Punch a cop, get a charge — even if you’re in Congress



With a recent assault on the very federal law enforcement officers they are charged with overseeing, Democrats haven’t just embraced criminals; they’ve become them.

Last month, three Democratic lawmakers — Reps. Rob Menendez Jr., Bonnie Watson Coleman, and LaMonica McIver, all from New Jersey — led a mob of protesters in storming the Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. They waited for a bus full of detainees to arrive, then rushed the open gate and physically clashed with federal officers.

Our republic will not survive if America’s elected leaders are allowed to act like this. They not only committed crimes in public but then hid behind their Article I powers as a shield.

This wasn’t symbolic. This was an elected mob laying hands on law enforcement.

The video tells the story: shoving, punching, and chaos. These three members of Congress — who represent more than two million Americans — assaulted officers doing their jobs. Then, astonishingly, they claimed they were the victims, despite clear footage proving otherwise.

All of this over what turned out to be nothing.

After the chaos, ICE officials offered the lawmakers a guided tour of the facility. The Democrats quietly admitted they found no signs of mistreatment. Their entire stunt, billed as a protest of conditions, collapsed under the weight of reality. They walked in demanding accountability and walked out with nothing but bad footage and a pending felony charge.

Yes, a felony.

Rep. McIver now faces a federal charge of assaulting a law enforcement officer, announced on May 20 by Acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba. President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have made it clear: This administration backs the rule of law. If you punch a cop, you get charged — even if you have a congressional pin on your lapel.

The left tried to frame the incident as “congressional oversight.” But oversight doesn’t mean storming gates or skipping security checks. ICE policy allows members of Congress to tour facilities — even unannounced. But it does not allow them to create security threats, bypass screening, or lead mobs onto federal property. Those procedures exist to protect staff, detainees, and lawmakers alike.

This was not oversight. It was lawlessness, pure and simple.

RELATED: Memo to Democrats: ‘Oversight’ isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Since President Trump restored control of the southern border, anti-border Democrats have become unhinged. No longer able to rely on waves of illegal crossings, they’ve begun imitating the tactics of the very criminal aliens they once defended — storming barriers, resisting authority, and attacking officers.

Now, that’s the legacy of the modern Democratic Party.

But legal consequences alone aren’t enough. Congress must act.

The House should censure all three lawmakers involved. Censure is not a punishment; it’s a statement of principle. And lawmakers have been censured for far less than leading an assault on federal agents. The House has a duty to uphold the integrity of its own body. That means sending a message: If you behave like a thug, you’ll be treated like one.

Our republic will not survive if America’s elected leaders are allowed to act like this. They not only committed crimes in public but then hid behind their Article I powers as a shield.

America’s founders warned about this.

In "Federalist 1," Alexander Hamilton posed a choice: Would Americans build a government based on “reflection and choice” — or surrender to “accident and force”? That question remains. If lawmakers now claim the right to break the laws they swore to uphold, we’re no longer living in a constitutional republic. We’re living under mob rule.

And if we let this slide — if Congress fails to hold its own accountable — then we’ll have no one to blame when the next mob storms another federal building under another political banner.

Democrats love to remind us: “No one is above the law.” Fine. Then prove it.

Courthouse footage spells trouble for Wisconsin judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE



Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury last week on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.

Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Judging from the courthouse footage recently obtained from Milwaukee County by WISN-TV through an open records request, her defense has its work cut out.

The federal indictment alleges that Dugan committed multiple "affirmative acts" to assist 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.

The original FBI charging document goes into far more detail, drawing on witness testimony and other inputs.

The footage appears to corroborate a number of the allegations made in both documents.

— (@)

In the footage, Dugan can be seen confronting federal agents in the hallway outside her courtroom, then directing them away to speak to the chief judge.

The FBI charging document notes that after learning of the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Dugan and another judge approached members of the arrest team in the public hallway.

The document notes further that Dugan, who was "visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor," told the deportation officer to leave the courthouse. After the officer indicated he had an administrative warrant, Dugan allegedly suggested that he instead needed a judicial warrant.

The judge then allegedly ordered the deportation officer and other federal agents to report to the chief judge's office.

'Hannah Dugan should be barred from ever serving as a judge again.'

Seizing upon the distraction, the Mexican national and his attorney can be seen in the video sneaking out of Dugan's courtroom through a jury door not open to the public.

Additional footage obtained by WISN shows Flores-Ruiz take off running upon exiting the building while federal agents gave chase.

RELATED: Dems condemn Trump admin over arrest of judge who allegedly helped illegal alien escape: 'A red line'

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Despite Dugan's alleged efforts, law enforcement was ultimately able to capture Flores-Ruiz. The illegal alien reportedly remains in federal custody.

The Department of Homeland Security previously 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."

Dugan pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on May 15.

After seeing the footage, Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany (Wisc.) stated, "Hannah Dugan should be barred from ever serving as a judge again. A judge who puts criminal illegal aliens above victims has no place in our courts."

