update - Habba appeals disqualification to court of appeal
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Amy Coney Barrett signals right-wing justices not on same page on this major issue
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett signaled in a recent interview that she, at least, is not fully on board with a renewed push to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.
According to Newsweek, Barrett made the comments during an interview with right-leaning New York Times analyst Ross Douthat, who asked her about "social reliance interests" that the court might have to consider in certain cases. “The Supreme Court recognized a right to same-sex marriage. Originalist justices at the time believed that ruling was wrongly decided. One of the arguments for why Obergefell v. Hodges is unlikely to ever be overturned is the idea that people have made decisions about who to marry and therefore where to live and children ... Everything else, on the basis of that ruling.”
Barrett, the last of President Donald Trump's three Supreme Court appointees and the deciding vote to end abortion rights, seemed to agree with this line of thinking, calling it a “very concrete reliance interest.” She further defined "reliance interest" to mean “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”
This stands in contrast to Justice Clarence Thomas, who has recently written in his opinions that he wants the court to revisit the entire concept of "substantive due process" — the legal doctrine that not only protects the right to same-sex marriage, but also the right to consensual same-sex relationships and contraception.
Earlier this year, Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk who has been battling litigation for years after she refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples, petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. There is currently no indication the court will take up such a case.
In the same interview with Douthat, Barrett raised eyebrows by admitting there might not be much she could do if Trump decided to ignore her rulings.
However, the court has been wading into a number of other controversial topics lately, including oral arguments this month in a case that could significantly cripple the Voting Rights Act's ability to police racial discrimination in congressional redistricting.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett signaled in a recent interview that she, at least, is not fully on board with a renewed push to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.
According to Newsweek, Barrett made the comments during an interview with right-leaning New York Times analyst Ross Douthat, who asked her about "social reliance interests" that the court might have to consider in certain cases. “The Supreme Court recognized a right to same-sex marriage. Originalist justices at the time believed that ruling was wrongly decided. One of the arguments for why Obergefell v. Hodges is unlikely to ever be overturned is the idea that people have made decisions about who to marry and therefore where to live and children ... Everything else, on the basis of that ruling.”
Barrett, the last of President Donald Trump's three Supreme Court appointees and the deciding vote to end abortion rights, seemed to agree with this line of thinking, calling it a “very concrete reliance interest.” She further defined "reliance interest" to mean “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”
This stands in contrast to Justice Clarence Thomas, who has recently written in his opinions that he wants the court to revisit the entire concept of "substantive due process" — the legal doctrine that not only protects the right to same-sex marriage, but also the right to consensual same-sex relationships and contraception.
Earlier this year, Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk who has been battling litigation for years after she refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples, petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. There is currently no indication the court will take up such a case.
In the same interview with Douthat, Barrett raised eyebrows by admitting there might not be much she could do if Trump decided to ignore her rulings.
However, the court has been wading into a number of other controversial topics lately, including oral arguments this month in a case that could significantly cripple the Voting Rights Act's ability to police racial discrimination in congressional redistricting.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area, escalating President Donald Trump's conflict with Democratic governors over using the military on U.S. soil.
The emergency appeal to the high court came after a judge prevented, for at least two weeks, the deployment of Guard members from Illinois and Texas to assist immigration enforcement. A federal appeals court refused to put the judge’s order on hold.
The conservative-dominated court has handed Trump repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office in January, after lower courts have ruled against him and often over the objection of the three liberal justices. The court has allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military, claw back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, move aggressively against immigrants and fire the presidentially appointed leaders of independent federal agencies,
In the dispute over the Guard, U.S. District Judge April Perry said she found no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois during Trump’s immigration crackdown.
But Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Trump's top Supreme Court lawyer, urged the justices to step in immediately. Perry's order, Sauer wrote, “impinges on the President’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.”
A federal judge in Oregon also has temporarily blocked the deployment of National Guard troops there.
Guard troops from several states also are patrolling the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee.
In a California case, a judge in September said the deployment was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained and the judge did not order them to leave.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow deployment of National Guard in Chicago area
The emergency appeal to the high court came after a judge prevented, for at least two weeks, the deployment of Guard members from Illinois and Texas to assist immigration enforcement. A federal appeals court refused to put the judge’s order on hold.
The conservative-dominated court has handed Trump repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office in January, after lower courts have ruled against him and often over the objection of the three liberal justices. The court has allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military, claw back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, move aggressively against immigrants and fire the presidentially appointed leaders of independent federal agencies,
In the dispute over the Guard, U.S. District Judge April Perry said she found no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois during Trump’s immigration crackdown.
But Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Trump's top Supreme Court lawyer, urged the justices to step in immediately. Perry's order, Sauer wrote, “impinges on the President’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.”
A federal judge in Oregon also has temporarily blocked the deployment of National Guard troops there.
Guard troops from several states also are patrolling the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee.
In a California case, a judge in September said the deployment was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained and the judge did not order them to leave.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow deployment of National Guard in Chicago area
Trump administration immigration agents have detained or arrested more than 170 U.S. citizens since the president took office, including nearly 20 children, two of whom have cancer, according to a new analysis.
The government does not officially tally this statistic, but scores of U.S. citizens have been caught up in the crackdown, a ProPublica investigation found.
In February, a 10-year-old who was being treated for brain cancer was deported to Mexico alongside four of her American siblings and her two parents, who are both undocumented.
The family was stopped that month in Texas at an immigration checkpoint as they headed towards Houston, where the 10-year-old’s specialist doctors live. Previously, letters from their doctors and lawyers had allowed them to pass through such checkpoints, but immigration officers refused to let them go this time.
Her mother told NBC News that the family was temporarily split in the U.S. detention system, and the sick young girl was made to lie on a cold floor beneath incandescent lights as she awaited deportation.
“The fear is horrible. I almost can’t explain it, but it’s something frustrating, very tough, something you wouldn’t wish on anyone,” she told the broadcaster.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol declines to speak on the specifics of cases out of privacy concerns, but the agency has said descriptions of this case are “inaccurate” and that those who are given expedited removal orders “will face the consequences.”
In late April, another mixed-status family that included an ill American citizen child was removed from the country.
On April 25, the New Orleans Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office removed at least two families and their minor children, three of whom are U.S. children aged two, four, and seven, according to the Louisiana ACLU.
Many of the U.S. children detained and deported by the Trump administration were part of mixed-status families (AP)
The families were all arrested less then a week prior and held “incommunicado” from family members and legal counsel on the outside, according to civli rights groups.
