reSee.it - Related Post Feed

julie_kelly2
Posted - December 21, 2023 at 2:33 PM
Saved - December 21, 2023 at 2:57 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese has filed a petition with the Supreme Court, urging them to deny Jack Smith's request to expedite his appeal. Meese argues that Merrick Garland's appointment of a special counsel without statutory authority is a violation of the law. This highlights the unlawfulness of Smith's appointment.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Court filings coming fast and furious this week but this is a stunner. Former AG Edwin Meese asks SCOTUS to deny Jack Smith's petition to expedite appeal of immunity ruling, argues Merrick Garland broke the law by appointing a special counsel w/o statutory authority: https://t.co/bQotoykndS

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

While noting other special counsels have been US Attorneys, Meese's amici curiae petition (meaning doesn't side with either party) underscores how Smith's appointment is unlawful.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Which brings to mind this clip... https://t.co/9zwjKGZ3tE

Bubblebathgirl
Posted - June 4, 2024 at 7:24 PM
Saved - June 5, 2024 at 9:42 PM

@Bubblebathgirl - Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

Rep. Thomas Massie just left Merrick Garland totally dumbfounded by exposing how Garland unconstitutionally appointed Jack Smith as special counsel even though Garland doesn’t have the authority to do so. Impeach and remove Garland! https://t.co/Cfk0uRvb5M

Video Transcript AI Summary
Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government. Translation: Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was Jack Smith nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the US Senate? Look, you're asking me about a case. Again, motions filed as just cited in that court. Question. No. I'm not Is Jack Smith nominated by president Biden? No. He was not. Was he confirmed by the senate? No. He was not. When was the special counsel statute passed? There is no special counsel statute. There was an independent counsel statute that was expired. So it expired. So what gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel? You've created an office in the in the US government that does not exist without authorization from Congress.
RepThomasMassie
Posted - July 15, 2024 at 2:29 PM
Saved - July 15, 2024 at 4:10 PM

@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie

🚨 Last month I questioned AG Garland about the constitutionality of Jack Smith’s appointment. He did not have good answers. Fast forward: Judge Cannon just dismissed the classified documents case against Trump citing the unconstitutionality of Smith’s appointment!

@RepThomasMassie - Thomas Massie

Is Special Counsel Jack Smith's office Constitutional? Unlike U.S. Attorneys, he wasn't appointed by the President and wasn't confirmed by the Senate. Congress never even authorized a Special Counsel office to exist. We shouldn’t pretend this position is legal or independent. https://t.co/3UOvvP0Aoo

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the authority of Jack Smith to represent the United States without nomination or confirmation. The discussion delves into the legality of Smith's appointment and the role of US attorneys under the Appointments Clause. The conversation also touches on the handling of January 6 protesters and potential Supreme Court rulings. The speaker raises concerns about excessive sentencing and the upcoming inspector general report on DOJ's response to the Capitol events. The attorney general emphasizes the independence of the inspector general and commits to following the law.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gentleman from Speaker 1: Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes. I'm asking that the gentleman I have Unanimous consent request. Has unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an amicus brief by the former attorney general Edwin Meese. Without objection. The the question presented is whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States. I also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article titled, was it legal to appoint Jack Smith in the 1st place? This is a heritage publication. Objection. I wanna start by reading you the appointment clause of the constitution. Article 2, section 2, clause 6 states the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law. Are US attorneys nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate according to this Appointments Clause? Speaker 0: They are appointed, by the president and confirmed by the senate. Speaker 1: When you agree that US attorneys are held to the Appointments Clause because they are delegated some part of the sovereign power of the United States, such as the ability to make indictments and charge individuals with crime crimes? Speaker 0: I would say that those are not the reasons why. And a court has already ruled on the question of whether special counsels are subject to the appointments clause, in the Mueller case and ruled that they were not. Was this Speaker 1: matter Jack Smith was Jack Smith nominated by president Biden or confirmed by the US senate? Speaker 0: Look. You're asking me about a case. Again, motions filed as just Biden Speaker 1: and I were Speaker 0: question. No. I'm not Is Speaker 1: Jack Smith nominated by president Biden? Speaker 0: No. He was not. Speaker 1: Was he confirmed by the senate? Speaker 0: No. He was not. Speaker 1: When was the special counsel statute passed? Speaker 0: There is no special counsel statute. There was an independent counsel statute that was, expired. Speaker 1: So it expired. So what gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel? To create you've created an office in the in the US government that does not exist without authorization from Congress. Speaker 0: There are regulations under which the attorney general appoints special counsel. They've been in effect, for 30 years, maybe longer, under parties of under both parties. The matter that you're talking about about whether somebody can have an employee of the justice department serve as special counsel has been adjudicated. Speaker 1: You you appealed let me let me interrupt for a second because you appealed to a regulation, a rule, whereas the constitution says shall be established by law. Yeah. The statute The statutes? Right. The statute. But you referred to a regulation, not to US code. Speaker 0: Regulate may I answer the regulation cites the 2, US code, provisions that permit, the attorney general's appointment. Attorney General Barr cited to the same ones. Are you familiar attorney general Meese did that. Speaker 1: Are are you familiar with former attorney general Meese's amicus brief? No. You're not? Speaker 0: I know that he that he's filed one because I read it in the newspapers, but otherwise, I'm not familiar with it. Speaker 1: Well, he raises some good questions that I agree with in there. It seems like you've created an office, that would require an act of Congress, yet there's not an act of Congress that authorizes that. And even if it didn't require an act of Congress and you've already admitted it, there was no act of Congress that established this office it would still require, according to the Constitution, a nomination by the president and confirmation by a senate. I wanna move on, to January 6. Is it accurate to say that the DOJ is on pace to arrest roughly 1 protester a day in 2024, nearly 3 years after the incident? Speaker 0: I don't know what the pace is. His job is to arrest, and bring to justice people who are criminally responsible. And as they are found, they will be arrested. Speaker 1: Is your office preparing to drop charges against more than 340 January 6th. There's charged with 1512 c 2 and released dozens from prison on that count if the Supreme Court this month reverses how your department has used that statute against them? Speaker 0: We respect the Supreme Court. Whatever the court rules, we will act appropriately. Speaker 1: So you'll have to drop the charges if the supreme court says that you you Speaker 0: did that wrongfully. Answer hypotheticals. We'll wait and see what the supreme court says. Speaker 1: What are you saying in response to DC appellate court overturning 2 excessive sentencing requests sought by your office? Speaker 0: I say that's that is a, United States system of justice working. If people think that they have inappropriate sentences, they can appeal their sentences. That's the way our system works. And we respect the results. Speaker 1: So you've you've refused to answer questions before us, including my questions about January 6th on on multiple occasions here in this committee. But the inspector general is preparing a report. Are you in receipt of that report yet? He's he's promised to, examine the role and activity of DOJ and its components in preparing for and responding to the events at the US Capitol. You have are you in receipt of that? Speaker 0: I'm not in receipt of an airport. You'll have to ask the inspector general. Speaker 1: Isn't it true that it'll go to you before it's released for review? Speaker 0: I I don't know about the it will not go to me for review if the inspector general's independent. I hope to see it before, but, that's up to the inspector general. Let me just remind you, I was not the attorney general in January. Speaker 1: Do we have your commitment to release that as soon as you Speaker 0: see it? The determination of of of the release of inspector general reports is up to the inspector general. We give them independence. Congress demands Speaker 1: that we give them independence. My time has expired, but we so we have your commitment not to slow down that the release of that from the inspector general? Speaker 0: Our inspector general is a very independent person. There's no way I could stop him from doing what the law requires. I yield back. I would certainly never do that. Speaker 1: Gentleman yields back.
DonaldJTrumpJr
Posted - July 15, 2024 at 2:30 PM
Saved - July 15, 2024 at 4:40 PM

