Evidence Contradicts Comey’s Claim That His Indictment Is Purely Political
U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan backed up the James Comey charges with evidence far surpassing what is necessary to survive a motion to dismiss.Letitia ‘No One Is Above The Law’ James Indicted For Mortgage Fraud
A Virginia grand jury indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday, according to reports. A jury of her peers in the Eastern District of Virginia made the decision to indicte James, and while the details of James’ indictment were not immediately available, Reuters reported James was indicted for bank fraud, citing a source […]DC grand juries prove unwilling to indict radicals accused of threatening to kill Trump
Nathalie Rose Jones of Lafayette, Indiana, was arrested in Washington, D.C., last month for allegedly threatening to kill President Donald Trump and transmitting threats across state lines.
Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C., indicated that "justice will be served"; however, an Obama judge and a grand jury comprising Washington residents evidently had other plans.
'The government may intend to try again to obtain an indictment, but the evidence has not changed.'
U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg, whom Attorney General Pam Bondi slapped in July with a misconduct complaint "for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration," overruled a magistrate judge last week and ordered Jones' release.
Boasberg told Jones, who recently participated in an anti-Trump protest outside the White House, to drive to New York City and meet with her psychiatrist.
Jones' attorneys revealed in a Monday court filing that a D.C. grand jury declined to indict her.
"The Honorable James E. Boasberg reversed the detention order on August 25, 2025, and released Ms. Jones to home detention," wrote the attorneys. "One of the factors the court considered in determining the conditions of release was the nature of the case and the weight of the evidence. A grand jury has now found no probable cause to indict Ms. Jones on the charged offenses."
"Given that finding, the weight of the evidence is weak," continued the attorneys. "The government may intend to try again to obtain an indictment, but the evidence has not changed and no indictment is likely."
RELATED: If ‘words are violence,’ why won’t the left own theirs?
The Department of Justice noted that among the 49-year-old woman's many alleged threats against the president was a statement on social media indicating a willingness to "sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea."
Prosecutors claimed that Jones — who a friend indicated in a character reference had spent some time in the Army Reserve — also said she "would take the president's life and would kill him at 'the compound' if she had to, that she had a 'bladed object,' which she said was the weapon she would use to 'carry out her mission of killing' the president, and that she wanted to 'avenge all the lives lost during the COVID-19 pandemic,' which she attributed to President Trump’s administration and its position on vaccinations."
In recent years, others have been indicted and ultimately convicted for far less graphic threats against Democrat presidents.
'The system here is broken on many levels.'
On Thursday, 20-year-old Troy Kelly of New York was convicted for threatening former President Joe Biden. Kelly said in response to a Biden post on social media that he was "gonna put a bullet in your head if I ever catch you."
Cody McCormick of Kansas was sentenced last year to nearly two years in prison for writing, "I will get a Greyhound bus ticket and go and shoot him," in reference to Biden.
Brandon Correa was sentenced in 2015 to 18 months in prison for posting a social media message directed to former President Barack Obama that said, "Im [sic] coming to watch you die."
Pirro said in a statement to Fox News, "A Washington, D.C., grand jury refused to indict someone who threatened to kill the president of the United States. Her intent was clear, traveling through five states to do so."
"She even confirmed the same to the U.S. Secret Service. This is the essence of a politicized jury. The system here is broken on many levels," continued Pirro. "Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in D.C. refuses to even let the judicial process begin. Justice should not depend on politics."
'I'm going to f**k your ass up.'
Blaze News has reached out to Pirro's office for additional comment as well as to the White House and the U.S. Secret Service. When pressed for comment, the USSS referred Blaze News to Pirro's office.
D.C. residents have repeatedly signaled an unwillingness to hold accountable those who allegedly threaten Trump or attack the federal agents keeping their city safe.
DOJ prosecutors recently told a magistrate judge that a grand jury also refused to indict Edward Alexander Dana, who is similarly accused of threatening President Trump, reported the Associated Press.
D.C. police responding to a report of destruction at a restaurant in the northwest of the city arrested Dana on Aug. 17. According to the U.S. Secret Service's affidavit in support of a criminal complaint, Dana allegedly told an officer wearing a body camera that he was affiliated with the Russian mafia and said, "I'm going to find out who you are, where you live, who you're married to, if any. ... I'm going to make sure that many people, not just me, come after you. ... I'm going to f**k your ass up."
The affidavit indicated that Dana then proceeded to threaten Trump's life, allegedly stating, "I'm not going to tolerate fascism. You see, I was adopted [inaudible] to protect the Constitution by any means necessary. And that means killing you, Officer, killing the president, killing anyone who stands in the way of our Constitution."
D.C. grand juries also recently refused to indict:
- Alvin Summers, an individual accused of fleeing from a U.S. Park Police officer who asked to see his identification, then assaulting the officer during a subsequent arrest attempt;
- Sidney Lori Reid, a D.C. resident charged in July with an alleged assault on an FBI agent who was assisting with the transfer of an alleged international gang member at the D.C. Central Detention Facility; and
- Sean Dunn, the former DOJ employee who was caught on video allegedly throwing a submarine sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer on Aug. 10.