A four-year-old U.S. citizen in one of the families with a rare form of metastatic cancer in the kidneys was deported without medication or the ability to consult with their doctors, even though ICE was notified of the child’s medical needs, per the ACLU.
The families sued ICE in August, alleging the agency failed to follow its procedures by denying the families due process and keeping them at undisclosed locations before removing them from the country, keeping their parents from securing adequate care for the children in the U.S.
“ICE has a policy for what they’re supposed to do in these instances, and they most certainly did not follow that policy,” Stephanie Alvarez-Jones, who is representing one of the families, told The Louisiana Illuminator that month.
The government has yet to respond to the suit, which was temporarily delayed by the government shutdown.
A group of families deported from Louisiana in April have sued ICE, alleging they were denied due process as they and their U.S. citizen children were removed (AFP via Getty Images)
The Department of Homeland Security said in April both mothers had final orders of deportation and voluntarily chose to bring the children with them back to Honduras.
The agency has continued to dispute reporting about the impact of immigration raids on U.S. citizens as “fake news.”
“We have said it a million times: DHS enforcement operations are HIGHLY TARGETED and are not resulting in the arrest of U.S. citizens,” DHS wrote in a statement on Thursday on X.
We do our due diligence. We know who we are targeting ahead of time. If and when we do encounter individuals subject to arrest, our law enforcement is trained to ask a series of well-determined questions to determine status and removability.”
Immigration officials can legally detain U.S. citizens if they initially had reason to suspect they were in the country illegally, or if Americans are accused of assaulting officers, or interfering with their operations.
Trump admin arrested nearly 20 US citizen kids so far, two with cancer
The government does not officially tally this statistic, but scores of U.S. citizens have been caught up in the crackdown, a ProPublica investigation found.
In February, a 10-year-old who was being treated for brain cancer was deported to Mexico alongside four of her American siblings and her two parents, who are both undocumented.
The family was stopped that month in Texas at an immigration checkpoint as they headed towards Houston, where the 10-year-old’s specialist doctors live. Previously, letters from their doctors and lawyers had allowed them to pass through such checkpoints, but immigration officers refused to let them go this time.
Her mother told NBC News that the family was temporarily split in the U.S. detention system, and the sick young girl was made to lie on a cold floor beneath incandescent lights as she awaited deportation.
“The fear is horrible. I almost can’t explain it, but it’s something frustrating, very tough, something you wouldn’t wish on anyone,” she told the broadcaster.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol declines to speak on the specifics of cases out of privacy concerns, but the agency has said descriptions of this case are “inaccurate” and that those who are given expedited removal orders “will face the consequences.”
In late April, another mixed-status family that included an ill American citizen child was removed from the country.
On April 25, the New Orleans Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office removed at least two families and their minor children, three of whom are U.S. children aged two, four, and seven, according to the Louisiana ACLU.
Many of the U.S. children detained and deported by the Trump administration were part of mixed-status families (AP)
The families were all arrested less then a week prior and held “incommunicado” from family members and legal counsel on the outside, according to civli rights groups.
A four-year-old U.S. citizen in one of the families with a rare form of metastatic cancer in the kidneys was deported without medication or the ability to consult with their doctors, even though ICE was notified of the child’s medical needs, per the ACLU.
The families sued ICE in August, alleging the agency failed to follow its procedures by denying the families due process and keeping them at undisclosed locations before removing them from the country, keeping their parents from securing adequate care for the children in the U.S.
“ICE has a policy for what they’re supposed to do in these instances, and they most certainly did not follow that policy,” Stephanie Alvarez-Jones, who is representing one of the families, told The Louisiana Illuminator that month.
The government has yet to respond to the suit, which was temporarily delayed by the government shutdown.
A group of families deported from Louisiana in April have sued ICE, alleging they were denied due process as they and their U.S. citizen children were removed (AFP via Getty Images)
The Department of Homeland Security said in April both mothers had final orders of deportation and voluntarily chose to bring the children with them back to Honduras.
The agency has continued to dispute reporting about the impact of immigration raids on U.S. citizens as “fake news.”
“We have said it a million times: DHS enforcement operations are HIGHLY TARGETED and are not resulting in the arrest of U.S. citizens,” DHS wrote in a statement on Thursday on X.
We do our due diligence. We know who we are targeting ahead of time. If and when we do encounter individuals subject to arrest, our law enforcement is trained to ask a series of well-determined questions to determine status and removability.”
Immigration officials can legally detain U.S. citizens if they initially had reason to suspect they were in the country illegally, or if Americans are accused of assaulting officers, or interfering with their operations.
Trump admin arrested nearly 20 US citizen kids so far, two with cancer
Judge Sara Ellis was not happy with the Justice Department after they withdrew the witness she wanted to hear from in the Friday hearing about 45 minutes before they were set to appear.
Chicago Sun-Times courts reporter Jon Seidel was in the courtroom observing the exchange in which the DOJ said that they had Kyle Harvick from the U.S. Customs & Border Protection. He's a deputy incident commander, according to WTTW News.
The judge asked if he was the "best person" to appear in the hearing to talk about the cases of chemical gas being used despite the judge's ban on the substance.
"What I want to avoid is someone coming in and, if I'm asking questions, that person says to me, 'not my responsibility,'" said Ellis.
She specifically wanted to speak to Russell Hott, the field director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Chicago.
"Is he the right person?" asked Ellis.
Sean Skedzielewski, speaking for the DOJ, claimed that Harvick was "best situated to discuss the details of the incidents that were raised," Seidel wrote on Bluesky.
"I have zero desire to micromanage how this goes, but suffice it to say, I want somebody with knowledge from ICE, and then somebody with knowledge from Customs and Border Patrol," the judge said, specifically wanting to speak to someone who disregarded her court order to the staff on the ground.
"I just need somebody from ICE and Customs and Border Patrol to tell me … what is happening, and has been happening, over the last week since I issued this order. It doesn't have to be complicated," she told the DOJ.
Seidel quoted the DOJ request that the witness appear remotely, but Judge Ellis said, "If they're not here, they can appear remotely." If they are in Chicago, however, she wants them in her courtroom.
If the DOJ can't provide that information, she said they'd simply return to court the following day for another witness.
She then addressed her order for body-worn cameras to be on federal agents and be turned on at all times. It was part of the conversation on Thursday, in which the judge made it clear, "I'm not happy. I'm really not happy."