@DonaldJTrumpJr - Donald Trump Jr.

Documents case dismissed! Another example of weaponized injustice down the tubes. Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, and their Democrat henchman take another L. If we eliminate this nonsense once and for all this incredible country still stands a chance! Can’t stop winning!!!

@bhweingarten - Benjamin Weingarten

Judge Cannon just absolutely eviscerated Joe Biden's Justice Department: "Both the Appointments and Appropriations challenges as framed in the Motion raise the following threshold question: is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no. None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment— 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533—gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith. Nor do the Special Counsel’s strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0_2.pdf#page=2

MarioNawfal
Posted - December 26, 2024 at 6:45 AM
Saved - December 26, 2024 at 3:03 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A recent court ruling has affirmed that presidents have the authority to dismiss political appointees, a power Biden used to remove Trump-era members. Trump plans to leverage this in a potential second term, with Sean Spicer describing it as a game-changer that could allow Trump to "fire everyone" on day one. With figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy advocating for workforce reductions, federal employees may experience significant changes under a Trump administration.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🇺🇸TRUMP'S "YOU'RE FIRED" PLAN JUST GOT COURT BACKING A recent court ruling confirmed presidents can dismiss political appointees, like military academy board members—used by Biden to oust Trump-era picks. Now, Trump plans to wield this same power in a second term. Sean Spicer, Former White House Press Secretary, called it a game-changer, claiming Trump could “fire everyone” on day one. The court agreed the president’s power to appoint includes the power to remove. With Elon and Vivek pushing workforce cuts, federal employees could face unprecedented shakeups under Trump 2.0. Buckle up! Source: MSN, Knewz

mrddmia
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 8:06 PM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 2:37 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Supreme Court needs to act swiftly to protect the President's Article II powers, as activist judges are undermining the judiciary's legitimacy. A recent ruling by Judge Paul Engelmayer prevents political appointees from accessing Treasury data, based on unfounded conspiracy theories, without allowing Trump's legal team to respond. This order disrupts the Treasury's functioning and elevates unelected bureaucrats over elected officials. Such lawlessness poses a serious threat, and if this ruling becomes permanent, the Trump Administration should consider defiance.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

The Supreme Court must step in quickly and decisively on the emergency docket, as activist judges are illegally sabotaging the Article II power of the President. Otherwise, the judiciary will lose its legitimacy—then its funding. (Do your jobs without law clerks, for example.)

@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk

New York Judge Paul Engelmayer just forbade all political appointees — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — from accessing Dept. of Treasury data, all based on Blueanon conspiracy theories!! Those theories couldn't be challenged because the order was EX PARTE — meaning Trump's lawyers weren't warned, and couldn't weigh in. Only Democrat Attorneys General were allowed to argue. The judge cites no law or logic to support this unprecedented order, because it defies both. The judge’s ruling is, in essence, that Scott Bessent simply occupies a ceremonial position without real power, like the King of England. This is a grenade thrown into the functioning of the Treasury Department. It forbids the elected government from accessing information about budget and finances. Instead, only the permanent, deep-state government can know what's being spent. It means Scott Bessent's subordinates have far more power than Scott Bessent does. Democrat pundits who whine about the Constitution are liars, and will shred it the first chance they get. For now, the order is only for the next week, but if a court tries to make it permanent the Trump Administration should absolutely consider defying it. Better yet, SCOTUS should bar this judge from ever hearing similar cases again, and every Democrat lawyer involved should be sanctioned.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

https://t.co/8ckgqudwBW

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

A judge ruled the President of the United States and his team are not allowed to ask the unelected, career Executive Branch bureaucrats who work for them for information so the President can stop waste, fraud, and abuse. Do you understand how lawless and dangerous this is?

