New York Case Against Trump Was Always A Ridiculous Pretext To Take Down His Campaign
The prosecution was the passion project of pit bull New York Attorney General Letitia James, who made a malicious campaign promise to sue Trump.The prosecution was the passion project of pit bull New York Attorney General Letitia James, who made a malicious campaign promise to sue Trump.Conservative firebrand Chip Roy bids Congress farewell, targets new political venture
Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas announced Thursday that he would be stepping down from Congress to pursue a new political venture in the Lone Star State.
Roy, who is currently serving his fourth term in the House of Representatives, officially launched his bid for Texas attorney general on Thursday, vowing to "defend Texas at every turn." Roy is seeking to replace Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is currently running to unseat Republican Sen. John Cornyn.
'It's time to draw a line in the sand.'
"It has been my honor to represent the 21st Congressional District of Texas — the best part of the best state in the greatest country in the history of the world," Roy said in a press release. "I am particularly proud of our work to deliver on President Trump's agenda and fight to drain the swamp."
"I could do it forever and be fulfilled professionally," Roy added. "But representatives should not be permanent."
RELATED: Republican senator relishes 'cray-cray' Mamdani's success: 'We've gotten lucky'
Throughout his political career, Roy has established himself as a conservative firebrand who is comfortable confronting the status quo, even if it's within his own party. Roy repeatedly fought for fiscal responsibility, frequently bucking Republican leadership on major spending bills and continuing resolutions.
At the same time, Roy maintained a focus on strong immigration policy and working to slash excessive environmental regulations.
"Texas is under assault — from open-border politicians, radical leftists, and faceless foreign corporations that threaten our sovereignty, safety, and our way of life," Roy said. "It's time to draw a line in the sand."
RELATED: EPA moves to slash Obama-era gas can regulations: 'VENT THE DARN CAN'
"As attorney general, I will fight every single day for our God-given rights, for our families, and for the future of Texas," Roy added. "No more Soros-funded judges and DAs putting criminals on our streets. No more judge-made mandates that Texans pay for illegals in our public schools. No more communities built on Sharia law."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Paxton’s ‘offensive coordinator’ aims to take the helm as Texas AG
Texas attorney general candidate Aaron Reitz didn’t just help sue the Biden administration — as Ken Paxton’s deputy attorney general for legal strategy for three years, he went after the Biden administration 46 times.
“Within weeks after the 2020 election, we filed Texas v. Pennsylvania to challenge the constitutionality. Two days after we filed in early December, we were in the Oval Office with President Trump. You know, we just started swinging,” Reitz tells BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”
“And then, finally, despite our best efforts, Joe Biden gets inaugurated in January of 2021, and we just start suing the heck out of the Biden administration,” he adds.
“Forty-six times,” Gonzales chimes in.
“My claim to fame,” Reitz jokes. “Ken Paxton always calls me his offensive coordinator, and I was responsible for quarterbacking the Texas v. Biden docket. And yes, I led 46 lawsuits against the 46th president, and it was a lot of fun.”
And that fighting spirit Reitz had as the Biden administration held office is the same one he plans to bring to the position of Texas AG.
“Like you said, these are big shoes to fill. And a lot of folks are happy that Ken is now running for the Senate. But then the follow-on concern is, as happy as they are about that, they say, ‘Well, gosh, I mean, we’re gonna lose. I mean, we can’t afford to take our foot off the gas for AG,’” he tells Gonzales.
“That’s in part why I jumped into this race, because if Texans turn the keys of this office over to me, I know how to handle this vehicle,” he continues. “I’m going to keep my foot on the gas, and we’re going to keep fighting in an extremely aggressive direction.”
While the likelihood that Reitz would need to go after the Trump administration is much lower, he views the position a little differently than he did under Biden.
“The next AG is going to need to partner with the Trump administration in order to advance that justice agenda right here in the Lone Star State,” he explains. “And so, no one better to be able to partner with the Trump administration than someone who literally just served in the Trump administration as a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed head and senior executive at the Justice Department like myself.”