RELATED: Tom Homan to Glenn Beck: Tim Walz 'disgusting' for comparing ICE to 'Gestapo' — Eric Swalwell not 'above the law'

Last week, Dugan's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset."

'These plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity.'

Her attorneys cited the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

Dugan's attorneys noted that even if "Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution."

While she had no luck with her motion to dismiss, Dugan landed an anti-Trump judge with an apparent ax to grind.

Blaze News previously reported that Lynn Adelman, the Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge presiding over Dugan's case, is a former Democratic state senator with 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."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Truckers File Lawsuit Arguing They Shouldn’t Lose Second Amendment Rights Just Because They Cross State Lines

A complaint challenges Minnesota’s refusal to recognize lawfully issued firearms permits of 29 other states.

Nebraska Supreme Court Rules That Felons May Vote

'This decision is a victory for Nebraskans'

Records Fail To Verify That Second Alleged Would-Be Assassin Ever Voted For Trump

Although Routh claimed that he voted for Trump in 2016, there is no record of him voting that year in his then-home state.

Virginia Democrat Councilman Charged With Election Fraud, Illegal Voting

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screenshot-2024-07-26-at-5.30.21 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screenshot-2024-07-26-at-5.30.21%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Virginia State Police arrested Liam Watson, a 24-year-old Democrat operative, this week for election fraud.

Reversal of FATE: Steve Baker’s update on January 6 prisoners is ‘a good sign’



January 6 started as a chance for Trump supporters to innocently protest and quickly turned into a day that would change their lives forever.

Now, however, things might be taking a turn for the better.

“One J-sixer is seeing a reversal of fate,” Jill Savage of “Blaze New Tonight” explains.

“John Strand is actually one of the more, let’s call it, infamous stories, certainly one of the more high-profile cases of all the January 6 defendants,” Steve Baker tells Savage.

Strand was friend and bodyguard of Simone Gold — a doctor and attorney who was the deplatformed founder of the Frontline American Doctors. Gold had been accused of “disinformation” for recommending alternative therapies that were not part of what Baker calls the “approved narrative” regarding COVID-19.

Gold was scheduled to speak on January 6 at one of the six legally permitted events scheduled on the Capitol property that day.

“By the time they got to the Capitol, everything had gone to hell in a handbasket, and so there was nothing but chaos by the time they arrived. The breaches had already taken place. John Strand and Simone Gold did not participate in violence, they did not participate in breaching the Capitol building whatsoever,” Baker explains.

However, their fatal flaw was going inside the Capitol peacefully.

“She actually decided to deliver her prepared remarks there in the Rotunda. She climbed up on the Eisenhower statue, with John standing guard beside her, she delivered her remarks there in the great Rotunda of the Capitol, and then they peacefully left, just as so many other hundreds and thousands of people did,” Baker says.

Both Strand and Gold were “handed that infamous 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding felony.”

The felony carried up to 20 years of imprisonment.

Gold ended up taking a plea deal and pled down to a single misdemeanor. Judge Christopher Cooper sentenced her to 60 days in prison.

“John Strand decided he was not going to take this lying down, that he was going to be a warrior, and he, despite the odds being horribly stacked against him, he was going to go to trial and he did that,” Baker explains.

He was convicted on all counts, and he was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

“Now what’s happening is that because of the Supreme Court’s overturning the 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding charge against 355 defendants, him being one of those,” Baker says, “they’re shortening their sentences or letting them go.”

If they haven’t gone to trial yet, they’re not charging them with it.

“It’s especially a good sign because the Department of Justice has already announced that they want to figure out how to continue with that charge,” Baker explains. “But the point being, is it appears that the judges are pushing back against the DOJ.”

“We’ll take this as a good sign,” he adds.


'Just another box': Actress Kerry Washington claims Trump's conviction changes meaning of 'felon'



Actress Kerry Washington largely defended the label of "felon" in an interview where she said that President Trump's felony convictions have changed what the word will mean to many.

Pointing to a corrupt justice system, Washington said that "everything has changed."

Washington was interviewed by outlet Bustle while doing promotion for her show "UnPrisoned," a television series about a single mother whose father moves in after he gets out of prison. Washington has also starred in "Scandal," "Boston Legal," and "The Simpsons."

Due to the nature of her show, Washington was asked about the definition of "felon," and if it has changed due to Trump's conviction.

'Donald Trump may not be able to vote in his home state.'

"Everything has changed in terms of how I feel about the so-called justice system," Washington replied. "We're in such an interesting moment when it comes to [the question of], 'What is a felon?' I love what people have been sharing on social media, [saying that] if a person who is a convicted felon can still run for president, then we should be removing that box from job applications."

Bustle interviewer Kendra James pointed to the idea that the word would have a "different face" and not one that looks like the actor Delroy Lindo, who plays a felon in the aforementioned "UnPrisoned" series. The allusion to racial connections to the word felon is certainly strange given that Lindo is an incredibly recognizable actor, who has had roles in the movies "Malcolm X," "Get Shorty," and "The Devil's Advocate."