mrddmia
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 2:44 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm working on legislation to reform the DC U.S. District Court, which I believe is severely flawed. I'm considering eliminating the unconstitutional DC Superior Court and reallocating responsibilities to current judges, while also involving judges from across the country for other cases. There's a pressing need to address the 13 vacancies in the DC Superior Court. Additionally, I find recent judicial decisions, like the one from Judge Carl Nichols, to be overreaching and indicative of a disconnect between these judges and the realities faced by everyday Americans.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

100% At @Article3Project, we're drafting legislation to "reform" the DC U.S. District Court--the worst of the worst. Maybe we get rid of the (unconstitutional) DC Superior Court, make current DC U.S. District Court judges handle DC street crimes, cut their budgets, and randomly draw U.S. judges from across America to sit by designation for all other DC cases?

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@mrddmia Defund DC courts. That’s the answer

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

Seems like the ideal time to get rid of the (unconstitutional) DC Superior Court:

@elainemittleman - Elaine Mittleman

DC Superior Court has 13 vacancies. The vacancy date for Judge Morin was 9/30/2020. A replacement was nominated on 3/20/2024. Nauta attorney Stanley Woodward complained in MAL case that DOJ attorney Jay Bratt had threatened him about Woodward’s possible judgeship nomination.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

Looks like we already got a great U.S. senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee to sponsor the legislation:

@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee

Interesting idea

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

The temporary-restraining order by DC U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols against the President's USAID personnel decisions is truly lawless and dangerous. (The President cannot order U.S. officials overseas to come home within 30 days? Seriously? Judges actually think they have that power?) Nichols proves even former Clarence Thomas clerks who go DC big-law are unreliable picks for the federal bench.

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

Translation: Former Gorsuch clerks dismantling the Deep State (While former Thomas clerk Carl Nichols protects it) https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-doge-lawyers-supreme-court

The Elite Lawyers Working for Elon Musk’s DOGE Include Former Supreme Court Clerks Much attention has been paid to the young Silicon Valley engineers working for Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, but the group has also hired high-powered legal talent. propublica.org

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

https://t.co/2gG50CzeyN

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

These DC uniparty judges are shockingly insulated from Real Americans in Real America. They are arrogant and delusional enough to believe they are saving America from Trump. Even though Trump campaigned on doing precisely what he’s doing. And won a decisive electoral mandate.

LauraLoomer
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 11:26 PM
Saved - February 9, 2025 at 3:19 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
President Trump has revoked the security clearances of eight individuals he labels as Democrat lawfare agents, including Alvin Bragg and Letitia James. They are now prohibited from entering Federal buildings due to allegations of illegal election interference. I mentioned that this weekend would be eventful, and it seems there's more to come. A source at the White House hinted that additional changes are on the horizon. Stay tuned!

@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer

President Trump just REVOKED the security clearances of the following 8 Democrat lawfare agents: 1.Alvin Bragg 2. Letitia James 3. Anthony Blinken 4. Jake Sullivan 5. Lisa Monaco 6. Andrew Weissmann 7. Mark Zaid 8. Norm Eisen They are now forbidden from walking inside any Federal buildings since they illegally weaponized law fare to carry out election interference . I told you it would be a spicy weekend full of firings and demotions! 👀 🔥 A little birdie at the White House told me… Stay tuned! Even MORE is coming this weekend.

@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer

SCOOP: White House Source tells me President Trump will be firing even more DC bureaucrats throughout the weekend. It’s getting spicy at the White House this evening with a Friday night FIRE special! 🔥🔥🔥🔥 PresidenT @realDonaldTrump has dismissed the Kennedy Center, the Archivist, and the Visitor boards of Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard! Biden lost his security clearance, and I have been told by White House sources there is WAY more firings and announcements coming! @SusieWiles @SergioGor

julie_kelly2
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 1:47 AM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 2:08 AM

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

For four years, these same DC judges routinely lamented attempts to “overthrow democracy” on Jan 6. Now these same unelected judges are defying the will of a president who won at least 77 million votes to protect unelected nameless bureaucrats.

@kyledcheney - Kyle Cheney

JUST IN: Judge Amy Berman Jackson becomes the 5th judge *today* to block an aspect of Trump's early-term orders, this time the firing of ethics watchdog Hampton Dellinger. And night isn't over. yet ... https://t.co/dUaxwZeOmq

amuse
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 1:39 PM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 1:33 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
An Obama-appointed judge has ruled that President Trump must collaborate with Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, appointed by Biden, instead of his own legal team, prohibiting him from selecting another Special Counsel. Additionally, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is intended to resolve federal employment disputes, ensuring fairness and integrity. However, some federal employees are bypassing this process by seeking sympathetic judges for politically motivated reinstatements, undermining the rule of law and the intended separation of powers. Employees should follow the established MSPB procedures instead.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: An Obama-appointed judge ruled that President Trump must work with Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, a Biden-appointed official, instead of his own chosen legal counsel. Judge Jackson issued an order mandating Dellinger represent the president and barred Trump from appointing any other Special Counsel.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) exists precisely to handle disputes over federal employment decisions, including claims of wrongful termination due to political reasons. This process is designed to ensure that federal employees are treated fairly while also maintaining the integrity of the civil service system. The problem arises when federal employees, rather than following the proper administrative procedures, seek out sympathetic judges who may disregard established legal channels to issue politically motivated reinstatements. This undermines both the rule of law and the structure Congress set up for handling these disputes. Judicial intervention in such cases—when it bypasses the MSPB and lacks legal authority—amounts to judicial fiat, an overreach that erodes separation of powers and politicizes the judiciary. If an employee truly believes their termination was unlawful, they should go through the MSPB process, appeal any adverse decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (as provided by statute), and abide by the system designed to handle such disputes—not forum shop for an activist judge to rewrite the rules. h/t @BasedMikeLee

