update - USSC refuses to hear lawsuit to overturn same sex marriage
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Trump gushes over Bari Weiss and payoff—but CBS viewers didn’t see it
Donald Trump spent a significant portion of his lengthy “60 Minutes” interview boasting that the program “paid me a lotta money” and heaping praise on new CBS News leadership, describing editor-in-chief Bari Weiss as a “great person” and David Ellison’s purchase of the network as “the greatest thing that's happened in a long time.”
However, viewers who watched the president’s sit-down on Sunday night’s broadcast didn’t see any of that, as it was edited out of the telecast and only included when the network shared the entire transcript and extended interview online.
One CBS News insider, who spoke to The Independent, said not including Trump’s comments about the settlement and network leadership during the telecast was “f***ing reckless,” since it was obvious that many viewers would want to see him address the lawsuit, at the very least.
“Why would you subject yourself to this type of criticism? Just put it in, because it’s the first thing that I was looking for,” the insider added.
“And actually ‘60 Minutes’ paid me a lotta money,” Trump declared in an unaired portion of the interview, which was published online. He also informed interviewer, Norah O’Donnell, that “you don't have to put this on” because he didn’t “wanna embarrass” her.
Trump then said that CBS News has a “great, new leader” who is “leading your whole enterprise,” referring to Weiss – whom he made a point of saying he didn't personally know.
“I don't know her, but I hear she's a great person,” he declared, without saying Weiss’ name. “But ‘60 Minutes’ was forced to pay me a lot of money because they took her answer out that was so bad, it was election-changing, two nights before the election. And they put a new answer in. And they paid me a lot of money for that. You can't have fake news. You've gotta have legit news. And I think that it's happening.”
Though “60 Minutes” did not air that portion, O’Donnell referenced the lawsuit at the top of the broadcast, adding that the network did not apologize as part of the settlement.
The Independent has contacted CBS News for comment.
The president sued CBS News last year over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the network of deceptively editing the segment to make the then-Democratic presidential nominee look better ahead of the 2024 election. Despite what the president claimed, that interview aired a month before the election, not two days prior.
Though legal experts called the $20 billion lawsuit frivolous and CBS News’ own attorneys denounced it as “without merit,” the network’s parent company Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle the complaint. Amid settlement discussions, “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens resigned, suggesting that corporate interference had deprived him of editorial independence.
The settlement occurred as Paramount was looking to finalize its $8.4 billion merger with Ellison’s Skydance Media, which was approved by the Trump administration shortly after the president was paid.
Elsewhere in his sit-down with O’Donnell, which ran for nearly 90 minutes but aired for only 28 minutes on “60 Minutes”, the president lauded both Weiss and Ellison, whose father is Oracle founder and close Trump ally Larry Ellison.
“I see good things happening in the news. I really do,” he cheerfully proclaimed. “And I think one of the best things to happen is this show and new ownership, CBS and new ownership. I think it's the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.”
Donald Trump being interviewed by Norah O'Donnell. The president sued CBS News last year over a ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the network of deceptively editing the segment to make the then-Democratic presidential nominee look better ahead of the 2024 election (60 Minutes / X)
The irony, of course, is part of the agreement that CBS reached with Trump was that “60 Minutes” would publish the unedited transcripts of any interviews with presidents and presidential candidates – which is precisely what occurred in Trump’s interview with O’Donnell. And it has only opened up the network, and its leadership, to fresh scrutiny over what it decided to excise from the televised portion of the interview.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, for instance, wondered if he “should file a complaint with the FCC against the Trump White House for editing his unhinged ‘60 Minutes’ interview,” adding that the lawsuit would “use the exact same language Trump lodged against Vice President Harris.”
Marc Elias, a Democratic election litigation attorney who appeared on “60 Minutes” a few months ago to discuss Trump’s attacks on law firms, noted that the network “chose not to air” the president’s comments praising Weiss and Ellison while boasting about his settlement. “It probably explains much of what they did decide to air,” he added.
“Perfect. ‘60 Minutes’ edited out an important part of its Trump interview in which he boasts about extracting millions from its parent company on an utterly meritless claim . . . that ‘60 Minutes’ selectively edited its Kamala Harris interview,” journalist, Radley Balko, also observed.
