.
The potential deal highlights Trump’s unconventional approach to governance, blending pragmatism with spectacle. Supporters argue that it reflects his knack for securing wins without burdening taxpayers. Detractors, however, see it as a flashy distraction from deeper ethical questions.
For now, the jet’s fate rests with legal and defense officials on both sides. The outcome will likely shape perceptions of Trump’s leadership and his ability to navigate complex international gestures. The deal’s transparency, or lack thereof, will be a focal point for critics.
As the review process continues, the story encapsulates a broader clash of values. On one side, a vision of bold, cost-saving leadership; on the other, skepticism of foreign gifts and their strings. Whatever the outcome, this “flying palace” has already soared into the spotlight.
A Pentagon aide’s sharp tongue has landed him in hot water with Trump loyalists.
Ricky Buria, a top aide to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has been slamming President Trump and Vice President JD Vance, causing a stir among the MAGA faithful, the New York Post reported.
Buria, a 43-year-old Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, serves as Hegseth’s de facto chief of staff, a rare holdover from the Biden administration. He’s been a key player in the Pentagon since his days as a junior aide to former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Yet, his vocal criticism of Trump’s policies has sparked a fierce backlash.
In February 2025, Buria called Trump’s use of military aircraft for migrant repatriation and Guantanamo Bay deportations a “dumb waste of money.” He’s also trashed Vance’s foreign policy as “wackamamie crazy” and “isolationist.” Apparently, subtlety isn’t in his playbook.
Buria’s influence grew when he encouraged Hegseth to fire three top aides in April 2025, including non-interventionist Dan Caldwell. “He said, ‘These guys need to go,’” one source noted, revealing Buria’s ruthless streak. Such moves have painted him as a schemer, sidelining MAGA loyalists.
The White House, sensing trouble, blocked Buria’s permanent chief of staff appointment, citing his misalignment with Trump’s agenda. “All political appointees go through a vetting process, and anyone with Ricky’s past would not make it through step one,” a source quipped. Actions, it seems, have consequences.
Buria’s clashes extend beyond policy. On March 5, 2025, he demanded a seat on a helicopter during a border trip with Vance’s team but was denied due to limited space. His tantrum didn’t win him any friends in Trumpworld.
Buria’s disregard for protocol is glaring. He’s been spotted bringing Hegseth’s personal cellphone into a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility at least a dozen times, flouting security rules. “Ricky has both custody of and access to the secretary’s phone,” a source said, hinting at his unsettling control.
His ambitions don’t stop at the Pentagon. Buria, who donated $100 to a Democratic candidate in 2023, has openly discussed running for Florida governor as a Democrat. “He made it very clear that he wore a different political stripe,” a source revealed, exposing his true colors.
In April 2025, Buria submitted retirement paperwork from the Marine Corps, eyeing a political appointment. His cozy ties with Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, whom he accompanied to their Tennessee home, have fueled suspicions. Loyalty, it appears, is a flexible concept for Buria.
Buria’s role in ousting aides like Caldwell, Darin Selnick, and Colin Carroll has drawn ire. He even urged Jennifer Hegseth to push her husband to fire them, a move one source called weaponizing “his closeness to the secretary and his wife.” This isn’t ambition—it’s sabotage.
In late February or early March 2025, Buria handed his cellphone to Jennifer Hegseth to prove his loyalty amid distrust. “No, Jen looked through his phone, and there were no Lloyd Austin messages,” a source recounted. The gesture reeks of desperation, not devotion.
Buria’s defenders call him “incredibly intelligent and hardworking,” but his critics aren’t buying it. “This is without question the worst in a string of bad judgment calls recently by Secretary Hegseth,” one source told The Post. Hardworking or not, Buria’s agenda smells of disloyalty.
Buria’s China hawk stance contrasts with his disdain for Trump’s border policies, which he called a waste of resources. “He hated and loathed the border mission,” a source said, emphasizing his obsession with China. Such priorities clash with the administration’s focus, stirring unease.