mrddmia
Posted - February 14, 2025 at 4:25 AM
Saved - February 14, 2025 at 12:44 PM

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

This is insane. A DC federal judge has ordered the commander-in-chief not to bring home overseas foreign-service officers. This is lawless. And a dangerous sabotage of the President’s Article II constitutional powers. (Maybe this judge has a conflict of interest?) https://t.co/VOnWOQmOES

julie_kelly2
Posted - February 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Saved - February 18, 2025 at 7:32 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I feel like my birthday came early with the recent news from the DOJ. Denise Cheung, a former aide to Eric Holder, resigned as head of the criminal division for the DC US Attorney's office, reportedly defying an order related to contracts under the Biden administration. She claimed her decision was based on her oath to the Constitution. However, I question her commitment to that oath when she was involved in investigating Trump and pursuing cases against Bannon and Navarro. This period reveals the true nature of some DOJ prosecutors as self-serving and unaccountable.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

I feel like my birthday came 7 months early today with all the amazing news out of DOJ. Denise Cheung, a former top aide to Eric Holderr, just quit her role as head of criminal division for the DC US Attorney's office. She was promoted to that position by Matthew Graves, the former DC US attorney. Reports say she--apparently taking the Danielle Sassoon route of defying an order--resigned rather than look into contract awarded under the Biden adm and potentially freeze the contractor's assets. She, like Danielle Sassoon, claimed the request ran contrary to her oath "o support and defend the Constitution." OH REALLY DENISE? Where was this dedication to your "oath" when Graves promoted you to chief of the criminal division to help investigate President Trump over Jan 6? Or when your office helped pursue convictions of Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro? Or round up almost 1,600 Americans who protested the 2020 election on January 6? What a clarifying period for the DOJ as these prosecutors reveals themselves to be exactly who we thought they were--self-serving, unaccountable, and arrogant Democratic operatives LARPing as government lawyers.

julie_kelly2
Posted - February 25, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Saved - February 25, 2025 at 11:41 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I appreciate the ongoing legal developments surrounding Hampton Dellinger, who remains in his position despite being fired by the president. Dellinger argues he has a right to a five-year term and can only be removed for cause. While some claim his authority is limited, he has filed a request to reinstate six probationary employees dismissed under a Trump executive order. His complaint emphasizes that probationary employees can only be terminated for performance issues unless proper procedures for a reduction in force are followed.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Thanks to Obama judge Amy Berman Jackson and SCOTUS, Hampton Dellinger--the Biden family friend and head of Office of Special Counsel--is still on the job despite being fired by the president on Feb. 7. Dellinger insists he is entitled to a five-year term and can only be removed "with cause." The temp restraining order entered by Trump hater ABJ expires tomorrow night. Defenders of Dellinger claim he has no real authority, so the TRO is no biggie. But on the same day SCOTUS refused to vacate the TRO, Dellinger asked the Merit Systems Protection Board to reinstate 6 probationary employees at 6 departments dismissed under Pres Trump's exec order related to DOGE. Probationary govt employees are on the job btw 1-2 years before all their civil service rights kick in. Dellinger claims the president needed to show "cause" on an independent basis for each employee before they could be lawfully terminated. In a 20-page complaint (h/t Kyle Cheney) that looks like a court motion, Dellinger states: "In most cases, probationary employees in the competitive service may only be terminated if their performance or conduct demonstrates that they are unfit for federal employment. If agencies wish to terminate probationary employees not for performance or conduct, but as part of a general restructuring or downsizing, they must initiate a reduction in force (RIF) and follow the relevant procedures for that process." Dellinger wants the MSPB--made up of 3 Biden appointees including the chairwoman who was also reinstated to her post by a DC judge after she also was dismissed--to reinstate the 6 probationary employees for at least 45 days.

julie_kelly2
Posted - February 27, 2025 at 2:30 PM
Saved - February 27, 2025 at 8:25 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I noted that Hampton Dellinger's lawyers filed a response at SCOTUS regarding his use of executive power to reinstate fired federal employees, astonishingly blaming the board handling his complaints. I found it curious that the DOJ didn't address this in the hearing, possibly due to lack of briefing. Dellinger is now boasting about his success online. His request for a stay involved the firing of six probationary employees under a presidential order. His lawyers' claims about his position are questionable, and this situation could provide ammunition for lawsuits against the administration.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

NEW: Hampton Dellinger's lawyers filed a letter at SCOTUS responding to DOJ's letter to SCOTUS detailing how Dellinger was using executive power to reinstate fired federal employees. Dellinger's lawyers astonishingly blame the board who handles his complaints. https://t.co/eFib7xiUiQ

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

I was curious why DOJ didn't raise this in the hearing yesterday--perhaps because it hadn't been briefed. But Dellinger sent his requests last Friday and the MSPB granted his requests Tuesday, the day before the hearing. Dellinger now BRAGGING about his success on website https://t.co/WLO5tEwkkG