DC Will Convict Praying Pro-Lifers But Not Activists Who Assault Immigration Officials
Crime will thrive as long as people can assault law enforcement officers on video, be charged, but feel no consequences from the court.Who ran the White House? Ask Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson under oath
The growing autopen scandal didn’t just reveal bureaucratic dysfunction — it exposed the collapse of constitutional order during Joe Biden’s presidency. For years, critics raised questions about Biden’s competence. But recent investigative findings paint a far darker picture. The debate is no longer about whether Biden was merely tired, was gaffe-prone, or had merely “lost his fastball.” The real question is much simpler: Who was actually running the White House?
The answer isn’t complicated.
Regret isn’t enough. Full transparency is overdue — and it should no longer be optional.
Our system, a constitutional republic, vests executive authority in one person: the president. Regardless of how Biden became president — an election I still view as a sham — the nation still required a functioning commander in chief. Instead, evidence suggests a collection of unelected individuals and committees assumed presidential authority. That arrangement shattered the illusion that America operates as a rules-based constitutional republic. It exposed a government that no longer plays by the rules it demands others follow.
And the rot didn’t end with staffers and shadow advisers. The media helped enable the fraud — and now looks to profit from revealing it. No one personifies that corruption more clearly than CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson.
These two aren’t reporting a story. They’re selling one.
Tapper and Thompson have launched a media campaign to sell books filled with information they sat on for years. Their book tour isn’t journalism — it’s content monetization, no different from a Netflix docudrama. They brag about interviewing hundreds of anonymous sources, including senior White House officials and members of Congress. But instead of naming names or holding anyone accountable, they offer sanitized narratives, tailored for profit.
This isn’t a game. It’s not entertainment. The past four years weren’t just marked by incompetence — they revealed a criminal breakdown at the heart of the executive branch. Tapper and Thompson claim to know who ran the country. They must now be treated not as pundits, but as witnesses.
Some will instinctively object: “The First Amendment protects journalists from revealing their sources!” That argument doesn’t hold up.
The Supreme Court settled this in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), ruling that reporters can be compelled to testify before a grand jury. “Reporter’s privilege,” as it’s known, doesn’t shield journalists from legal accountability — especially in criminal cases. And in this case, I don’t believe Tapper or Thompson even qualify as reporters. They wrote and published the book as private authors. Axios White House reporter Marc Caputo publicly stated the outlet has no financial interest in the book. Tapper and Thompson acted as media personalities, not journalists.
RELATED: The Great Biden Book War has finally begun
At worst, they’re no different from O.J. Simpson writing “If I Did It” — a confessional dressed up as a hypothetical, designed to sell books, not reveal truth.
Even if they claim journalist status, they should still face subpoenas. No one has a constitutional right to document a criminal conspiracy, repackage it as nonfiction, and profit from it while hiding the facts under a fake privilege. Tapper and Thompson have declared themselves central to the story. It’s time that the government treats them as such.
What crimes might be involved? For starters: false personation of a federal officer, forgery, deprivation of civil rights, conspiracy to exercise presidential power without authority, and quite possibly treason.
And that doesn’t include crimes tied to autopenned pardons — some of which President Trump has declared void. Plenty of potential charges exist.
Tapper and Thompson claim to hold the road map. Both have expressed hollow regrets over how the press handled Biden’s presidency. Regret isn’t enough. Full transparency is overdue — and it should no longer be optional. If federal investigators do their jobs, both men should face questioning under oath.
Whether the Department of Justice or FBI steps up remains an open question. President Trump has called for accountability since his inauguration. These agencies have failed to act. But the window for delay is closing. Public patience is running out — and may already have expired.
Bringing the truth to light will require aggressive legal action. Prosecutors must bring charges. Biden staffers must face subpoenas. Executive privilege must be pierced. But the starting point couldn’t be clearer: Call in Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. Let them testify. They say they know what happened. Let’s put that claim to the test.
Senior DC prosecutor quits rather than get to bottom of fishy funding decision by Biden EPA
A career prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., abruptly tendered her resignation this week after a tug-of-war with Trump officials regarding a questionable Environmental Protection Agency grant issued under the Biden administration.
Denise Cheung, head of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office, announced her resignation Tuesday after interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin and others asked her to conduct a grand jury investigation into the unidentified multibillion-dollar grant.
Trump officials apparently suspect that the grant may be associated with wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States. However, after rifling through documents provided by the deputy attorney general's office, Cheung and colleagues determined that they did not have sufficient evidence to justify a grand jury probe, Reuters reported.
'Based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe there is sufficient evidence ... to tell the bank there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified.'
Trump officials then ordered Cheung to freeze the assets associated with the grant. After consulting with the FBI field office in D.C., Cheung wrote to the bank and recommended a "30-day administrative freeze on certain assets," she said in her resignation letter to Martin.