The reporter then stated to Washington, "If a felon can run for president, a felon should be able to vote. Full stop."

Washington then claimed that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been "trying to make it impossible in Trump's home state."

"A bill was passed in Florida to allow formerly incarcerated folks to vote, and DeSantis has been trying to do everything he can to [undercut] that. Donald Trump may not be able to vote in his home state," she claimed.

However, in late May 2024, DeSantis stated that he would ensure Trump would be able to vote in Florida and provide clemency if he had to.

"Given the absurd nature of the New York prosecution of Trump, this would be an easy case to qualify for restoration of rights per the Florida Clemency Board, which I chair," DeSantis said, according to Politico.

Washington's interview continued with racial and serial-activist themes, equating racist stereotypes with astrological stereotypes:

"Being a felon has become just another box that we put people in, to assume who they are and what they're capable of, in the same way we do with gender or race, or that I can do with astrology."

The actress added that the United States has begun to allow a kind of "psychological deepening with felons and returning citizens" and said she was excited that her show helps people "understand and connect to the humanity of returning citizens," by which she meant people getting released from prison.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democratic judge already facing removal over ethics violations arrested after allegedly attacking cop



Douglas County Probate Judge Christina Peterson faced 30 counts of ethics violations and a likely ouster by the Georgia Supreme Court when voters rejected her last month. On Thursday, things got a whole lot worse for the scandal-plagued Democrat.

The Atlanta Police Department indicated that around 3:18 a.m. on June 20, a police officer working an approved security gig had an unfortunate encounter with the 38-year-old judge. Upon hearing a commotion outside the nearby Red Martini Restaurant and Lounge on Peachtree Road, the officer went over to investigate and observed security escorting a woman out of the venue.

According to police, when the officer attempted to help de-escalate the situation, Peterson "rushed toward the commotion and immediately started screaming at the security guard and the officer."

The officer continued helping security escort the woman out, at which point the 140-pound judge allegedly pushed the officer in the chest and attempted to interfere with the removal effort.

After Peterson allegedly attacked the officer once more, he placed her under arrest. The arresting officer's bodycam footage shows Peterson's wig go flying prior to the officer handcuffing her and marching her away from the mob.

Peterson's trip to jail was apparently delayed by Peterson's refusal to cooperate or identify herself. She can be heard cussing out the arresting officer at the station and telling him to "shut the f*** up."

Fulton County Jail records indicated Peterson was charged with simple battery against a police officer as well as with felony willful obstruction of law enforcement officers by use of threats or violence.

Peterson provided an alternative account of what happened on her Instagram, noting, "This was a setup."

"Officer initially claimed he was charging me with disorderly conduct, all for trying to help a woman who was being attacked by men then took me to jail and I found out I'm being charged with a felony now," wrote Peterson. "Officer slammed me to the ground for helping this woman but let the attacker get away."

"They will stop at nothing to tarnish my character," added the Democratic judge.

Prior to her arrest on Thursday, Peterson's character was already well tarnished.

She has demonstrated a 'steadfast unwillingness to accept moral accountability.'

After conducting an investigation into allegations of misconduct against Peterson, the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission indicated in its Sept. 28, 2021, court filing regarding formal charges that the Democrat "has repeatedly violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to establish, maintain, and enforce high standards of conduct, failing to personally observe such standards of conduct so that the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary may be preserved, and failing to respect and comply with the law."

The director of the commission indicated in March 2024 that Peterson faced thirty counts regarding ten episodes of alleged misconduct.

Peterson is accused of improper social media posts; improper contact with represented parties during litigation; flouting courthouse security protocols to conduct a wedding after hours; obstructing access to public court records; "abusive interactions with a fellow judge and other county officials"; unnecessarily holding a woman in contempt and giving her the maximum jail sentence simply for trying to amend her marriage certificate; routine backdating of orders; "exhibiting judicial incompetence, administrative mismanagement, and indifference relating to a petition for year's support and letters of administration;" and of "systemic judicial incompetence."

"She has demonstrated a 'steadfast unwillingness to accept moral accountability' in nearly all the episodes of misconduct," concluded the commission's hearing panel's report.

The three-person hearing panel unanimously agreed that Peterson should be removed. The final decision regarding Peterson's removal is up to the Georgia Supreme Court, which will make its determination at a later date. Voters, however, simplified matters in the May 21 Democratic primary.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Peterson's successful primary challenger Valerie Vie will run unopposed in the November general election.

Fulton County commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr. indicated he is representing Peterson in her new criminal case, reported WAGA-TV.

Arrington told reporters, "Based on eyewitnesses and the female victim, we believe the videos will confirm that Judge Peterson should not have been arrested."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

You Might Be Living In A Banana Republic If…

Just in case you’re still wondering, perhaps it’s time to go Jeff Foxworthy on the question.