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

To reiterate: the "stay" that Dellinger sought--and to DOJ's point yesterday, the OSC and MSPB act as prosecutor and judge, respectively--was the firing of 6 probationary federal employees who were dismissed under the president's exec order to pare back federal workforce. Dellinger--whose lawyers now laughable claim he's an "inferior" officer and does not report to the president (despite the fact the Office of Special Counsel is nominated by president and confirmed by Senate)--is undoubtedly exercising executive authority to thwart a duly issued presidential directive. Dellinger also indicated this is just the beginning of what the OSC plans to do if he remains in his job. These requests and stays give lawyers representing govt employees in numerous lawsuits against the administration grist for their arguments. "See even the independent OSC and independent MSPB agree these firings are unlawful!" At any rate--at least the president has "for cause" reason to fire Dellinger (again) if that's what it comes to. Shame on SCOTUS for not ending this farce last week. They are directly to blame for the reinstatement of 6 fired federal workers with more to come.

julie_kelly2
Posted - March 11, 2025 at 12:03 AM
Saved - March 11, 2025 at 2:11 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The DC appellate court has ruled on President Trump's motion regarding Judge Amy Berman Jackson's reinstatement of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger. The court highlighted how Dellinger used his authority to counteract Trump's efforts to reduce the federal workforce, successfully reinstating fired probationary employees. This raises concerns about the extent of the Special Counsel's powers. Dellinger is now attempting to withdraw his lawsuit against the president for his firing, as the court questions the balance of public interest between the Special Counsel and the executive branch.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

NEW: DC appellate court decision related to granting Pres Trump's motion to put on hold Judge Amy Berman Jackson's order reinstating Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger is out--and it's a doozy:

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

The appellate panel notes how Dellinger--as I first predicted and proved true--used his power to thwart Pres Trump's agenda to reduce the federal workforce "The government has sufficiently demonstrated that Dellinger exercises at least enough authority to contradict the President’s directives. " (Dellinger successfully reinstated 6 probationary federal employees fired by the president and then sought to reinstate thousands of USDA probationary employees fired by the president.) "To be able to obtain the reinstatement of thousands of employees in a single agency, even if only temporarily, with such a vague standard of review seems to suggest the Special Counsel’s powers are not as limited as he claims." Brutal. This is why Dellinger now is trying to abandon his lawsuit against the president for firing him on Feb 7 without cause per the statute.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

More: "Never mind the tension between Dellinger’s assertions that OSC is critically important to the public interest but simultaneously lacks significant executive power. The more obvious problem is that it is not clear how we could balance the Special Counsel’s asserted public interest against the public interest asserted by the rest of the executive branch." My recent explainer here. (And don't forget the "legal experts" who claimed Dellinger could do no harm while he remained in that office temporarily. Multiple judges have now effectively refuted that dumb argument.) https://www.declassified.live/p/hampton-dellinger-unemployed-for?r=4yy1i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

Hampton Dellinger Unemployed--For Now A three-judge panel of the DC appellate court just put a hold on Judge Amy Berman Jackson's order reinstating Dellinger as head of Office of Special Counsel. But the fight isn't over yet. declassified.live
elonmusk
Posted - March 12, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Saved - March 13, 2025 at 3:39 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk expressed surprise regarding Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee known for opposing Donald Trump. A user highlighted five significant rulings by Howell against Trump: blocking parts of an executive order targeting Perkins Coie, ordering Trump lawyers to testify in the January 6 probe, upholding a subpoena for Trump Hotel records, holding Trump in contempt for non-compliance with a grand jury subpoena, and rejecting Trump's attempt to block access to White House records related to the January 6 Committee.

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Wow

@nicksortor - Nick Sortor

🚨 #BREAKING: A federal judge has BLOCKED President Trump from revoking the security clearance of Perkins Coie, the law firm which helped develop the Russia Hoax WTF? These activist judges HAVE TO GO. How can a judge FORCE the President to give someone a security clearance?! https://t.co/PW1SrLqEQT

@floridanow1 - floridanow1

It's DC's Judge Howell again. Judge Howell (Obama appointed) has always fought anything Trump does. Here are five notable rulings by U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell against Donald Trump or his administration: March 12, 2025 - Perkins Coie Executive Order: Howell blocked parts of Trump’s March 6 order targeting Perkins Coie, halting contract terminations and access bans. She ruled it violated free speech and due process, deeming it a loyalty punishment, though security clearance restrictions await further review. November 18, 2022 - Trump Attorney Testimony: Howell ordered Trump lawyers, including Evan Corcoran, to testify in a January 6 probe, rejecting privilege claims. She found evidence of potential crimes (obstruction, fraud) in Mar-a-Lago document handling, advancing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. August 31, 2021 - Trump Hotel Records: Howell upheld a House subpoena for Trump Organization’s D.C. hotel financials, dismissing executive privilege. She ruled Congress had a legitimate need to probe conflicts of interest during Trump’s presidency, favoring oversight over privacy claims. December 9, 2022 - Trump Contempt Ruling: Howell held Trump’s office in contempt for failing to fully comply with a grand jury subpoena for classified documents. She imposed no immediate penalty but warned of sanctions, escalating pressure in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. October 29, 2021 - Trump White House Records: Howell rejected Trump’s bid to block January 6 Committee access to White House records, denying executive privilege. She ruled Biden’s waiver and Congress’s need to investigate the Capitol riot outweighed Trump’s claims, releasing call logs and memos.