Skedzielewski told the judge Thursday that due to the government shutdown, it might be difficult to implement a body-cam program, Seidel said from the court at the time. The judge made it clear that she didn't care; she was ordering it.
On Friday, she told the DOJ that her order "wasn't a suggestion."
To reinforce her demand, she said, "I am modifying the [temporary restraining order] to include the use of body-worn cameras."
She explained on Thursday that, over and over, federal agents are coming up with conflicting stories and reports that they can't prove. With the body cameras, the judge said it stops being a question.
"When I ask the parties to do something, I expect that it gets done," Judge Ellis said.
Read the full thread from Seidel here.
Trump's DOJ reminded judge is not blind after blown-off order
Chicago Sun-Times courts reporter Jon Seidel was in the courtroom observing the exchange in which the DOJ said that they had Kyle Harvick from the U.S. Customs & Border Protection. He's a deputy incident commander, according to WTTW News.
The judge asked if he was the "best person" to appear in the hearing to talk about the cases of chemical gas being used despite the judge's ban on the substance.
"What I want to avoid is someone coming in and, if I'm asking questions, that person says to me, 'not my responsibility,'" said Ellis.
She specifically wanted to speak to Russell Hott, the field director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Chicago.
"Is he the right person?" asked Ellis.
Sean Skedzielewski, speaking for the DOJ, claimed that Harvick was "best situated to discuss the details of the incidents that were raised," Seidel wrote on Bluesky.
"I have zero desire to micromanage how this goes, but suffice it to say, I want somebody with knowledge from ICE, and then somebody with knowledge from Customs and Border Patrol," the judge said, specifically wanting to speak to someone who disregarded her court order to the staff on the ground.
"I just need somebody from ICE and Customs and Border Patrol to tell me … what is happening, and has been happening, over the last week since I issued this order. It doesn't have to be complicated," she told the DOJ.
Seidel quoted the DOJ request that the witness appear remotely, but Judge Ellis said, "If they're not here, they can appear remotely." If they are in Chicago, however, she wants them in her courtroom.
If the DOJ can't provide that information, she said they'd simply return to court the following day for another witness.
She then addressed her order for body-worn cameras to be on federal agents and be turned on at all times. It was part of the conversation on Thursday, in which the judge made it clear, "I'm not happy. I'm really not happy."
Skedzielewski told the judge Thursday that due to the government shutdown, it might be difficult to implement a body-cam program, Seidel said from the court at the time. The judge made it clear that she didn't care; she was ordering it.
On Friday, she told the DOJ that her order "wasn't a suggestion."
To reinforce her demand, she said, "I am modifying the [temporary restraining order] to include the use of body-worn cameras."
She explained on Thursday that, over and over, federal agents are coming up with conflicting stories and reports that they can't prove. With the body cameras, the judge said it stops being a question.
"When I ask the parties to do something, I expect that it gets done," Judge Ellis said.
Read the full thread from Seidel here.
Trump's DOJ reminded judge is not blind after blown-off order
On Thursday afternoon, October 16, a federal grand jury in Maryland indicted former National Security Adviser John Bolton on 18 criminal counts for allegedly mishandling government documents. The indictment follows the recent grand jury indictments of two other Donald Trump foes — former FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James — in cases being prosecuted by Trump loyalist and interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan.
In a blistering editorial published the evening after Bolton was indicted, the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board attacked the indictment as politically motivated.
The board wrote, "Opposing Donald Trump is a perilous business, but working for him can be equally as dangerous. That's one lesson from Thursday's indictment of Mr. Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton for mishandling classified documents. A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted Mr. Bolton on eight counts of transmitting national defense information and 10 counts of retaining such information."
In response to the editorial, the Daily Beast's Ewan Palmer stresses that one of the Journal's big takeaways from the indictment is that people working for Trump are putting themselves at risk for criminal prosecutions if he ever turns against them the way he turned against Bolton.
Palmer noted that the "Rupert Murdoch–owned Wall Street Journal" had "blasted Donald Trump's revenge tour" and "issued a warning to others who dare disagree with the president."
"In a scathing editorial," Palmer observes, "the paper's editorial board said there is 'little doubt' retribution motivated Bolton's indictment over allegations he mishandled classified documents."
Read the full Wall Street Journal editorial at this link (subscription required) and the Daily Beast's analysis here (subscription required).
'Revenge tour': Murdoch paper delivers stern 'warning' to anyone working for Trump
In a blistering editorial published the evening after Bolton was indicted, the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board attacked the indictment as politically motivated.
The board wrote, "Opposing Donald Trump is a perilous business, but working for him can be equally as dangerous. That's one lesson from Thursday's indictment of Mr. Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton for mishandling classified documents. A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted Mr. Bolton on eight counts of transmitting national defense information and 10 counts of retaining such information."
In response to the editorial, the Daily Beast's Ewan Palmer stresses that one of the Journal's big takeaways from the indictment is that people working for Trump are putting themselves at risk for criminal prosecutions if he ever turns against them the way he turned against Bolton.
Palmer noted that the "Rupert Murdoch–owned Wall Street Journal" had "blasted Donald Trump's revenge tour" and "issued a warning to others who dare disagree with the president."
"In a scathing editorial," Palmer observes, "the paper's editorial board said there is 'little doubt' retribution motivated Bolton's indictment over allegations he mishandled classified documents."
Read the full Wall Street Journal editorial at this link (subscription required) and the Daily Beast's analysis here (subscription required).
'Revenge tour': Murdoch paper delivers stern 'warning' to anyone working for Trump
A former pardon attorney was taken aback Friday night after President Donald Trump announced he was freeing disgraced former Rep. George Santos (R-NY) from prison after the expelled congressman pleaded guilty to fraud.
Trump took to his Truth Social platform to announce he was commuting the seven-year prison sentence for Santos, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Trump said Santos would be released from prison immediately, citing what he described as harsh treatment and extended solitary confinement.
The move became the topic of discussion Friday night among legal analysts on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," with former Justice Department pardon attorney Liz Oyer saying Santos' victims may never see repayment.
"We'll have to see the exact paperwork, but in most of Trump’s commutations thus far, he has forgiven all of the money portion of the sentence, so the folks who've gotten commutations to date do not have to pay back any of the money that they owed to the victims of their frauds," she said.
"What Donald Trump has done here is really extraordinary," Oyer added.
Trump has not followed any process for granting pardons and commutations, she said.