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
DC Attorney General Sues Feds To Stop Trump Admin From Cleaning Up Crime
'It is my opinion that the Bondi Order is unlawful, and that you are not legally obligated to follow it,' Schwalb said.Charlie Kirk outlines '10 immediate credible action items' Pam Bondi can take on Epstein case
President Donald Trump continues to deliver on campaign promises and to surmount obstacles thrown before him by radical Democrats and activist judges. His accomplishments in recent weeks, however, while impactful, have been overshadowed by his Justice Department's conclusion that child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list that could implicate deep-pocketed elites.
Amid mounting criticism over the lack of substantial insights from the DOJ, Turning Point USA founder and President Charlie Kirk — whom Trump reportedly called on Saturday to express support for Attorney General Pam Bondi — noted on his show Monday, "I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it; ball's in their hands."
'Anything that's credible, I would say, let them have it.'
Kirk subsequently outlined "10 immediate credible action items" Bondi could take that might satisfy Americans' hunger for answers and help the president move on to other matters with the reinvigorated support of his base.
Backlash, persistent curiosity
The backlash over the DOJ's conclusion was particularly severe in part because of Trump's campaign promise that he would "be inclined" to release Epstein's list of clients, saying, "I'd have no problem with it."
It certainly did not help that after telling cable news on Feb. 21 that the Epstein client list was "sitting on [her] desk right now," Bondi handed out to Trump-supporting podcasters binders titled "Epstein Files: Phase 1," loaded with publicly available information and documents devoid of significant revelations. She then failed to deliver the promised second phase of possibly substantial documents.
It also didn't help that the FBI's Epstein prison video is reportedly missing nearly three minutes of footage from one of two stitched-together clips.
Trump appears keen for the scandal "over a guy who never dies" to blow over.
"Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration, who conned the World with the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, 51 'Intelligence' Agents, 'THE LAPTOP FROM HELL,' and more?" Trump noted in a Truth Social post on Saturday. "They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called 'friends' are playing right into their hands."
RELATED: The White House will need to do plenty more to get past Epstein
Recent polling indicates that public interest in the alleged Epstein list isn't going anywhere.
A Rasmussen Reports poll revealed on Tuesday that only 21% of likely U.S. voters believe the FBI and the DOJ are telling the truth about Epstein; 56% don't think they're telling the truth; and 23% aren't sure. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, and 69% of unaffiliated voters reject the idea that the Epstein case is closed "and instead believe that there are dozens of powerful and wealthy offenders who need to face justice," reported Rasmussen.
10 action items
"I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody," Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews on Tuesday.
"I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going. But credible information? Let them give it. Anything that's credible, I would say, let them have it."
Responding to Trump's remarks, Charlie Kirk identified 10 immediate action items that could result in the production of "credible" information for the American public. Here are the 10 items in his list, summarized.
- Release the DOJ's 2020 Office of Professional Responsibility report that evaluated Epstein's 2008 plea deal.
- Unseal all of Ghislaine Maxwell's grand jury testimony.
- Press Alexander Acosta about what he knew about Epstein working for foreign intelligence. Acosta was the secretary of labor during Trump's first term and oversaw Epstein's 2008 plea agreement.
- Release underlying facts concerning Epstein's indictment in 2019, except child sexual abuse material.
- Release a full report concerning the "butchered" Bush-era federal investigation into Epstein.
- "Green-light Maxwell to speak freely and learn what she knows."
- Establish how exactly Epstein made his money and source relevant "bank records and financial statements."
- Overrule privacy rules and release the names of prisoners on the floor of the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night Epstein died.
- "Get the missing minutes of the prison footage."
- Hold a press conference as soon as possible to remedy any remaining confusion.
— (@)
Action items one and three are related, as they both center largely on the insights of Acosta, who, while serving as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, approved the plea deal that enabled Epstein to plead guilty to a single charge of solicitation in exchange for a non-prosecution agreement — what the Miami Herald called the "deal of a lifetime."
'He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had "been told" to back off.'
The deal that Acosta arranged reportedly scuttled the federal probe into a possible international sex-trafficking operation and prevented both the victims and the judge from knowing how many girls Epstein may have sexually abused between 2001 and 2005.