His public moves, like praising Biden’s Pentagon spokeswoman on LinkedIn and attending a Mark Milley portrait unveiling on January 12, 2025, scream defiance. Add his March 21, 2025, meeting with Elon Musk, and Buria’s networking game is undeniable. But to what end?
Five aides, including Caldwell and John Ullyot, left or were fired in April 2025, with some suspected of leaks. Ullyot’s April 20, 2025, Politico op-ed slammed Pentagon leadership, echoing wider concerns. Buria’s rise, it seems, is a symptom of deeper dysfunction.
President Donald Trump’s bold move to appoint Fox News star Jeanine Pirro as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia signals a return to strong, no-nonsense leadership in Washington.
On Thursday, Trump announced Pirro’s selection after withdrawing his earlier nominee, Ed Martin, due to Senate Republican pushback, and this decision underscores the president's commitment to placing trusted, high-profile figures in key roles to advance his America First agenda, as the Washington Times reports.
Trump’s choice of Pirro came swiftly after Senate Republicans blocked Martin’s path forward. Martin, a staunch defender of those involved in the Jan. 6, 2025, Capitol events, faced fierce opposition from moderate Republicans like Sen. Thom Tillis. Pirro’s appointment reflects Trump’s pivot to a candidate with broader appeal and a proven track record.
Pirro, widely known as “Judge Jeanine,” brings a wealth of experience from her time as a prosecutor and elected judge in Westchester County, New York. Her tough-on-crime stance and sharp legal mind have made her a household name among conservatives. Since joining Fox News in 2006, she has co-hosted “The Five” and produced legal content, amplifying her influence.
Martin’s nomination unraveled after Tillis publicly opposed him on May 6. Tillis criticized Martin’s dismissal of Justice Department cases tied to the Jan. 6 Capitol unrest, arguing that all involved deserved penalties. Without Tillis’s support, Martin’s confirmation stalled in the Judiciary Committee.
Martin, who served briefly as interim U.S. Attorney, sparked outrage by firing or demoting nearly two dozen lawyers prosecuting Jan. 6 cases. His actions and prior defense of rioters drew sharp criticism from Democrats, who also slammed his lack of prosecutorial experience. Senate Majority Leader John Thune signaled his belief that Martin’s nomination was doomed, prompting Trump’s withdrawal.
Trump announced Martin’s exit and Pirro’s appointment in a Truth Social post, calling her “Judge Jeanine.” He praised her as one of New York’s top district attorneys, stating she is “in a class by herself.” While Trump did not clarify if Pirro’s role is permanent, he noted Senate approval would be required for a lasting appointment.
The withdrawal of Martin’s nomination marked a rare concession to Senate pressures. Trump expressed disappointment, saying, “It was disappointing, I’ll be honest.” Martin’s interim tenure as U.S. attorney ends on May 20. If no new attorney is confirmed by then, the 24 judges of the U.S. District Court in Washington will appoint a temporary replacement. This deadline added urgency to Trump’s efforts to secure Pirro’s position or select another nominee.
Pirro’s appointment aligns with Trump’s pattern of elevating Fox News personalities to prominent roles. Alongside Pirro, Pete Hegseth was tapped for Defense secretary, and Sean Duffy for Transportation secretary. These selections highlight Trump’s trust in media allies who share his vision for restoring American strength.
Tillis played an undeniably pivotal role in derailing Martin’s nomination. He insisted that “every single person” who entered the Capitol illegally on Jan. 6 should face consequences, clashing with Martin’s views. Tillis’s stance led to a deadlock, as Sen. Chuck Grassley subsequently omitted Martin’s vote from the Judiciary Committee’s schedule.
Democrats piled on, accusing Martin of inflammatory rhetoric, including comparing former President Joseph R. Biden to Adolf Hitler. They also criticized his threats against political opponents, further eroding his Senate support. These attacks underscored the polarized climate surrounding Trump’s nominees.
Mike Davis, head of the Article III Project, lamented Martin’s withdrawal, calling him “a good friend and a good man.” Davis blasted Senate Republicans as “weak sisters” for bowing to political pressure. Martin, undeterred, posted an AI-generated image of himself as a pope on X, captioning it “Plot Twist.”