"He is granting them as he sees fit, sort of off the cuff, whenever he wants to. And he's bypassing the traditional process for review and vetting of pardon applicants, which would include consulting with the victims to see if they have an objection to a pardon, which they very well might in this case," she added.
Oyer said doing such a move typically involves consulting with the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case. Santos' case was prosecuted and sentenced under Trump's own Justice Department, she noted.
"A press release that was issued back in July or May, when he was sentenced, was touting this as a really excellent result for the justice system, where a public official is finally going to be held accountable for a serious crime. And that was issued by an interim U.S. attorney appointed by Donald Trump. So it's pretty extraordinary to see this about-face that has happened," she concluded.
Ex-DOJ pardon attorney shocked after Trump's extraordinary commutation
Trump took to his Truth Social platform to announce he was commuting the seven-year prison sentence for Santos, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Trump said Santos would be released from prison immediately, citing what he described as harsh treatment and extended solitary confinement.
The move became the topic of discussion Friday night among legal analysts on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," with former Justice Department pardon attorney Liz Oyer saying Santos' victims may never see repayment.
"We'll have to see the exact paperwork, but in most of Trump’s commutations thus far, he has forgiven all of the money portion of the sentence, so the folks who've gotten commutations to date do not have to pay back any of the money that they owed to the victims of their frauds," she said.
"What Donald Trump has done here is really extraordinary," Oyer added.
Trump has not followed any process for granting pardons and commutations, she said.
"He is granting them as he sees fit, sort of off the cuff, whenever he wants to. And he's bypassing the traditional process for review and vetting of pardon applicants, which would include consulting with the victims to see if they have an objection to a pardon, which they very well might in this case," she added.
Oyer said doing such a move typically involves consulting with the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case. Santos' case was prosecuted and sentenced under Trump's own Justice Department, she noted.
"A press release that was issued back in July or May, when he was sentenced, was touting this as a really excellent result for the justice system, where a public official is finally going to be held accountable for a serious crime. And that was issued by an interim U.S. attorney appointed by Donald Trump. So it's pretty extraordinary to see this about-face that has happened," she concluded.
Ex-DOJ pardon attorney shocked after Trump's extraordinary commutation
john Bolton, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded not guilty Friday to 18 counts related to mishandling classified information.
Bolton, 76, stood before Judge Timothy Sullivan at the federal district courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland, and declared himself “not guilty” during his initial court appearance and arraignment, just before 11:30 a.m.
The former Trump adviser, sitting beside his attorney Abbe Lowell, responded that he understood the charges against him, with each count carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. If found guilty, Bolton could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Shortly after, Judge Sullivan said Bolton could be released so long as he surrendered his passport to the court, preventing him from flying outside of the United States.
Bolton, a former adviser-turned-Trump critic, is the latest person to be indicted by the Justice Department, which the president has promised to use in a retribution campaign against his perceived enemies.
Bolton slammed Trump in his 2020 memoir, ‘The Room Where it Happened’ claiming his former boss was unfit to serve as president (Getty Images)
On Thursday, a grand jury in Maryland returned an 18-count indictment against Bolton on accusations that he unlawfully retained and shared national defense information using his personal email and a messaging app.
The indictment alleges Bolton shared more than 1,000 pages of “diary” notes about his daily activities with family members while serving as Trump’s national security adviser in 2018 and 2019.
The former adviser has denied any wrongdoing and accused Trump of “weaponizing” the DOJ to “charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts.”
Trump fired Bolton in 2019 after repeatedly clashing with him over foreign policy issues. Since then, the former adviser has become an outspoken Trump critic, claiming his former boss was “unfit” to be president, and subscribes to “chaos as a way of life.”
When asked about Bolton’s charges Thursday, Trump referred to his former national security adviser as a “bad guy.”
Although Bolton is on Trump’s perceived list of enemies, the probe into his handling of classified information began after Bolton published his 2020 memoir,The Room Where it Happened, that detailed his time working in the administration and was highly critical of Trump.
In June 2020, a judge determined Bolton “likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations” in his book. However, the following year, the Department of Justice under the Biden administration, closed the case.
Bolton arrived at the federal courthouse in Maryland Friday morning, prepared to surrender to authorities less than 24 hours after being indicted on 18 counts (AP)
Abbe Lowell, Bolton’s attorney in the case, is also representing James Comey, Letitia James and Lisa Cook – all people Trump has sought to bring charges against (REUTERS)
Bolton’s attorney, Lowell, has insisted Bolton has not broken the law. “The underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago," Lowell said in a statement.
Lowell is also representing other people recently indicted by the administration and targeted by Trump including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
While Bolton joins Comey, also a perceived enemy from Trump’s first administration, in being indicted, the charges against Bolton were brought differently.
Career prosecutors in Maryland investigated and charged Bolton with the 18-count indictment following normal procedure. But Trump had to fire and replace a prosecutor in Virginia who refused to bring charges against Comey, citing lack of evidence, in order to obtain charges against the former FBI director.
Due to the complexities of handling classified documents, it’s likely Bolton’s case will take more time before heading to trial.
His next court date is scheduled for November 21.
Ex-Trump adviser John Bolton pleads not guilty to mishandling classified docs and faces decades in prison
Bolton, 76, stood before Judge Timothy Sullivan at the federal district courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland, and declared himself “not guilty” during his initial court appearance and arraignment, just before 11:30 a.m.
The former Trump adviser, sitting beside his attorney Abbe Lowell, responded that he understood the charges against him, with each count carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. If found guilty, Bolton could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Shortly after, Judge Sullivan said Bolton could be released so long as he surrendered his passport to the court, preventing him from flying outside of the United States.
Bolton, a former adviser-turned-Trump critic, is the latest person to be indicted by the Justice Department, which the president has promised to use in a retribution campaign against his perceived enemies.
Bolton slammed Trump in his 2020 memoir, ‘The Room Where it Happened’ claiming his former boss was unfit to serve as president (Getty Images)
On Thursday, a grand jury in Maryland returned an 18-count indictment against Bolton on accusations that he unlawfully retained and shared national defense information using his personal email and a messaging app.
The indictment alleges Bolton shared more than 1,000 pages of “diary” notes about his daily activities with family members while serving as Trump’s national security adviser in 2018 and 2019.
The former adviser has denied any wrongdoing and accused Trump of “weaponizing” the DOJ to “charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts.”
Trump fired Bolton in 2019 after repeatedly clashing with him over foreign policy issues. Since then, the former adviser has become an outspoken Trump critic, claiming his former boss was “unfit” to be president, and subscribes to “chaos as a way of life.”