The much-anticipated Sunday night sit-down was conducted a year after the president filed his lawsuit against the network over the Harris interview and five years after his last “60 Minutes” appearance. Unlike his contentious 2020 interview with Lesley Stahl, which featured several blowups, Trump’s conversation with O’Donnell showed him largely at ease – though there were tense moments.
“It showed he sensed he was sitting down with a friendly news organization. That was the tone that he seemed to convey. Not them, but him,” CNN anchor Audie Cornish pointed out Monday morning.
“The last time Trump appeared on ‘60 Minutes,’ in Oct. 2020, he did walk away after being annoyed by questions from Lesley Stahl,” TheWrap’s Michael Calderone wrote. “But on this occasion, Trump stuck around, and given his gushing about the new regime at CBS News, it seems likely he’ll be willing to return.”
Mediaite’s Colby Hall, meanwhile, stated that “Trump acted like management” when he told O’Donnell during the unedited interview that the network didn’t have to use some of his answers in the final edit.
Donald Trump called Bari Weiss a “great person” and said that David Ellison’s purchase of Paramount was “the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.” (Paramount)
O’Donnell, who has been aggressively lobbying Weiss to regain her perch atop “CBS Evening News”, received plaudits from some media analysts for her interview with the president. CNN’s Brian Stelter, for instance, wrote that “it was not exactly a cushy interview” and her “questions generated lots of news.”
CBS staffers, who spoke with The Independent, noted that “Trump is literally taking a victory lap” after the sit-down, pointing to the White House’s press release touting the president’s “powerhouse interview” that revealed the “remarkable successes” of his administration.
One network reporter said that it felt like CBS News had “lost control journalistically and become a PR tool” in the wake of the interview. Still, they asserted that they also would not have aired Trump praising network leadership and bragging about his “60 Minutes” payoff.
“The president already behaves like a schoolyard bully,” the reporter said. “I wouldn’t have included him gloating over how he took the network’s lunch money and installed a puppet regime over CBS News.”
The Trump interview comes amid a tumultuous time at CBS News, which is not only coming to terms with a perceived rightward shift editorially but has also seen crippling layoffs decimate much of its news operation.
As part of Paramount’s first round of cuts under the new Ellison regime, the network canceled two streaming programs, gutted its Saturday morning news show, eliminated its race and culture unit and lost roughly 100 staffers – including eight on-air personalities, all of whom are female.
Days before the Trump administration approved the Paramount merger, Skydance had promised the FCC that the new company would get rid of all diversity programs and initiatives.
Since taking over the company, Ellison has made sweeping changes to the CBS newsroom that have sparked criticism that he’s currying favor with Trump.
Besides hiring the “anti-woke” Weiss, and purchasing her center-right digital outlet The Free Press, Ellison has installed a former Trump appointee and right-wing think tank leader as ombudsman to root out “complaints of bias” at CBS News. The network has also revamped its editing guidelines for its Sunday show, “Face the Nation”, following complaints from the White House.
Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly lavished praise on Ellison and his father following the merger. “I think the news is getting better. They‘re learning that they have no credibility,” he exclaimed in August. “CBS was just sold to a great person that I know very well… A great man. He actually just bought CBS. And I think he‘s going to do the right thing with it.”
Donald Trump spent a significant portion of his lengthy “60 Minutes” interview boasting that the program “paid me a lotta money” and heaping praise on new CBS News leadership, describing editor-in-chief Bari Weiss as a “great person” and David Ellison’s purchase of the network as “the greatest thing that's happened in a long time.”
However, viewers who watched the president’s sit-down on Sunday night’s broadcast didn’t see any of that, as it was edited out of the telecast and only included when the network shared the entire transcript and extended interview online.
One CBS News insider, who spoke to The Independent, said not including Trump’s comments about the settlement and network leadership during the telecast was “f***ing reckless,” since it was obvious that many viewers would want to see him address the lawsuit, at the very least.
“Why would you subject yourself to this type of criticism? Just put it in, because it’s the first thing that I was looking for,” the insider added.
“And actually ‘60 Minutes’ paid me a lotta money,” Trump declared in an unaired portion of the interview, which was published online. He also informed interviewer, Norah O’Donnell, that “you don't have to put this on” because he didn’t “wanna embarrass” her.
Trump then said that CBS News has a “great, new leader” who is “leading your whole enterprise,” referring to Weiss – whom he made a point of saying he didn't personally know.