KevinMNelsonUSA
Posted - March 13, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 1:47 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Spicer v. Biden was a pivotal case concerning the President's power to terminate executive branch employees. The plaintiffs anticipated a loss, yet the Supreme Court ruled that the President, in this case Biden, has the authority to fire anyone at will. However, as we look ahead to 2025, it seems federal judges are disregarding this precedent regarding Trump's terminations in various agencies. I find it troubling that this kind of judicial activism is being allowed to persist in light of the Spicer v. Biden decision.

@KevinMNelsonUSA - Kevin M. Nelson

Spicer v. Biden was the most ingenious and consequential case regarding Presidential authority to terminate employees of the executive branch. A strategic case that the plaintiffs knew they would ultimately lose, resulted in SCOTUS deciding that the President (Biden at the time) had unlimited authority to fire anyone he wanted. Fast forward to 2025, and federal judges are blatantly ignoring this precedent in regard to Trump’s terminations at various agencies. There is no way this judicial activism should stand in light of Spicer v. Biden.

angelwoman501
Posted - March 13, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Saved - March 13, 2025 at 11:53 PM

@angelwoman501 - Patriot Lady

This is another federal activist judge who has blocked President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training. When is SCOTUS going to put a stop to these judges interfering with President Trump's article II rights? https://t.co/s3bJbENymI

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

Meet the federal Judge who just blocked President Trump’s cuts to DEI teacher training. His resume is full of DEI activism, he served on the board of groups currently suing President Trump, and trained far-left activists how to avoid arrests during protests. 🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/KSp77nbT2X

angelwoman501
Posted - March 13, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 1:11 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The discussion centers on a federal judge blocking President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training, prompting concerns about judicial overreach. One participant argues that the judiciary is unconstitutionally influenced by popular vote, undermining the rule of law and equal protection. They assert that this creates an anti-Republican democracy rather than a constitutional republic, as outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The conversation emphasizes the need for an independent judiciary and proper representation to restore constitutional governance.

@angelwoman501 - Patriot Lady

This is another federal activist judge who has blocked President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training. When is SCOTUS going to put a stop to these judges interfering with President Trump's article II rights? https://t.co/s3bJbENymI

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

Meet the federal Judge who just blocked President Trump’s cuts to DEI teacher training. His resume is full of DEI activism, he served on the board of groups currently suing President Trump, and trained far-left activists how to avoid arrests during protests. 🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/KSp77nbT2X

@NGorhamA4S4 - NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫

@angelwoman501 @Ikennect This Is Why It Is Happening. There Is NO RULE OF LAW, Or Equal Protection Under The Law, When State And Federal Judiciary Are Seated Unconstitutionally Via Direct And Indirect Popular Vote, From The Most Populace Counties, And Cities In Those Counties, In All 50 States, Territories And Possessions. That Form Of Government Is A Anti-Republican Unconstitutional Representative Constitutional Democracy. Which Is Unconstitutional As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution, Which Says; “Guarantee Clause ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” There Are Supposed To Be Three Voices Represented In Our Federal Government, Hence The Three Branches. The Voice Of The People, Represented In State And Federal Houses Of Representatives. The Voice Of The State Represented In State And Federal Senates. The Voice Of The Law, The State And Federal Judiciary. Right Now, Which Is The Problem, The Voice Of The People, Which Is Already Represented In State And Federal Houses Of Representatives, Via Direct Popular Vote. Seats The Voice Of The State And The Law From The Same Voting Pool, Which Is Only The Most Populous Counties, And Cities In Those Counties. That Means, ONLY That Voting Pool Has Any Representation In Our State And Federal Government. And That Form Of Government Is A Unconstitutional Democracy Form Of Government, As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution. Which Says The United States Shall Guarantee A Republican Form Of Government To The States, And NOT A MOB Seated Democracy! It Is Impossible To Be A Constitutional Republic, When State And Federal Judiciary Are Seated By Direct And Indirect Popular Vote, ONLY From The Most Populous Counties And Cities In Them Because They Have The Population Density To Do So, That Being THE MOB, The Voice Of The People, Which Also Seats State And Federal Houses Of Representatives, State And Federal Senates, ALL From That Same Pool Of Voters, Directly Or Indirectly. There Is NO Equal Protection Under The Law By Such A Unconstitutional Democratic Form Of State And Federal Government. Being Unconstitutional, As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution, Says The United States Shall Guarantee A Republican Form Of Government To The States, Which It Has Not Since 1849, Via Luther v Borden, Which Set Into Motion Other Individual States, Seating State Judiciary Via Direct Popular Vote. What Made The United States The Constitutional Republic We Started Out As Was The Guarantee Of A Republican Form Of Government To The States, Which Means Independent State Judiciary, Seated By The State Senate, State District Court And Above To Include State Supreme Court, As The State Senate Is Representative Of The State As A Whole As The Voice Of The State, Where As The Voice Of The People Is Representative Of The Population Centers, And Cities In Them, As They Have The Population Density To Cancel Out The Rural Areas Of The State. When ALL Of That Is Achieved In All Of The States, That Creates The Constitutional Republic, With The Voice Of The State, Residing In The United States Senate, Seated There To Seat A Independent Federal Judiciary, Those Senators Being Chosen In Full And Open Sessions Of State Legislatures, To Seat Them There. ALL Of THAT Is What Made Us A Constitutional Republic. That Does NOT Exist Today, What Exists In State And Federal Government, Are A Anti-Republican Democratic Form Of State And Federal Government, Masquerading As A Constitutional Republic, Which It Is Not!