When asked about Bolton’s charges Thursday, Trump referred to his former national security adviser as a “bad guy.”
Although Bolton is on Trump’s perceived list of enemies, the probe into his handling of classified information began after Bolton published his 2020 memoir,The Room Where it Happened, that detailed his time working in the administration and was highly critical of Trump.
In June 2020, a judge determined Bolton “likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations” in his book. However, the following year, the Department of Justice under the Biden administration, closed the case.
Bolton arrived at the federal courthouse in Maryland Friday morning, prepared to surrender to authorities less than 24 hours after being indicted on 18 counts (AP)
Abbe Lowell, Bolton’s attorney in the case, is also representing James Comey, Letitia James and Lisa Cook – all people Trump has sought to bring charges against (REUTERS)
Bolton’s attorney, Lowell, has insisted Bolton has not broken the law. “The underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago," Lowell said in a statement.
Lowell is also representing other people recently indicted by the administration and targeted by Trump including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
While Bolton joins Comey, also a perceived enemy from Trump’s first administration, in being indicted, the charges against Bolton were brought differently.
Career prosecutors in Maryland investigated and charged Bolton with the 18-count indictment following normal procedure. But Trump had to fire and replace a prosecutor in Virginia who refused to bring charges against Comey, citing lack of evidence, in order to obtain charges against the former FBI director.
Due to the complexities of handling classified documents, it’s likely Bolton’s case will take more time before heading to trial.
His next court date is scheduled for November 21.
Ex-Trump adviser John Bolton pleads not guilty to mishandling classified docs and faces decades in prison
The Justice Department has more to worry about than the "stunning pattern" of grand juries pushing back against its political prosecutions of Donald Trump's critics and protesters.
Now it has to worry about trial juries standing in its path as well.
That's the view of MSNBC legal analyst Jordan Rubin, who today cited the DOJ's failure last week to make even a misdemeanor stand in its case of Sidney Reid in Washington, D.C.
"Grand jurors had declined to approve a felony indictment against her a shocking three times," Rubin wrote. "But instead of taking those serial rejections as a sign of serious problems with the case (a rare failure to get past even one grand jury should’ve done that), the DOJ in Jeanine Pirro’s office moved forward with a misdemeanor prosecution, which didn’t require grand jury approval.
Noting that Reid was acquitted of even the misdemeanor charge, Rubin wrote that "as time goes on, we’ll learn what trial jurors think of the politically motivated cases that make it that far."
Rubin also cited the similar situation of Sean Dunn, the Air Force veteran and former DOJ employee who famously tossed a sandwich at a Border Patrol agent during a recent protest. Dunn was also charged by the DOJ with a misdemeanor after it couldn't convince a grand jury to indict him for a felony.
Dunn has filed a motion to dismiss the misdemeanor assault charge based on vindictive and selective prosecution.
Rubin argues that "Powerful statements from Reid and her lawyers following the not guilty verdict frame the stakes in her case — and in Trump’s second term more broadly. She said the verdict 'shows that this administration and their peons are not able to invoke fear in all citizens.' Calling the president 'a crazy person,' she said she even felt sorry for the prosecutors, 'who must be burdened by Trump’s irrational and unfounded hatred for his fellow man.'”
DOJ seeing stunning pattern of grand jury losses — and that's not all: analyst
Now it has to worry about trial juries standing in its path as well.
That's the view of MSNBC legal analyst Jordan Rubin, who today cited the DOJ's failure last week to make even a misdemeanor stand in its case of Sidney Reid in Washington, D.C.
"Grand jurors had declined to approve a felony indictment against her a shocking three times," Rubin wrote. "But instead of taking those serial rejections as a sign of serious problems with the case (a rare failure to get past even one grand jury should’ve done that), the DOJ in Jeanine Pirro’s office moved forward with a misdemeanor prosecution, which didn’t require grand jury approval.
Noting that Reid was acquitted of even the misdemeanor charge, Rubin wrote that "as time goes on, we’ll learn what trial jurors think of the politically motivated cases that make it that far."
Rubin also cited the similar situation of Sean Dunn, the Air Force veteran and former DOJ employee who famously tossed a sandwich at a Border Patrol agent during a recent protest. Dunn was also charged by the DOJ with a misdemeanor after it couldn't convince a grand jury to indict him for a felony.
Dunn has filed a motion to dismiss the misdemeanor assault charge based on vindictive and selective prosecution.
Rubin argues that "Powerful statements from Reid and her lawyers following the not guilty verdict frame the stakes in her case — and in Trump’s second term more broadly. She said the verdict 'shows that this administration and their peons are not able to invoke fear in all citizens.' Calling the president 'a crazy person,' she said she even felt sorry for the prosecutors, 'who must be burdened by Trump’s irrational and unfounded hatred for his fellow man.'”
DOJ seeing stunning pattern of grand jury losses — and that's not all: analyst
Former national security adviser John Bolton turned himself in to federal authorities Friday morning in Maryland and pleaded not guilty after being indicted on charges of keeping top secret documents at his home and sharing classified information with family members.
Bolton was ordered released from custody after making his court appearance.
His criminal case is the third brought by the Justice Department in recent weeks against someone deemed adversarial to President Donald Trump. It also amplifies concerns that Trump is using the nation's top law enforcement agency to punish political foes.
Bolton didn't comment to reporters as he entered the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, about 13 miles (21 kilometers) northeast of Washington.
But he said Thursday in a statement after a grand jury returned the 18-count indictment against him that he has “become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts.”
Here is what to know about Bolton and the charges he faces:
Who is John Bolton?
The 76-year-old Bolton is a longtime Republican who spent more than a year as a national security adviser during Trump's first term.
His 17-month tenure was rife with clashes over countries including North Korea and Iran, with him voicing skepticism over Trump’s outreach toward and summit with Kim Jong Un. On Iran, Bolton backed Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal but favored regime change and was frustrated when Trump called off a planned military strike in 2019.
The Republican president fired Bolton in 2019 and the two continued to clash in public comments long after Bolton left office.
Bolton's book, “The Room Where It Happened,” was released in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and was highly critical of Trump and his first term in the White House.
The Trump administration sued to block the book's release, claiming it disclosed classified information, but the Justice Department under President Joe Biden abandoned the lawsuit in 2021.
FILE - FBI agents carry boxes from former National Security Advisor John Bolton's office in Washington, Aug. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr., File)© The Associated Press
Bolton's Maryland home was searched in late August by federal agents.