RELATED: Why MAGA wants the Epstein list — and won’t settle for less
Bradley Edwards, a former state prosecutor who represented some of Epstein's victims, told the Miami Herald, "How in the world do you, the U.S. attorney, engage in a negotiation with a criminal defendant, basically allowing that criminal defendant to write up the agreement?"
Mike Benz, the founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online, recently told Kirk, "In the process of that [DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility] investigation, they interviewed everyone at Justice who was involved in that 2008 plea deal and sought to put the story to bed by collecting transcribed interviews, audio, and basically reams of files."
Benz indicated that the OPR report referred to an interview with Acosta in which he apparently discussed Epstein's intelligence ties.
The Daily Beast reported in 2019 that when being interviewed for the job of labor secretary in the first Trump administration, Acosta was allegedly asked whether the Epstein case was going to cause a problem for his confirmation hearings.
RELATED: The Epstein files may be Trump’s biggest liability yet
According to the Daily Beast, "Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had 'been told' to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade."
Acosta allegedly told his interviewers, "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone."
'No one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows.'
While evidence of an intelligence link might not get the American public any closer to a client list, it could help explain why such a list may have been developed over time and was then suppressed.
As for action item six, Maxwell — whose father the Telegraph indicated was a newspaper baron who had "known links with MI6, the KGB, and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad" — might be able to shed some light on the operations she ran with her former lover and boss.
Maxwell was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in prison for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse minor girls as young as 14 with Epstein, going all the way back to the early 1990s.
A source close to Maxwell recently told the Daily Mail that the convicted groomer "would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story."
"No one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows," said the unnamed source. "She remains the only person to be jailed in connection to Epstein, and she would welcome the chance to tell the American public the truth."
When asked about Maxwell possibly testifying, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters, "I'm for transparency. We're intellectually consistent in this," reported CBS News.
The steps outlined by Kirk might help Bondi satisfy the American people's desire for truth about the "guy who never dies" and possibly also his clients.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Florida Sheriff Backs Down From Threat To Not Enforce Immigration Laws After Rebuke From AG
A Florida county sheriff who had refused to enforce immigration laws yielded after state Attorney General James Uthmeier warned he could be removed from office. The move from Uthmeier comes as sheriff’s departments in places like Los Angeles refuse to help federal immigration officials and even fail to shut down pro-illegal immigration riots. Earlier this […]12 countries won’t cut it: Why Trump’s travel ban ultimately falls short
“We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,” President Trump declared Wednesday, unveiling a new travel ban targeting 12 nations — mostly Islamic-majority countries from the Middle East and Africa.
It’s a strong first step toward fulfilling the original 2015 promise of a full moratorium on immigration from regions plagued by jihadist ideology. But let’s not pretend Europe’s crisis stemmed from poor vetting of criminal records. The real problem was mass migration from cultures openly hostile to Western values — especially toward Jews and, by extension, Christians.
The United States ranks near the bottom of the list for anti-Semitism. That’s something worth protecting — not surrendering to appease lobbyists or foreign governments.
And the new list leaves troubling gaps.
Trump’s call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” was the defining issue that launched his political movement. Nine years later, the rationale is even stronger — and now, the president has the power to make it happen.
Consider the context: Egyptian national Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the alleged Boulder attacker who shouted he wanted to “end all Zionists,” entered the United States in 2022 with a wife and five children — admitted from Kuwait.
The only question that matters: How many more share Soliman’s views?
The numbers are staggering. By my calculation, the U.S. admitted 1,453,940 immigrants from roughly 43 majority-Muslim countries between 2014 and 2023. That figure doesn’t include over 100,000 student visas, nor the thousands who’ve overstayed tourist visas and vanished into the interior.
Soliman is not an outlier. He’s a warning. And warnings demand a response.
Trump’s January executive order called for a 60-day review by the secretary of state, the attorney general, the Homeland Security secretary, and the director of national intelligence to identify countries with inadequate screening procedures. Four and a half months later — following the Boulder attack — the administration announced bans on nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
But Trump didn’t mention anti-American or anti-Jewish sentiment — only logistical concerns like poor criminal record-keeping, high visa overstay rates, and limited government cooperation.