Pirro’s legal background and public profile make her a formidable candidate, though Senate confirmation remains uncertain. Her prosecutorial experience contrasts sharply with Martin’s, potentially easing concerns among moderate Republicans. Still, her Fox News prominence may draw scrutiny from Democrats wary of Trump’s media ties.
Trump’s focus on trade, including a major deal with the United Kingdom announced the same day, shows his broader agenda at play. He acknowledged the demands on his time, saying he can only “lift that little phone so many times a day.” Yet, his swift action on Pirro’s appointment demonstrates his resolve to shape the Justice Department.
As Pirro steps into this high-stakes role, conservatives hope she will bring clarity and strength to a department battered by partisan fights. Her tenure, whether interim or permanent, will test Trump’s ability to navigate Senate politics while advancing his vision. For now, “Judge Jeanine” stands as a bold choice in a turbulent political landscape.
Senator John Fetterman’s erratic behavior in a recent meeting has raised red flags about his mental health. The Pennsylvania Democrat, known for his casual style and populist rhetoric, has drawn scrutiny after a troubling outburst in his Washington office. This incident, coupled with concerns from his former chief of staff, paints a worrying picture of a senator struggling to balance personal challenges and public duties.
According to AP News, Fetterman, who survived a stroke in 2022, reportedly lost control during a meeting with teachers' union representatives. The episode occurred just before a New York Magazine article detailed concerns about his mental health from former staff. His actions have sparked debate about his fitness to serve, especially as he drifts from the Democratic Party’s progressive orthodoxy.
In the meeting, Fetterman shouted repeatedly, questioning why “everybody is mad” at him and slamming his hands on his desk. His behavior left union representatives rattled and reduced a staff member to tears. The staffer abruptly ended the meeting, ushering the shaken teachers into the hallway.
Two sources, speaking anonymously to The Associated Press, described the chaotic scene. Fetterman’s outburst included long, repetitive rants and expressions of paranoia, such as asking why “everyone hates” him. This behavior echoes concerns raised by his former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, in a 2024 letter.
Jentleson’s letter to neuropsychiatrist Dr. David Williamson outlined Fetterman’s troubling trajectory. It claimed the senator had abandoned his recovery plan, stopped seeing doctors, and might not be taking prescribed medications. Jentleson also noted Fetterman’s reckless driving and tendency to isolate himself from colleagues.
Fetterman’s health struggles are well-documented. In 2022, he suffered a stroke during his Senate campaign, followed by a 2023 hospitalization for depression at Walter Reed. He also battles cardiomyopathy and an auditory processing disorder, which requires him to use real-time transcription devices.
Despite these challenges, Fetterman won his Senate seat in 2022, campaigning in hoodies and gym shorts. His unpolished style resonated with Pennsylvania’s working-class voters, but his tenure has been marked by controversy. He has clashed with fellow Democrats, particularly over his support for Israel and willingness to work with President Donald Trump.
Fetterman’s political evolution has confounded many. Once a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016, he later backed Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. His recent cooperation with Trump, including meetings and voting for some of Trump’s nominees, has alienated Pennsylvania Democrats.
Some Democrats, like Pennsylvania Democratic Party chairman Sharif Street, express concern for Fetterman’s well-being. “People are concerned about his health,” Street said. “They want to make sure he’s OK.”
Conservatives, however, have rallied behind Fetterman, praising his willingness to break from party lines. Comedian Bill Maher even suggested Fetterman run for president in 2028. This support underscores Fetterman’s appeal to those frustrated with elitist political norms.
Fetterman dismissed concerns about his health as overblown. “It’s a hit piece,” he told a reporter, calling the New York Magazine story a “one-source” attack. He insisted there’s “no news” and that his critics are exaggerating.
In a statement, Fetterman described the teachers' union meeting as a “spirited conversation” about frustration with Trump’s education cuts. “I will always support our teachers,” he said. He vowed to fight efforts to turn Pennsylvania’s public schools into voucher programs.