Charges levied against Bolton
The indictment, which was brought against Bolton on Thursday, also accuses him of sharing with his wife and daughter more than 1,000 pages of notes that included sensitive national defense information he had gleaned from meetings with other U.S. government officials and foreign leaders or from intelligence briefings. Authorities say some of the information was exposed when operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian government hacked Bolton’s email account he used to send the diary-like notes about his activities to his relatives.
FILE - Former national security adviser John Bolton waves as he arrives at his house Aug. 22, 2025, in Bethesda, Md. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)© The Associated Press
“Anyone who abuses a position of power and jeopardizes our national security will be held accountable. No one is above the law," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Thursday.
The indictment cited an April news media interview in which Bolton chastised Trump administration officials for using Signal to discuss sensitive military details.
Authorities say Bolton took meticulous notes about his meetings and briefings as national security adviser and then used a personal email account and messaging platform to share information classified as high as top secret with his family members.
The indictment also says that a Bolton representative told the FBI in July 2021 that his email account had been hacked by operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian government but did not reveal he had shared classified information through the account or that the hackers now had possession of government secrets.
Other enemies of Trump targeted
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, was indicted earlier this month in a mortgage fraud case. She was charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2020.
James has sued Trump and his administration dozens of times. She won a staggering judgment last year against Trump and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements.
An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.
Former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton, left, departs following his arraignment at the Greenbelt Federal Courthouse in Greenbelt, Md., Friday, Oct. 17, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)© The Associated Press
Former FBI Director James Comey was charged in September with lying to Congress. The charges against Comey followed Trump appearing to publicly urge Bondi to prosecute Comey and other perceived political enemies.
AP reporter was in courtroom when Bolton was arraigned and describes charges
Comey had been involved in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, an investigation that Trump has claimed to be “hoax” and a “witch hunt” despite multiple government reviews showing Moscow interfered on behalf of the Republican’s campaign.
Comey was fired during Trump’s first term.
The Associated Press
Industry Minister Joly says Stellantis decision a troubling sign
Bolton was ordered released from custody after making his court appearance.
His criminal case is the third brought by the Justice Department in recent weeks against someone deemed adversarial to President Donald Trump. It also amplifies concerns that Trump is using the nation's top law enforcement agency to punish political foes.
Bolton didn't comment to reporters as he entered the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, about 13 miles (21 kilometers) northeast of Washington.
But he said Thursday in a statement after a grand jury returned the 18-count indictment against him that he has “become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts.”
Here is what to know about Bolton and the charges he faces:
Who is John Bolton?
The 76-year-old Bolton is a longtime Republican who spent more than a year as a national security adviser during Trump's first term.
His 17-month tenure was rife with clashes over countries including North Korea and Iran, with him voicing skepticism over Trump’s outreach toward and summit with Kim Jong Un. On Iran, Bolton backed Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal but favored regime change and was frustrated when Trump called off a planned military strike in 2019.
The Republican president fired Bolton in 2019 and the two continued to clash in public comments long after Bolton left office.
Bolton's book, “The Room Where It Happened,” was released in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and was highly critical of Trump and his first term in the White House.
The Trump administration sued to block the book's release, claiming it disclosed classified information, but the Justice Department under President Joe Biden abandoned the lawsuit in 2021.
FILE - FBI agents carry boxes from former National Security Advisor John Bolton's office in Washington, Aug. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr., File)© The Associated Press
Bolton's Maryland home was searched in late August by federal agents.
Charges levied against Bolton
The indictment, which was brought against Bolton on Thursday, also accuses him of sharing with his wife and daughter more than 1,000 pages of notes that included sensitive national defense information he had gleaned from meetings with other U.S. government officials and foreign leaders or from intelligence briefings. Authorities say some of the information was exposed when operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian government hacked Bolton’s email account he used to send the diary-like notes about his activities to his relatives.
FILE - Former national security adviser John Bolton waves as he arrives at his house Aug. 22, 2025, in Bethesda, Md. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)© The Associated Press
“Anyone who abuses a position of power and jeopardizes our national security will be held accountable. No one is above the law," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Thursday.
The indictment cited an April news media interview in which Bolton chastised Trump administration officials for using Signal to discuss sensitive military details.
Authorities say Bolton took meticulous notes about his meetings and briefings as national security adviser and then used a personal email account and messaging platform to share information classified as high as top secret with his family members.
The indictment also says that a Bolton representative told the FBI in July 2021 that his email account had been hacked by operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian government but did not reveal he had shared classified information through the account or that the hackers now had possession of government secrets.
Other enemies of Trump targeted
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, was indicted earlier this month in a mortgage fraud case. She was charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2020.
James has sued Trump and his administration dozens of times. She won a staggering judgment last year against Trump and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements.
An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.
Former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton, left, departs following his arraignment at the Greenbelt Federal Courthouse in Greenbelt, Md., Friday, Oct. 17, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)© The Associated Press
Former FBI Director James Comey was charged in September with lying to Congress. The charges against Comey followed Trump appearing to publicly urge Bondi to prosecute Comey and other perceived political enemies.
AP reporter was in courtroom when Bolton was arraigned and describes charges
Comey had been involved in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, an investigation that Trump has claimed to be “hoax” and a “witch hunt” despite multiple government reviews showing Moscow interfered on behalf of the Republican’s campaign.
Comey was fired during Trump’s first term.
The Associated Press
Industry Minister Joly says Stellantis decision a troubling sign
The Department of Homeland Security, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, has purchased two Gulfstream G700 luxury jets for top officials – a deal worth about $172 million that is now fueling questions over how the agency paid for them and why it needed two.
According to records reviewed by The New York Times, the jets marketed by Gulfstream as offering “the most spacious cabin in the industry,” were bought for what a DHS spokesperson said was “a matter of safety.”
The spokesperson said in a statement that the department’s existing jet was more than 20 years old and “well beyond operational usage hours for a corporate aircraft.”
Earlier this year, the United States Coast Guard requested in its budget a single long-range Gulfstream V jet estimated to cost $50 million to replace an aging one used by Noem.
“The avionics are increasingly obsolete, the communications are increasingly unreliable and it’s in need of recapitalization, like much of the rest of the fleet,” acting commandant of the Coast Guard, Kevin Lunday, said in May.
He added that a new aircraft was essential “to provide agency leaders with secure, reliable, on-demand communications and movement to go forward, visit our operating forces, conducting the missions and then come back here to Washington and make sure we can work together to get them what they need.”