However, Martin and others were not satisfied. Martin then called Cheung Monday, "yelling at her for failing to do what acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove’s office had asked," according to the Washington Post, citing one unnamed source.
Trump officials then demanded that Cheung send a second letter to the bank to freeze more assets as part of a criminal investigation. Rather than comply, Cheung quit.
"When I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed that there was sufficient evidence," she wrote to Martin.
"Based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified."
In a letter to colleagues revealing her resignation after 24 years, Cheung struck the same self-important tone evident in other resignation letters. "This office is a special place," she wrote, according to the Post. "I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and I have executed this duty faithfully."
The U.S. attorney's office and Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
Just last week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that his office had uncovered $20 billion in taxpayer dollars that EPA officials had allegedly scurried to toss "off the Titanic" before President Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20. This money was "parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA" and subjected to little oversight, Zeldin claimed.
Though Zeldin noted that the bank is not suspected of any wrongdoing, he called for the bank to terminate its financial agent agreement and for the EPA to reassume responsibility for all of that money.
"The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over," Zeldin assured viewers of his X video.
— (@)
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
8 Bombshell Findings In Florida’s Grand Jury Report On Big Pharma’s Covid Shots
'Hiding the details, methodology and results of scores of safety investigations from public view does not build public confidence; it undermines it.'Kentucky sheriff who was accused of fatally shooting judge in his chambers indicted for murder
A Kentucky sheriff who was accused of fatally shooting a district judge in his chambers two months ago was indicted for murder Thursday.
Prosecuting attorney Jackie Steele said after a grand jury returned the indictment that he couldn't comment on an alleged motive, although police previously said Shawn “Mickey” Stines — then-sheriff of Letcher County — and Judge Kevin Mullins had argued just before the Sept. 19 shooting, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported.
'Everything seemed fine between them. There was no clue that anything was wrong at all. You wouldn't have guessed there was the slightest problem.'
Judge Julia H. Adams received the indictment and set Stines’ arraignment for next Monday, the paper said.
Stines turned himself in after the shooting and was charged with first-degree murder, the New York Times reported, citing police. He retired as sheriff less than two weeks after the shooting.
Stines — who's accused of shooting Mullins eight times — pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.
The shooting was captured on surveillance video. You can view the surveillance clip here; it omits the actual shots being fired, and it's included in a larger video report about the shooting. Spectators cried out in the Morgan County courtroom as the video played during a hearing last month, WDKY-TV reported.
Kentucky State Police Detective Clayton Stamper testified that the full video of the shooting shows Stines using his own phone to make multiple calls, then using the judge’s phone to make a call, the Louisville Courier Journal reported, adding that the shooting followed.
Stamper testified that the calls were to Stines’ daughter, the Courier Journal noted, and he said the phone number of Stines' daughter had been saved in the judge's phone and was called before the shooting. Stamper also said Stines stood up from his chair in the judge’s office after looking at Mullins’ phone and shot him seconds later, the Herald-Leader said.
The shooting is particularly curious since Stines and Mullins reportedly had been decades-long friends.
What's more, the pair went to lunch at the Streetside Grill & Bar on Main Street just hours before the shooting, the Daily Mail reported. A restaurant employee told the outlet that Stines and Mullins ordered their usual lunch — both having chicken wings with salad.
"Everything seemed fine between them. There was no clue that anything was wrong at all," an employee said. "You wouldn't have guessed there was the slightest problem."
A woman who reportedly works for the Letcher County Sheriff’s Office also gave her phone to investigators for examination, WDKY said, adding that Stamper testified that she was one of Stines’ employees and believed she’d received text messages from Stines that noted what occurred at lunch and led to the shooting.
Under cross-examination, Stamper said that when Stines "was taken into custody, I was told by one of the other officers that were there that he made the comment, ‘They’re trying to kidnap my wife and kid,'" WDKY added.
More from the Herald-Leader:
The crime could be eligible for the death penalty if Stines is convicted because Mullins was a public official. Steele, who is prosecuting the case with Attorney General Russell Coleman’s office, said there had been no decision yet on whether to seek the death penalty against Stines if he is convicted. However, Stines’ attorney, Jeremy Bartley, has said that he does not think the murder is the appropriate charge in the case.
Bartley said at the Oct. 1 hearing that the evidence offered there pointed to the shooting as being an act of “extreme emotional disturbance” in reaction to something Stines had seen on Mullins’ phone.
There was no information at the hearing about what was on the phone. If a jury decided Stines acted out of extreme emotional disturbance, he couldn’t be convicted of murder, but rather first-degree manslaughter or a lesser crime. The death penalty would not be an option in that case.
You can view a video report here about Thursday's murder indictment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Here Are The 3 Biggest Findings In Florida’s Grand Jury Report On Covid ‘Wrongdoing’
A new grand jury report contains damning information about how the 'expert' class did not, in fact, 'follow the science' on Covid.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com