Yet, incidents like a 2025 video showing Fetterman arguing with a pilot over a seatbelt on a Pittsburgh flight fuel doubts. Jentleson’s letter warned that Fetterman had “dismantled” an early-warning system meant to monitor his health. This included pushing out those tasked with supporting his recovery.
Fetterman’s openness about his mental health struggles has earned him sympathy. “I was in a very dark place,” he told podcast host Joe Rogan in November 2024. His candor resonates with Americans who value authenticity over polished political facades.
Still, Fetterman’s behavior raises legitimate questions about his ability to serve. Pennsylvania voters, who elected him for his working-class grit, deserve a senator who can handle the job. As Fetterman navigates his challenges, his actions will determine whether he can regain trust or spiral further into controversy.
Joe Biden’s faltering voice betrayed frailty in his first post-presidency interview, aired Wednesday on BBC Radio 4’s Today program. The 82-year-old former president, speaking from Wilmington, Delaware, struggled to justify his delayed exit from the 2024 presidential race. His mumbled responses and long pauses raised fresh doubts about his mental sharpness.
According to Daily Mail, Biden announced the end of his reelection bid on July 21, 2024, after a disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump on June 27. In the interview, pre-recorded Monday, he claimed his administration’s successes made it hard to step away sooner.
Harris, left with just 106 days to build her presidential bid, lost to Trump in November 2024. Biden insisted, “I don’t think it would have mattered,” when asked if an earlier exit would have changed the outcome. His defiance ignored widespread Democratic frustration and polling that suggested he faced a crushing defeat.
Biden’s presidency, often clouded by concerns over his cognitive decline, faced renewed scrutiny in the interview. He whispered, coughed, and paused awkwardly, reinforcing doubts about his fitness for leadership. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, called the performance a “disgrace” and evidence of Biden’s mental deterioration.
Cheung further lambasted Biden, stating, “He has clearly lost all mental faculties.” The former president’s choice of a foreign outlet like BBC for his first post-presidency broadcast interview sparked criticism among conservatives. Many saw it as a snub to American media and a sign of elitist detachment.
Biden framed the interview as a reflection on the 80th anniversary of World War II’s end in Europe. He expressed alarm over declining U.S. relations with European allies under Trump’s leadership. His comments revealed a lingering obsession with globalist alliances, which many Americans view as secondary to domestic priorities.
Biden took aim at Trump’s provocative statements about annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. He also ridiculed Trump’s idea to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, exclaiming, “What president ever talks like that?” Such rhetoric, Biden argued, undermines American values of freedom and opportunity.
Yet Trump’s supporters see these ideas as bold assertions of national sovereignty, not reckless overreach. Biden’s criticism, delivered in a frail whisper, lacked the conviction to sway working-class voters who back Trump’s America-first agenda. His remarks felt like a tired defense of a fading globalist order.
Biden voiced “grave concern” over the potential collapse of post-World War II alliances. He warned that abandoning these partnerships could weaken America’s global standing. However, many Americans, weary of endless foreign entanglements, question the value of such alliances in today’s economy-driven world.
On Russia’s war in Ukraine, Biden called it “foolish” to believe Vladimir Putin would halt aggression if given territorial concessions. His stance reflects a commitment to prolonged foreign conflicts, which clashes with the priorities of Americans struggling with rising costs at home. Trump’s push for pragmatic deal-making resonates more with working families.
Biden admitted he intended to serve only one term when elected in 2020, aiming to pass the torch to a new generation. Yet he clung to power, citing the rapid success of his agenda. This self-congratulation rang hollow to critics who saw his presidency as a period of economic strain and cultural division.
Democrats widely blamed Biden’s late withdrawal for Harris’s defeat, believing an earlier exit could have given her a stronger chance. Biden countered, “We left at a time when we had a good candidate. She was fully funded.” His refusal to accept responsibility frustrated party loyalists and independents alike.
Biden claimed he could have defeated Trump in a 2024 rematch. This assertion defied polling and public sentiment, which pointed to a landslide loss. His detachment from reality underscored concerns about his judgment during his final months in office.