But Democrats are calling the move another example of Noem’s lavish spending habits at taxpayer expense, particularly amid the government shutdown. It remains unclear where the funding came from.
Representatives Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, and Lauren Underwood of Illinois, the top Democrat overseeing its homeland security panel, asked Noem in a letter reviewed by The New York Times, to “clarify the funding source.”
“In addition to raising serious questions about your ability to effectively lead an agency whose procurement strategies appear to vary on a whim, the procurement of new luxury jets for your use suggests that the U.S.C.G. has been directed to prioritize your own comfort above the U.S.C.G.’s operational needs, even during a government shutdown,” they wrote. “We are deeply concerned about your judgment, leadership priorities, and responsibility as a steward of taxpayer dollars.”
Earlier this year, Republicans included about $25 billion in new funding for the Coast Guard, including about $2.3 billion for “procurement and acquisition of rotary-wing aircraft.”
This week, Noem said she was using some of those funds to ensure Coast Guard members did not miss a paycheck during the current government shutdown, The Times reported.
Noem’s spending as South Dakota governor also drew attention, according to The Sioux Falls Argus Leader who reported in 2021 that she spent $68,000 in taxpayer money to redecorate the governor’s mansion. And South Dakota taxpayers also covered about $150,000 in Noem’s personal and political travel costs, the Associated Press reported back in March.
Kristi Noem gets luxury $172M jets she had asked for prompting questions over where the funding is coming from
According to records reviewed by The New York Times, the jets marketed by Gulfstream as offering “the most spacious cabin in the industry,” were bought for what a DHS spokesperson said was “a matter of safety.”
The spokesperson said in a statement that the department’s existing jet was more than 20 years old and “well beyond operational usage hours for a corporate aircraft.”
Earlier this year, the United States Coast Guard requested in its budget a single long-range Gulfstream V jet estimated to cost $50 million to replace an aging one used by Noem.
“The avionics are increasingly obsolete, the communications are increasingly unreliable and it’s in need of recapitalization, like much of the rest of the fleet,” acting commandant of the Coast Guard, Kevin Lunday, said in May.
He added that a new aircraft was essential “to provide agency leaders with secure, reliable, on-demand communications and movement to go forward, visit our operating forces, conducting the missions and then come back here to Washington and make sure we can work together to get them what they need.”
But Democrats are calling the move another example of Noem’s lavish spending habits at taxpayer expense, particularly amid the government shutdown. It remains unclear where the funding came from.
Representatives Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, and Lauren Underwood of Illinois, the top Democrat overseeing its homeland security panel, asked Noem in a letter reviewed by The New York Times, to “clarify the funding source.”
“In addition to raising serious questions about your ability to effectively lead an agency whose procurement strategies appear to vary on a whim, the procurement of new luxury jets for your use suggests that the U.S.C.G. has been directed to prioritize your own comfort above the U.S.C.G.’s operational needs, even during a government shutdown,” they wrote. “We are deeply concerned about your judgment, leadership priorities, and responsibility as a steward of taxpayer dollars.”
Earlier this year, Republicans included about $25 billion in new funding for the Coast Guard, including about $2.3 billion for “procurement and acquisition of rotary-wing aircraft.”
This week, Noem said she was using some of those funds to ensure Coast Guard members did not miss a paycheck during the current government shutdown, The Times reported.
Noem’s spending as South Dakota governor also drew attention, according to The Sioux Falls Argus Leader who reported in 2021 that she spent $68,000 in taxpayer money to redecorate the governor’s mansion. And South Dakota taxpayers also covered about $150,000 in Noem’s personal and political travel costs, the Associated Press reported back in March.
Kristi Noem gets luxury $172M jets she had asked for prompting questions over where the funding is coming from
President Donald Trump refused to say whether he would grant a pardon to Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell after the Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal, Knewz.com can report. When asked about a pardon, the president deflected, claiming he hadn’t heard her name mentioned in a long time — even though he faced similar questions just two months ago.
What Trump said
In 2022, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison for trafficking. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
While taking questions at the White House, Trump was asked by CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins if he was “open” to granting Maxwell a pardon. A seemingly befuddled Trump asked, “Who are we talking about?” When Collins said the British socialite’s name again, Trump said, “You know, I haven’t heard the name in so long. I can say this — I’d have to take a look at it.” The 79-year-old was just asked about Maxwell in August when the same reporter inquired about Maxwell’s prison transfer from a Florida facility to a minimum-security prison in Texas. Again, the president seemed to feign ignorance, stating he wasn’t aware of it until after it happened. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for trafficking. In recent weeks, she has been begging for a presidential pardon, according to sources. A non-committal Trump further told Collins he “wouldn’t consider or not consider” it but would have to speak to the Justice Department first.
Outrage over Trump’s response
Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyer previously said her legal team hopes President Donald Trump “exercises [his pardon] power in the right and just way.” By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Trump’s reaction fueled outrage online, with one critic writing on X, “His vague ‘I’ll look at it’ and dodging with ‘I haven’t heard her name in so long’ reeks of avoiding accountability. Maxwell’s victims deserve justice, not a potential free pass from someone cozying up to the DOJ for a decision. It’s a slap in the face to survivors and anyone who values the rule of law.” Another commenter echoed, “It’s a huge tell that Donald Trump can’t just say ‘no’ to pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell — a convicted … trafficker. This isn’t a hard question. It’s the easiest ‘no’ any decent person could give. The hesitation says everything. Something’s definitely up.”
Maxwell’s appeal for freedom
President Donald Trump’s reaction to potentially pardoning Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell fueled outrage online By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Earlier this year, Maxwell’s legal team filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn her 2021 conviction, arguing that charges filed against her in 2020 violated an agreement Epstein — who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on trafficking charges — made with federal prosecutors in 2008 in an unrelated case. After the court announced it would not hear Maxwell’s appeal, her lawyer David Oscar Markus issued a statement. “We’re, of course, deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s case,” he said. “But this fight isn’t over. Serious legal and factual issues remain, and we will continue to pursue every avenue available to ensure that justice is done.”
Maxwell’s last chance
The Trump administration has struggled to deal with widespread backlash over its handling of records related to the investigation of predator Jeffrey Epstein. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
It seems now only the president’s signature can free Maxwell. During a headline-making prison sit-down with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — one of Trump’s former personal attorneys — this summer, Maxwell praised Trump, describing him as always being “very cordial and very kind” to her. She also emphasized she never saw Trump “in any inappropriate setting” during his friendship with Epstein, a longtime friend he fell out with around 2004. “The president was never inappropriate with anybody,” Maxwell told Blanche. “In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects".