@NGorhamA4S4 - NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫

@angelwoman501 @Ikennect @angelwoman501 @Ikennect This Is How To End It. 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇

@NGorhamA4S4 - NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫

Constitutionally Sound Plan To Fix Everything. All 50 States Territories And Possessions Must Replace Their Unconstitutional Bicameral Representative Constitutional Democracy State Government With A Republican Form As Per Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution Says. To Do That You Must Have Independent State Judiciaries. To Achieve That, Below State District Court, Must Be Seated By Direct Popular Vote. Because The Judge Seated There Will Have Something In Common With Cases Appearing There Because They All Reside In The Same Geographic Location. That Means, State District Court And Above To Include State Supreme Court MUST Be Seated By The State Senate, As That Body Is Representative Of The Entire State, And NOT Just The Most Populous Counties, And Cities In It. To Fix The Federal Level Representation Of The State In The United States Senate. The 17th Amendment MUST BE Repealed. United States Senators Must Be Chosen In A Full And Open Session Of The State Legislature ONLY. NOT The House Submitting A Candidate, Not The Senate Submitting One, Not The Governor Submitting One, Not Committees Submitting One, Not Major Political Parties, Submitting One. But Individual Legislators From Either State House Of Representatives Or State Senate Submitting A Candidate, Before State Legislature As A Whole. And Then That Body ONLY Choosing The Voice Of The State, In The United State Senate. When Done That Way, The United States Senate, Can Seat A Proper Federal Judiciary And Not One Seated By The Most Populous Counties And Cities Nation Wide. That Entire Process Creates Independent State And Federal Judiciaries, And A Republican Form Of State And Federal Government. Which You CAN NOT DO, Unless Your State Government Has Reinstated A Republican Form Of State Government. The Authority To Determine What A Republican Form Of State Government Is Resides With The Executive Branch Of Our Federal Government. The President Of The United States. It's That Way Because The President Has An Army At His Command To ENFORCE That Determination. Example, Is RECONSTRUCTION. Which WAS NOT Completed At The End Of The At The End Of The Civil War. The Supreme Court Majority Decision In The Case Of Luther v Borden, Explains This Authority VERY Clearly. That Case Was About The Dorr Rebellion In Rhode Island, In 1849, Which Ruled Wrongly That The Remnant Of The King Charles Charter That Was In The State, Was The Correct Form Of State Government And Not The Republican Form That Was Set Up In Rebellion, Which Was Wiped Out. So. To Fix What We Have Now, We MUST Complete Reconstruction, For A Minimum Of Three Election Cycles, To Properly Reseat State And Federal Judiciaries As I Have Previously Explained. Once All Of That Is Done, Then We Will Be A Tricameral Representative Constitutional Republic Again, With Independent State And Federal Judiciaries. In My View, President Trump Must Be President, And Via A Presidential Emergency Action Document, Using The Constitutional Authority Given To President Of The United States, As Per Article Four Section Four, Which Says; Guarantee Clause ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. As President Of The United States And Head Of The Executive Branch Our Federal Government, He Would Direct All 50 States Territories And Possessions To Reform Thier Governments As I Have Explained. Once Done Via Reconstruction, Which WILL BE NECESSARY, Because Not Every State Will Want To Comply. Then The Article V, Can Be Convened, For The Express Purpose ONLY, Of Repealing The 17th Amendment. So, EVERY THING, Can Be Fixed Using The Constitutional Authority, That Already Exists, Via Executive Branch Of Our Federal Government. Continuing…

angelwoman501
Posted - March 13, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 2:23 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A user criticized a federal judge for blocking President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training, questioning when the Supreme Court would intervene. Another user asked if the issue had already been litigated, implying that the matter may have been previously addressed.

@angelwoman501 - Patriot Lady

This is another federal activist judge who has blocked President Trump's cuts to DEI teacher training. When is SCOTUS going to put a stop to these judges interfering with President Trump's article II rights? https://t.co/s3bJbENymI

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

Meet the federal Judge who just blocked President Trump’s cuts to DEI teacher training. His resume is full of DEI activism, he served on the board of groups currently suing President Trump, and trained far-left activists how to avoid arrests during protests. 🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/KSp77nbT2X

@SuDoSilverKnife - SudoSilverKnife

@angelwoman501 Wasn't this already litigated?

MarioNawfal
Posted - March 21, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Saved - March 21, 2025 at 10:00 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Judge Theodore D. Chuang has blocked Jeremy Lewin, a former DOGE team member, from becoming Deputy Administrator of USAID, citing his loyalty to Trump as disqualifying. This decision raises concerns about judicial overreach, as the judge has taken control of staffing decisions typically reserved for the administration. Government lawyers sought clarification but were denied, with the judge warning of potential expansion of the ban if any workarounds are attempted. It feels like one judge is now acting as the HR department for the federal government.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🚨🇺🇸 FEDERAL JUDGE TAKES OVER USAID HIRING — BLOCKS TRUMP PICK Judge Theodore D. Chuang has barred Jeremy Lewin, a former DOGE team member, from becoming Deputy Administrator of USAID. Instead of letting the administration make its own staffing decisions, Judge Chuang decided Lewin’s loyalty to Trump disqualified him. Government lawyers asked for clarity — the judge flat-out denied it and warned he could expand the ban if they try any workarounds. In effect, one judge is now acting as the self-appointed HR department for the federal government... Source: @amuse