“I don't know her, but I hear she's a great person,” he declared, without saying Weiss’ name. “But ‘60 Minutes’ was forced to pay me a lot of money because they took her answer out that was so bad, it was election-changing, two nights before the election. And they put a new answer in. And they paid me a lot of money for that. You can't have fake news. You've gotta have legit news. And I think that it's happening.”
Though “60 Minutes” did not air that portion, O’Donnell referenced the lawsuit at the top of the broadcast, adding that the network did not apologize as part of the settlement.
The Independent has contacted CBS News for comment.
The president sued CBS News last year over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the network of deceptively editing the segment to make the then-Democratic presidential nominee look better ahead of the 2024 election. Despite what the president claimed, that interview aired a month before the election, not two days prior.
Though legal experts called the $20 billion lawsuit frivolous and CBS News’ own attorneys denounced it as “without merit,” the network’s parent company Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle the complaint. Amid settlement discussions, “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens resigned, suggesting that corporate interference had deprived him of editorial independence.
The settlement occurred as Paramount was looking to finalize its $8.4 billion merger with Ellison’s Skydance Media, which was approved by the Trump administration shortly after the president was paid.
Elsewhere in his sit-down with O’Donnell, which ran for nearly 90 minutes but aired for only 28 minutes on “60 Minutes”, the president lauded both Weiss and Ellison, whose father is Oracle founder and close Trump ally Larry Ellison.
“I see good things happening in the news. I really do,” he cheerfully proclaimed. “And I think one of the best things to happen is this show and new ownership, CBS and new ownership. I think it's the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.”
Donald Trump being interviewed by Norah O'Donnell. The president sued CBS News last year over a ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the network of deceptively editing the segment to make the then-Democratic presidential nominee look better ahead of the 2024 election (60 Minutes / X)
The irony, of course, is part of the agreement that CBS reached with Trump was that “60 Minutes” would publish the unedited transcripts of any interviews with presidents and presidential candidates – which is precisely what occurred in Trump’s interview with O’Donnell. And it has only opened up the network, and its leadership, to fresh scrutiny over what it decided to excise from the televised portion of the interview.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, for instance, wondered if he “should file a complaint with the FCC against the Trump White House for editing his unhinged ‘60 Minutes’ interview,” adding that the lawsuit would “use the exact same language Trump lodged against Vice President Harris.”
Marc Elias, a Democratic election litigation attorney who appeared on “60 Minutes” a few months ago to discuss Trump’s attacks on law firms, noted that the network “chose not to air” the president’s comments praising Weiss and Ellison while boasting about his settlement. “It probably explains much of what they did decide to air,” he added.
“Perfect. ‘60 Minutes’ edited out an important part of its Trump interview in which he boasts about extracting millions from its parent company on an utterly meritless claim . . . that ‘60 Minutes’ selectively edited its Kamala Harris interview,” journalist, Radley Balko, also observed.
The much-anticipated Sunday night sit-down was conducted a year after the president filed his lawsuit against the network over the Harris interview and five years after his last “60 Minutes” appearance. Unlike his contentious 2020 interview with Lesley Stahl, which featured several blowups, Trump’s conversation with O’Donnell showed him largely at ease – though there were tense moments.
“It showed he sensed he was sitting down with a friendly news organization. That was the tone that he seemed to convey. Not them, but him,” CNN anchor Audie Cornish pointed out Monday morning.
“The last time Trump appeared on ‘60 Minutes,’ in Oct. 2020, he did walk away after being annoyed by questions from Lesley Stahl,” TheWrap’s Michael Calderone wrote. “But on this occasion, Trump stuck around, and given his gushing about the new regime at CBS News, it seems likely he’ll be willing to return.”
Mediaite’s Colby Hall, meanwhile, stated that “Trump acted like management” when he told O’Donnell during the unedited interview that the network didn’t have to use some of his answers in the final edit.
Donald Trump called Bari Weiss a “great person” and said that David Ellison’s purchase of Paramount was “the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.” (Paramount)
O’Donnell, who has been aggressively lobbying Weiss to regain her perch atop “CBS Evening News”, received plaudits from some media analysts for her interview with the president. CNN’s Brian Stelter, for instance, wrote that “it was not exactly a cushy interview” and her “questions generated lots of news.”