Trump won't rule out pardoning Epstein accomplice
What Trump said
In 2022, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison for trafficking. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
While taking questions at the White House, Trump was asked by CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins if he was “open” to granting Maxwell a pardon. A seemingly befuddled Trump asked, “Who are we talking about?” When Collins said the British socialite’s name again, Trump said, “You know, I haven’t heard the name in so long. I can say this — I’d have to take a look at it.” The 79-year-old was just asked about Maxwell in August when the same reporter inquired about Maxwell’s prison transfer from a Florida facility to a minimum-security prison in Texas. Again, the president seemed to feign ignorance, stating he wasn’t aware of it until after it happened. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for trafficking. In recent weeks, she has been begging for a presidential pardon, according to sources. A non-committal Trump further told Collins he “wouldn’t consider or not consider” it but would have to speak to the Justice Department first.
Outrage over Trump’s response
Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyer previously said her legal team hopes President Donald Trump “exercises [his pardon] power in the right and just way.” By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Trump’s reaction fueled outrage online, with one critic writing on X, “His vague ‘I’ll look at it’ and dodging with ‘I haven’t heard her name in so long’ reeks of avoiding accountability. Maxwell’s victims deserve justice, not a potential free pass from someone cozying up to the DOJ for a decision. It’s a slap in the face to survivors and anyone who values the rule of law.” Another commenter echoed, “It’s a huge tell that Donald Trump can’t just say ‘no’ to pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell — a convicted … trafficker. This isn’t a hard question. It’s the easiest ‘no’ any decent person could give. The hesitation says everything. Something’s definitely up.”
Maxwell’s appeal for freedom
President Donald Trump’s reaction to potentially pardoning Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell fueled outrage online By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Earlier this year, Maxwell’s legal team filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn her 2021 conviction, arguing that charges filed against her in 2020 violated an agreement Epstein — who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on trafficking charges — made with federal prosecutors in 2008 in an unrelated case. After the court announced it would not hear Maxwell’s appeal, her lawyer David Oscar Markus issued a statement. “We’re, of course, deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s case,” he said. “But this fight isn’t over. Serious legal and factual issues remain, and we will continue to pursue every avenue available to ensure that justice is done.”
Maxwell’s last chance
The Trump administration has struggled to deal with widespread backlash over its handling of records related to the investigation of predator Jeffrey Epstein. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
It seems now only the president’s signature can free Maxwell. During a headline-making prison sit-down with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — one of Trump’s former personal attorneys — this summer, Maxwell praised Trump, describing him as always being “very cordial and very kind” to her. She also emphasized she never saw Trump “in any inappropriate setting” during his friendship with Epstein, a longtime friend he fell out with around 2004. “The president was never inappropriate with anybody,” Maxwell told Blanche. “In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects".
Trump won't rule out pardoning Epstein accomplice
'Is he really a Republican?' Trump blasts a GOP candidate for his love of cats
President Donald Trump mocked Republican New York City mayoral candidate Curtin Sliwa Sunday for his admiration for cats, refusing to endorse him in the race and alleging he intended on turning the governor’s mansion into a refuge for felines.
Sliwa is running to defeat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, but has struggled in the race and polled at a distant third, with Mamdani showing a strong double-digit lead.
Also Read: For No Kings Day, I wore an inflatable bear costume – and saw America in all its glory
Trump was asked by Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo Saturday if he would consider making an endorsement in the race, specifically if he would endorse Sliwa, whose affinity for cats is well documented, having once owned 17 at once.
“Well, I don't know. Is he really a Republican, am I a big fan? This isn't exactly ideal where he wants to make Gracie Mansion a home for the cats,” Trump said, referencing New York City’s historic residence for New York City’s mayors. “Gracie Mansion is a magnificent home of Fiorello La Guardia, and the great mayor Rudy Giuliani, Giuliana was the greatest mayor in the history of New York, he did a great job!”
On whether he would endorse Mamdani’s next-highest polling opponent Cuomo – who resigned from office amid allegations of sexual abuse – Trump said it wasn’t his “thing” to endorse Democrats, but warned that under Mamdani, New York City would “be in big trouble.”
“I don't know that I'm going to get involved,” Trump said. "I watched [Mamdani] a couple of times be interviewed, and he’s pretty slick, but he doesn't have what it takes. The city will be in big trouble.”
Trump has railed against Mamdani as a “communist,” with many GOP lawmakers having called for him to be deported. Mamdani won his stunning upset victory back in June running on a progressive policy agenda that included pledges to implement rent freezes and increase taxes on the city’s wealthiest residents.
CAT-HATING DOTARD FOOL.....
President Donald Trump mocked Republican New York City mayoral candidate Curtin Sliwa Sunday for his admiration for cats, refusing to endorse him in the race and alleging he intended on turning the governor’s mansion into a refuge for felines.
Sliwa is running to defeat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, but has struggled in the race and polled at a distant third, with Mamdani showing a strong double-digit lead.
Also Read: For No Kings Day, I wore an inflatable bear costume – and saw America in all its glory
Trump was asked by Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo Saturday if he would consider making an endorsement in the race, specifically if he would endorse Sliwa, whose affinity for cats is well documented, having once owned 17 at once.
“Well, I don't know. Is he really a Republican, am I a big fan? This isn't exactly ideal where he wants to make Gracie Mansion a home for the cats,” Trump said, referencing New York City’s historic residence for New York City’s mayors. “Gracie Mansion is a magnificent home of Fiorello La Guardia, and the great mayor Rudy Giuliani, Giuliana was the greatest mayor in the history of New York, he did a great job!”
On whether he would endorse Mamdani’s next-highest polling opponent Cuomo – who resigned from office amid allegations of sexual abuse – Trump said it wasn’t his “thing” to endorse Democrats, but warned that under Mamdani, New York City would “be in big trouble.”
“I don't know that I'm going to get involved,” Trump said. "I watched [Mamdani] a couple of times be interviewed, and he’s pretty slick, but he doesn't have what it takes. The city will be in big trouble.”
Trump has railed against Mamdani as a “communist,” with many GOP lawmakers having called for him to be deported. Mamdani won his stunning upset victory back in June running on a progressive policy agenda that included pledges to implement rent freezes and increase taxes on the city’s wealthiest residents.
CAT-HATING DOTARD FOOL.....