Biden’s interview performance, marked by incoherent moments, fueled accusations of elder abuse from Trump’s camp. Cheung remarked, “Sadly, this feels like abuse,” suggesting Biden’s handlers exploited his diminished capacity. The spectacle left many Americans questioning the dignity of his post-presidency.
Ultimately, Biden’s interview revealed a man out of touch with the nation’s pulse, clinging to a legacy few celebrate. His defense of a late exit and criticism of Trump’s vision failed to resonate with a country eager for strength and sovereignty. As Trump charts a new course, Biden’s whispers fade into irrelevance.
A pro-Trump legal group has launched a bold lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, accusing the judiciary of overstepping its constitutional bounds. The America First Legal Foundation, founded by former White House aide Stephen Miller, claims the U.S. Judicial Conference, led by Roberts, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts are performing executive functions that demand oversight.
According to Fox News, the lawsuit, filed by the America First Legal Foundation, targets Roberts in his capacity as head of the Judicial Conference. It also names Robert J. Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as a defendant. The group argues that these judicial entities are engaging in regulatory actions that go beyond their core role of resolving cases. This legal challenge seeks to rein in what the group sees as judicial overreach, aiming to preserve the separation of powers.
The foundation contends that the Judicial Conference’s actions stray from the judiciary’s primary functions. It claims these duties constitute executive functions, which should be subject to oversight by accountable executive officers. This lawsuit, led by attorney Will Scolinos, seeks to ensure the courts stick to their constitutional lane.
The U.S. Judicial Conference serves as the national policymaking body for federal courts. Overseen by the Supreme Court’s chief justice, it makes recommendations to Congress twice a year as needed. The Administrative Office, guided by the Judicial Conference, handles tasks like budgeting and data organization for the courts.
In 2023, the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office responded to congressional requests. They took steps to investigate ethical allegations against Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. These actions, the lawsuit argues, show the judiciary stepping into roles better suited for the executive branch.
The America First Legal Foundation insists that the Judicial Conference’s records should be open to Freedom of Information Act requests. The group believes transparency is essential to prevent the judiciary from operating as an unchecked power. This demand aligns with their broader push to limit judicial overreach.
In 2023, the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office adopted an ethics code for Supreme Court justices. The America First Legal Foundation views this as another example of the judiciary taking on executive-like functions. They argue that creating such policies exceeds the courts’ authority to resolve disputes or provide administrative support.
“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” the foundation stated. This quote reflects their belief that the judiciary is encroaching on executive territory. They see this as a violation of the separation of powers.
The lawsuit asserts that the Administrative Office, under the Judicial Conference’s supervision, should be classified as an executive agency. The group claims courts do not have the authority to create agencies that perform functions beyond resolving cases. This argument challenges the current structure of judicial administration.
“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” the America First Legal Foundation declared. They argue that these entities must be accountable to executive officers to maintain constitutional balance. This stance underscores their commitment to curbing what they see as judicial overreach.
The foundation’s legal team, led by Will Scolinos, emphasizes the need to keep courts out of politics. “Preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics,” Scolinos said. This reflects their view that judicial independence should not extend to executive functions.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, appointed by former President Donald Trump, will preside over the case. His assignment adds a layer of intrigue, given the lawsuit’s pro-Trump alignment. The outcome could have significant implications for how the judiciary operates.
The America First Legal Foundation’s lawsuit is a direct challenge to the judiciary’s scope of power. They argue that courts should not perform functions that mimic executive agencies. This legal battle aims to redraw the lines between judicial and executive authority.
“Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies,” the foundation stated. This quote encapsulates their core argument against the Judicial Conference’s current practices. They believe the judiciary must be reined in to protect constitutional principles.
This lawsuit represents a broader push to restore traditional American governance, rooted in a clear separation of powers. By targeting Chief Justice Roberts and the Judicial Conference, the America First Legal Foundation seeks to ensure the courts remain focused on their judicial duties. The case could reshape how federal courts interact with other branches of government.