CBS staffers, who spoke with The Independent, noted that “Trump is literally taking a victory lap” after the sit-down, pointing to the White House’s press release touting the president’s “powerhouse interview” that revealed the “remarkable successes” of his administration.
One network reporter said that it felt like CBS News had “lost control journalistically and become a PR tool” in the wake of the interview. Still, they asserted that they also would not have aired Trump praising network leadership and bragging about his “60 Minutes” payoff.
“The president already behaves like a schoolyard bully,” the reporter said. “I wouldn’t have included him gloating over how he took the network’s lunch money and installed a puppet regime over CBS News.”
The Trump interview comes amid a tumultuous time at CBS News, which is not only coming to terms with a perceived rightward shift editorially but has also seen crippling layoffs decimate much of its news operation.
As part of Paramount’s first round of cuts under the new Ellison regime, the network canceled two streaming programs, gutted its Saturday morning news show, eliminated its race and culture unit and lost roughly 100 staffers – including eight on-air personalities, all of whom are female.
Days before the Trump administration approved the Paramount merger, Skydance had promised the FCC that the new company would get rid of all diversity programs and initiatives.
Since taking over the company, Ellison has made sweeping changes to the CBS newsroom that have sparked criticism that he’s currying favor with Trump.
Besides hiring the “anti-woke” Weiss, and purchasing her center-right digital outlet The Free Press, Ellison has installed a former Trump appointee and right-wing think tank leader as ombudsman to root out “complaints of bias” at CBS News. The network has also revamped its editing guidelines for its Sunday show, “Face the Nation”, following complaints from the White House.
Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly lavished praise on Ellison and his father following the merger. “I think the news is getting better. They‘re learning that they have no credibility,” he exclaimed in August. “CBS was just sold to a great person that I know very well… A great man. He actually just bought CBS. And I think he‘s going to do the right thing with it.”
Fear of Trump 'pain cave' forces major companies to duck Supreme Court challenge: CNN
Major companies are sitting out the court challenge to President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs despite it causing them immense pain — instead leaving the fight to a group of small businesses, according to a report.
That group, including a family-owned toymaker in Illinois and a New York-based wine importer, have challenged the tariffs all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments Wednesday. But their larger competitors have stayed on the sidelines because of fear of how Trump will react, reported CNN.
“I was shocked that those with much more power and money did not step up,” said Victor Owen Schwartz, the founder of V.O.S. Selections, a wine and spirits company that's one of the lead plaintiffs in the challenge. “So when I was afforded the opportunity to speak for small American business, I took it.”
Trump claims a 1970s-era emergency law grants him the authority to "regulate importation" during emergencies, although tariffs aren't specifically mentioned, but the small businesses challenging him complained the on-and-off tariffs are driving up costs and uncertainty.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
“It’s an asphyxiating tax,” said Rick Woldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources, another lead plaintiff. “I’m not targeting Mr. Trump because I’m not a politician. I’m a taxpayer who’s been hit with an unlawful tax.”
The Trump administration has argued the International Emergency Economic Powers Act covers tariffs, even if the words isn't explicitly mentioned, and has warned that losing the Supreme Court case would have “catastrophic consequences."
“Plaintiffs would unwind trade arrangements worth trillions of dollars, as President Trump has leveraged the IEEPA tariffs into negotiated framework deals with major trading partners – including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and now China – that address underlying causes of the declared emergencies,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued last week before the Supreme Court.
Major companies frequently take sides in Supreme Court cases by filing friend-of-court briefs, but the Trump administration's retribution campaign against critics has seemingly silenced them on the tariff issue that affects many of them, CNN reported.
“The federal government has immense leverage and immense power and can upend your business with a tweet or a tax investigation,” said Georgetown Law professor Gregory Shaffer. “I think there’s a sense that companies wanted to be more careful with this administration.”
It's not clear who's funding the tariff challenge, but a leader of the group involved with the case, Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center, told CNN that it's funded by “individuals and groups that support our mission."
“There are a lot of calculations going on,” said Gregory Husisian, a trade lawyer who represents large importers for the Foley & Lardner law firm. "What do you really gain by being the person who sticks your neck out?”
Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of the women’s outdoor apparel company Wild Rye, agreed bigger companies were afraid of retaliation, pointing out that Walmart and other retailers were hit with blowback from Trump when they threatened tariff-related price increases.