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🚨🇺🇸 EXPOSED: U.S. GOVERNMENT, UK, AND MEDIA FIRMS RAN CENSORSHIP NETWORK — DOCUMENTS REVEAL Bombshell court filings and leaked internal emails show a coordinated censorship machine run by the U.S. State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), USAID, foreign governments including the UK, and major media companies. The GEC produced weekly reports flagging COVID-19 narratives, election content, and foreign messaging — often targeting speech from American citizens under the guise of "disinformation." Congress never reauthorized the GEC. It will shut down on December 23, 2024 — but documents confirm staff and funding are being quietly reassigned to keep the system alive. Source:@America1stLegal

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🇺🇸THE CRAZIEST THINGS USAID SPENT YOUR TAX DOLLARS ON—A THREAD USAID was supposed to fund development and humanitarian aid. Instead, millions of your tax dollars went to some of the most bizarre, wasteful, and outright questionable projects imaginable. From foreign DEI

RodDMartin
Posted - March 27, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Saved - March 28, 2025 at 10:25 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Trump's fired Inspectors General faced a significant defeat in federal court, as Judge Ana Reyes ruled against their reinstatement, emphasizing the legality of Trump's actions. He removed 17 IGs early in his second term, which he framed as a necessary step to "drain the swamp." The fired IGs claimed their dismissals were unjust, but the court upheld the President's constitutional authority to make such decisions. The post highlights the perceived corruption of these IGs and suggests that Trump's efforts to clean house are just beginning.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

🚨 BREAKING: Trump's fired Inspectors General just got CRUSHED in federal court. Here's what you need to know... 1/🧵

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

2/ The DEEP STATE just took a major L today. Eight IGs fired by Trump showed up to federal court thinking they'd get their jobs back. Spoiler alert: They LOST.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

3/ Judge Ana Reyes -- a Biden appointee! -- didn't mince words: "I don't see how I could reinstate the inspectors general." TRANSLATION: Trump's move to clean house was BULLETPROOF. 💪

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

4/ Let's be CLEAR: These weren't random firings. Trump removed 17 government "watchdogs" just 4 days into his second term. These people had covered for all manner of Deep State wrongdoing. That's called DRAINING THE SWAMP. 🐊

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

5/ The fired IGs are crying about it being "unlawful and unjustified." But FACT CHECK: The President has FULL CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to fire these bureaucrats. It's right there in Article II.📜 And even a Biden judge couldn't find any way around it.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

6/ The obvious point everyone's missing: If these legal eagles don't believe the Constitution applies to them, they should NEVER have been Inspectors General in the first place! TOTALLY CORRUPT

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

7/ It's WORSE: Congress WEAKENED IG protections in 2022 under BIDEN. Presidents only need a "substantive rationale" to fire IGs now. Even that may be an unconstitutional restriction on Presidential power! These clowns don't understand the law, why are they "enforcing" it? 🤡🤡

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

8/ Remember: These are the same "watchdogs" who stayed SILENT during the Biden crime family scandals. Who covered for Hillary. Who let Crossfire Hurricane and Fast and Furious go down. Now they want sympathy? More like PRISON.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

9/ BOTTOM LINE: The swamp creatures tried to fight back and LOST. Trump's cleanup continues. More heads will roll. This is just the warmup.

@RodDMartin - Rod D. Martin

If you enjoyed this content, please like and share, and also sign up for your FREE or PREMIUM subscription to my newsletter at http://RodMartin.org.

The Rod Martin Report | Rod D. Martin | Substack Tech Entrepreneur. Futurist. Christian. "Philosopher Capitalist". Click to read The Rod Martin Report, by Rod D. Martin, a Substack publication with thousands of subscribers. rodmartin.org
LauraLoomer
Posted - April 2, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Saved - April 2, 2025 at 9:24 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I received an email on Friday morning informing me of my termination, which was said to be on behalf of President Trump. This news came just an hour after Laura Loomer publicly called for my firing, citing my previous critical remarks about Trump during my Democratic primary campaign for a congressional seat in New York. Loomer labeled me a “Trump hater” and a “holdover” from the Biden administration.

@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer

“Adam Schleifer @AdamSchleiferNY, who was part of the corporate & securities fraud strike force at the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, received an email Friday morning saying he was being terminated “on behalf of President Donald J. Trump,” according to the person familiar with the matter. The email came exactly an hour after right-wing activist Laura Loomer called for him to be fired in a social media post that highlighted Schleifer’s past critical comments about Trump while Schleifer was running in a Democratic primary for a congressional seat in New York. Loomer described Schleifer as a “Trump hater” and Biden administration “holdover.” https://apnews.com/article/prosecutor-firings-justice-department-white-house-25226702173e7b0aa86633d6c471c37e

White House abruptly fires career Justice Department prosecutors in latest norm-shattering move The recent firings is a sign of President Donald Trump’s tightening grip over the law enforcement agency known for its long tradition of political independence. apnews.com
wendyp4545
Posted - May 23, 2025 at 9:49 AM
Saved - May 23, 2025 at 12:38 PM

@wendyp4545 - Wendy Patterson

Republicans don't want the illegals removed either. Because if they did, they could stop these Judges.

@ProfMJCleveland - Margot Cleveland

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another day, another federal court injunction. Here court turned temporary restraining order into an preliminary injunction, prohibiting firings at numerous agencies. 1/ https://t.co/gNnQFFxgW4

EricLDaugh
Posted - September 2, 2025 at 10:05 PM
Saved - September 3, 2025 at 12:22 AM

@EricLDaugh - Eric Daugherty

🚨 BREAKING: Federal court RE-HIRES Democrat Rebecca Slaughter to the FTC, reversing President Trump's firing of her. The judges are declaring themselves president. Unbelievable. https://t.co/g5aBzlQUKm

View Full Interactive Feed