That misses the point entirely.
Jew-hatred — and by extension, hatred of the West — isn't just a byproduct of chaos in failed states like Somalia or Taliban-run Afghanistan. It runs deep across the Middle East, even in countries with functioning governments. In fact, some of the most repressive regimes, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are openly hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood, yet still export radicalized individuals.
And those individuals know precisely where to go: America, where radical Islam finds more tolerance than in many Islamic countries.
Good diplomatic relations don’t mean good immigration policy. Pew’s 2010 global attitudes survey showed over 95% of people in many Middle Eastern countries held unfavorable views of Jews — including those in Egypt and Jordan, U.S. allies.
The Anti-Defamation League’s global index confirms it: The highest levels of support for anti-Semitic stereotypes come from the Middle East. According to the ADL, 93% of Palestinians and upwards of 70% to 80% of residents from other Islamic nations agree with tropes about Jews controlling the world’s wars, banks, and governments.
Meanwhile, the United States ranks near the bottom of the list for anti-Semitism. That’s something worth protecting — not surrendering to appease lobbyists or foreign governments.
So why continue importing hundreds of thousands of people from places where hatred of Jews is considered normal? Why welcome migration from countries like Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia — where assimilation into American civic values is practically impossible?
The answer may lie in the influence nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia still exert over U.S. foreign policy. But political cowardice is no excuse for policy paralysis.
Twelve countries on the ban list is a good start. But most don’t reflect the true source of radical Islamic immigration into the United States.
RELATED: Mass deportation or bust: Trump’s one shot to get it right
Banning immigration from these regions isn’t about infringing civil liberties. It’s about preventing a civilizational crisis. Unlike Europe, which responded to rising Islamic extremism by criminalizing dissent and speech, America can take the wiser path: protect national security without sacrificing the First Amendment.
We don’t need hate-speech laws. We need sane immigration policy.
Unfortunately, bureaucrats in the administration watered down Trump’s original vision. They framed the bans in terms of “data-sharing” and technocratic concerns. They sought narrow criteria and limited political blowback.
But the law is clear. Trump v. Hawaii affirmed the president’s broad constitutional authority to exclude foreign nationals.
That authority exists for a reason.
President Trump rose to power by sounding the alarm about what unchecked migration could do to the West. That warning was prophetic. And now, he has the mandate — and the obligation — to act on it.
Twelve countries won’t cut it. The question now isn’t whether Trump will act — it’s whether he’ll act in time.
Because if we want to avoid Europe’s fate, we don’t just need a new policy. We need the old Trump — unapologetic, unflinching, and unafraid to speak hard truths.
Let’s hope he finishes what he started.
Despite Democrat hysteria, Wisconsin judge accused of thwarting ICE faces 6 years in prison after grand jury indictment
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' Democratic administration issued guidance on April 18 directing state employees not to immediately cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other federal agents. That same day, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan allegedly helped a previously deported illegal alien facing three misdemeanor counts of battery get away from ICE.
In what proved to be a shock to some Americans now accustomed to seeing judicial activism go unchecked, the FBI arrested Dugan on April 25. The arrest sent Democratic lawmakers, former judges, and liberal activists into a frenzy.
The indictment alleges that Dugan committed multiple 'affirmative acts' to assist Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade arrest.
Following weeks of Democratic accusations of judicial intimidation and claims about an improper arrest, a federal grand jury determined Tuesday that there was, after all, sufficient evidence to indict Dugan on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.
The indictment alleges that Dugan committed multiple "affirmative acts" to assist Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade arrest following his pre-trial April 18 appearance in her courtroom, including:
- confronting members of an ICE task force and "falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.";
- directing all members of the task force to leave the public hallway outside her courtroom and to go to the chief judge's office;
- addressing the illegal alien's criminal case off the record while ICE agents were waiting in the chief judge's office;
- "directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door"; and
- advising Flores-Ruiz's lawyer that the illegal alien could appear by Zoom for his next court date.