“That was a clear signal that anyone who wants to speak out against this is going to be in the pain cave,” said Abel, who joined an amicus brief with other small businesses opposed to the tariffs.
Major companies are sitting out the court challenge to President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs despite it causing them immense pain — instead leaving the fight to a group of small businesses, according to a report.
That group, including a family-owned toymaker in Illinois and a New York-based wine importer, have challenged the tariffs all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments Wednesday. But their larger competitors have stayed on the sidelines because of fear of how Trump will react, reported CNN.
“I was shocked that those with much more power and money did not step up,” said Victor Owen Schwartz, the founder of V.O.S. Selections, a wine and spirits company that's one of the lead plaintiffs in the challenge. “So when I was afforded the opportunity to speak for small American business, I took it.”
Trump claims a 1970s-era emergency law grants him the authority to "regulate importation" during emergencies, although tariffs aren't specifically mentioned, but the small businesses challenging him complained the on-and-off tariffs are driving up costs and uncertainty.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
“It’s an asphyxiating tax,” said Rick Woldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources, another lead plaintiff. “I’m not targeting Mr. Trump because I’m not a politician. I’m a taxpayer who’s been hit with an unlawful tax.”
The Trump administration has argued the International Emergency Economic Powers Act covers tariffs, even if the words isn't explicitly mentioned, and has warned that losing the Supreme Court case would have “catastrophic consequences."
“Plaintiffs would unwind trade arrangements worth trillions of dollars, as President Trump has leveraged the IEEPA tariffs into negotiated framework deals with major trading partners – including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and now China – that address underlying causes of the declared emergencies,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued last week before the Supreme Court.
Major companies frequently take sides in Supreme Court cases by filing friend-of-court briefs, but the Trump administration's retribution campaign against critics has seemingly silenced them on the tariff issue that affects many of them, CNN reported.
“The federal government has immense leverage and immense power and can upend your business with a tweet or a tax investigation,” said Georgetown Law professor Gregory Shaffer. “I think there’s a sense that companies wanted to be more careful with this administration.”
It's not clear who's funding the tariff challenge, but a leader of the group involved with the case, Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center, told CNN that it's funded by “individuals and groups that support our mission."
“There are a lot of calculations going on,” said Gregory Husisian, a trade lawyer who represents large importers for the Foley & Lardner law firm. "What do you really gain by being the person who sticks your neck out?”
Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of the women’s outdoor apparel company Wild Rye, agreed bigger companies were afraid of retaliation, pointing out that Walmart and other retailers were hit with blowback from Trump when they threatened tariff-related price increases.
“That was a clear signal that anyone who wants to speak out against this is going to be in the pain cave,” said Abel, who joined an amicus brief with other small businesses opposed to the tariffs.
Courts order ICE not to deport man who spent 43 years in prison before murder case overturned
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Two separate courts have ordered immigration officials not to deport a Pennsylvania man who spent four decades in prison before his murder conviction was overturned.
Subramanyam Vedam, 64, is currently detained at a short-term holding center in Alexandria, Louisiana, that’s equipped with an airstrip for deportations. Vedam, a legal permanent resident known as “Subu,” was transferred there from central Pennsylvania last week, relatives said.
Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam walks outside the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa, on Feb. 6, 2025, during a hearing over new evidence uncovered in his 1983 murder case. (Geoff Rushton/StateCollege.com via AP)© The Associated Press
An immigration judge stayed his deportation on Thursday until the Bureau of Immigration Appeals decides whether to review his case. That could take several months. Vedam's lawyers also got a stay the same day in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, but said that case may be on hold given the immigration court ruling.
Tejaswini Rao chats with party guests while Subramanyam and Saraswathi Vedam embrace during their parents' wedding anniversary party at State College, Pa., in August 1981. (Saraswathi Vedam via AP)© The Associated Press
Vedam came to the U.S. legally from India as an infant and grew up in State College, where his father taught at Penn State. He was serving a life sentence in a friend's 1980 death before his conviction was overturned this year.
He was released from state prison on Oct. 3, only to be taken straight into immigration custody.
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is seeking to deport Vedam over his no contest plea to charges of LSD delivery, filed when he was about 20. His lawyers argue that the four decades he wrongly spent in prison, where he earned degrees and tutored fellow inmates, should outweigh the drug case.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Monday that the reversal in the murder case does not negate the drug conviction.
A photograph of Saraswathi, 6, and Subramanyam, 2, Vedam posing for a photo in their State College, Pa., home in 1963. (Saraswathi Vedam via AP)© The Associated Press
“Having a single conviction vacated will not stop ICE’s enforcement of the federal immigration law," Tricia McLaughlin," Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said in an email.
Vedam's sister said Monday that the family is relieved “that two different judges have agreed that Subu’s deportation is unwarranted while his effort to re-open his immigration case is still pending."
“We’re also hopeful that Board of Immigration Appeals will ultimately agree that Subu’s deportation would represent another untenable injustice,” Saraswathi Vedam said, "inflicted on a man who not only endured 43 years in a maximum-security prison for a crime he didn’t commit, but has also lived in the U.S. since he was 9-months-old.”
Supporters of Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam demonstrate outside the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa,, on Feb. 7, 2025, after a hearing over new evidence uncovered in his 1983 murder case. (Geoff Rushton/StateCollege.com via AP)© The Associated Press
Maryclaire Dale, The Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Two separate courts have ordered immigration officials not to deport a Pennsylvania man who spent four decades in prison before his murder conviction was overturned.
Subramanyam Vedam, 64, is currently detained at a short-term holding center in Alexandria, Louisiana, that’s equipped with an airstrip for deportations. Vedam, a legal permanent resident known as “Subu,” was transferred there from central Pennsylvania last week, relatives said.
Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam walks outside the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa, on Feb. 6, 2025, during a hearing over new evidence uncovered in his 1983 murder case. (Geoff Rushton/StateCollege.com via AP)© The Associated Press
An immigration judge stayed his deportation on Thursday until the Bureau of Immigration Appeals decides whether to review his case. That could take several months. Vedam's lawyers also got a stay the same day in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, but said that case may be on hold given the immigration court ruling.
Tejaswini Rao chats with party guests while Subramanyam and Saraswathi Vedam embrace during their parents' wedding anniversary party at State College, Pa., in August 1981. (Saraswathi Vedam via AP)© The Associated Press
Vedam came to the U.S. legally from India as an infant and grew up in State College, where his father taught at Penn State. He was serving a life sentence in a friend's 1980 death before his conviction was overturned this year.
He was released from state prison on Oct. 3, only to be taken straight into immigration custody.
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is seeking to deport Vedam over his no contest plea to charges of LSD delivery, filed when he was about 20. His lawyers argue that the four decades he wrongly spent in prison, where he earned degrees and tutored fellow inmates, should outweigh the drug case.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Monday that the reversal in the murder case does not negate the drug conviction.
A photograph of Saraswathi, 6, and Subramanyam, 2, Vedam posing for a photo in their State College, Pa., home in 1963. (Saraswathi Vedam via AP)© The Associated Press
“Having a single conviction vacated will not stop ICE’s enforcement of the federal immigration law," Tricia McLaughlin," Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said in an email.
Vedam's sister said Monday that the family is relieved “that two different judges have agreed that Subu’s deportation is unwarranted while his effort to re-open his immigration case is still pending."
“We’re also hopeful that Board of Immigration Appeals will ultimately agree that Subu’s deportation would represent another untenable injustice,” Saraswathi Vedam said, "inflicted on a man who not only endured 43 years in a maximum-security prison for a crime he didn’t commit, but has also lived in the U.S. since he was 9-months-old.”
Supporters of Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam demonstrate outside the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa,, on Feb. 7, 2025, after a hearing over new evidence uncovered in his 1983 murder case. (Geoff Rushton/StateCollege.com via AP)© The Associated Press
Maryclaire Dale, The Associated Press
The Trump administration caved on pulling Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding Monday and will partially fund the program after two judges ruled that the administration is required to fund it.
The administration is dipping into the SNAP contingency fund — about $4.5 billion — to cover about half of the benefits for November, CNN reported. It's unclear when people will receive these funds.
In two separate rulings Friday made just minutes apart, a federal judge in Rhode Island said in an emergency hearing that the Trump administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture must release close to $6 billion amid the ongoing government shutdown. A judge in Boston said the administration was required to fund the program.
The Rhode Island judge said the funding must be distributed "in a timely fashion," and the administration must deliver an update by noon on Monday.
The close to $6 billion will not cover all the expenses for the program, it costs about $9 billion per month, and the judge said that the agency will have to agree to look to supplement additional funding so Americans relying on the program will get the funds.