Despite Dugan's alleged efforts, law enforcement was ultimately able to capture Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico who was previously deported in 2013, after a brief foot chase. Flores-Ruiz's battery charges reportedly include modifiers for domestic violence and reflect that he allegedly punched one individual 30 times, then brutalized the woman who attempted to intervene.
Attorney General Pam Bondi noted in an interview last month that both of Flores-Ruiz's alleged victims had to be hospitalized.
Dugan indicated through a lawyer that she will fight the charges, reported the New York Times.
"Judge Hannah C. Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law and the principles of due process for her entire career as a lawyer and a judge," said Dugan's lawyers. "Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court."
If convicted, Dugan could reportedly land up to six years in prison.
The judge turned defendant is expected to enter a plea at her Thursday hearing.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman will preside over Dugan's case. That bodes well for the meddlesome judge.
After all, Adelman, a Clinton appointee who long served in the Wisconsin state Senate as a Democrat, has a history of attacking President Donald Trump, claiming, for instance, that the president makes no effort "to enact policies beneficial to the general public" and behaves like an "autocrat." The Heritage Foundation noted that Lynn has also compared Republicans to "the 'fireaters,' [sic] those fervent defenders of slavery who pushed the South into the Civil War."
The Department of Homeland Security told Blaze News, "Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected ICE agents away from this criminal illegal alien to obstruct the arrest and try to help him evade arrest. Thankfully, our FBI partners chased down this illegal alien, arrested him and removed him from American communities."
Tricia McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for public affairs, stated, "Since President Trump was inaugurated, activist judges have tried to obstruct President Trump and the American people’s mandate to make America safe and secure our homeland — but this judge’s actions to shield an accused violent criminal illegal alien from justice is shocking and shameful."
"We are thankful for our partners at the FBI for helping remove this accused criminal from America’s streets," continued McLaughlin. "If you are here illegally and break the law, we will hunt you down, arrest you and lock you up. That's a promise."
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told Fox News' Jesse Watters Tuesday, "I'm grateful that the judicial system recognized that Judge Duggan let down the court, the country, and the authority that her position held and that she will be held accountable. That [the indictment] was a great decision to recognize that nobody can facilitate breaking the law. We should not be able to allow that in this country. We need to make sure that even judges are held accountable for their actions."
Shortly after Dugan's arrest last month, FBI Director Kash Patel posted to social media: "We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest."
In response to a request for comment about Dugan's grand jury indictment, the FBI told Blaze News: "We don’t have anything to add to Director Patel’s public statements posted on social media."
The White House did not respond by deadline.
Dugan's indictment comes two weeks after the Supreme Court of Wisconsin relieved her of her official duties "in order to uphold the public's confidence in the courts of this state." As a result, Dugan — who appears to have flouted the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly its requirement that "a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities" — is now prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the state until further order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In the wake of her arrest, Democratic lawmakers and their allies in the media ran with the narrative that the FBI's enforcement of the law amounted to the Trump administration "making an example of the Milwaukee judge to intimidate critics and opponents."
For instance, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) stated, "We have a system of checks and balances and separations of power for damn good reasons. The President's administration arresting a sitting judge is a gravely serious and drastic move, and it threatens to breach those very separations of power."
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.) told Axios, "It is remarkable that the Administration would dare to start arresting state court judges."
RELATED: How biblical justice finally caught up to a leftist judge
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said, "They arrested a judge?! They can no longer claim to be a party of law and order."
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) stated on the day of the arrest, "We have seen in recent months the president and the Trump Administration repeatedly use dangerous rhetoric to attack and attempt to undermine our judiciary at every level."
While some Democratic lawmakers issued their condemnations, others celebrated Dugan's alleged obstruction and concealment of a person from arrest.
Wisconsin state Rep. Ryan Clancy (D) stated, "I commend Judge Hannah Dugan's defense of due process by preventing ICE from shamefully using her courtroom as an ad hoc holding area for deportations."
Hundreds of former state and federal judges also leaned into the narrative, stating in a recent letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi — who had noted on X, "No one is above the law" — that "the circumstances of Judge Dugan's arrest make it clear that it was nothing but an effort to threaten and intimidate the state and federal judiciaries into submitting to the Administration, instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws of the United States."
This is a developing story.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com