Trump backs down on pulling SNAP funding
The administration is dipping into the SNAP contingency fund — about $4.5 billion — to cover about half of the benefits for November, CNN reported. It's unclear when people will receive these funds.
In two separate rulings Friday made just minutes apart, a federal judge in Rhode Island said in an emergency hearing that the Trump administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture must release close to $6 billion amid the ongoing government shutdown. A judge in Boston said the administration was required to fund the program.
The Rhode Island judge said the funding must be distributed "in a timely fashion," and the administration must deliver an update by noon on Monday.
The close to $6 billion will not cover all the expenses for the program, it costs about $9 billion per month, and the judge said that the agency will have to agree to look to supplement additional funding so Americans relying on the program will get the funds.
Trump backs down on pulling SNAP funding
Trump judge smacks down lawsuit from MAGA lawmakers panicking over CA redistricting
A U.S. District Court judge appointed by President Donald Trump dismissed a lawsuit from two Republican lawmakers seeking to stop redistricting efforts in California.
In the lawsuit filed earlier this month, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ronny Jackson (R-TX) called for an injunction on using new California district maps in the 2026 midterm elections.
The lawsuit argued that California's redistricting was not legitimate because it was a response to President Donald Trump's desire for Texas to create more Republican seats by gerrymandering in that state.
"If the House of Representatives flips to a Democrat majority due to California's unlawful districting, Plaintiff will lose his subcommittee chairmanships. This loss of a position is a concrete personal interest, for not only will Plaintiff lose investigative authority, but the Republican staff on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee will be reduced as the minority staff is smaller than the majority staff," the lawsuit stated. "If California illegitimately flips seats, Republican members from Texas like Plaintiff will lose committee chairmanships and legislative influence, diluting the representation and policy voice Texas's voters currently enjoy."
In his ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk concluded that neither congressman faced sufficient harm to bring the lawsuit.
Kacsmaryk noted that lawmakers "may not sue in their representative capacity when the asserted harm amounts only to 'a loss of political power, not loss of any private right.'"
The judge also found that "having one's district politically gerrymandered does not constitute a justiciable injury."
A U.S. District Court judge appointed by President Donald Trump dismissed a lawsuit from two Republican lawmakers seeking to stop redistricting efforts in California.
In the lawsuit filed earlier this month, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ronny Jackson (R-TX) called for an injunction on using new California district maps in the 2026 midterm elections.
The lawsuit argued that California's redistricting was not legitimate because it was a response to President Donald Trump's desire for Texas to create more Republican seats by gerrymandering in that state.
"If the House of Representatives flips to a Democrat majority due to California's unlawful districting, Plaintiff will lose his subcommittee chairmanships. This loss of a position is a concrete personal interest, for not only will Plaintiff lose investigative authority, but the Republican staff on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee will be reduced as the minority staff is smaller than the majority staff," the lawsuit stated. "If California illegitimately flips seats, Republican members from Texas like Plaintiff will lose committee chairmanships and legislative influence, diluting the representation and policy voice Texas's voters currently enjoy."
In his ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk concluded that neither congressman faced sufficient harm to bring the lawsuit.
Kacsmaryk noted that lawmakers "may not sue in their representative capacity when the asserted harm amounts only to 'a loss of political power, not loss of any private right.'"
The judge also found that "having one's district politically gerrymandered does not constitute a justiciable injury."
Civil war erupts within major GOP group as 'growing number' of workers side with extremist
One major conservative group is experiencing a massive rift in its workforce, and the source of the division is reportedly a polarizing far-right influencer.
That's according to a Monday article in the New York Post, which reported that insiders at the Heritage Foundation (the group responsible for the authoritarian Project 2025 playbook) are sharing stories of "revolt" within the GOP-aligned organization. Many within Heritage are alarmed after the group's president, Kevin Roberts, refused to disavow right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson after his friendly interview with white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.
"We will always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda," Roberts said at the time. "That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation."
"I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes said," Roberts continued. “But canceling him is not the answer either.”
One source told the Post that Roberts' statement was "the most embarrassed I’ve ever been to be a Heritage employee," adding: "It’s not close." Another accused Carlson of "playing footsie with literal Nazis." A separate Heritage staffer said Roberts' refusal to "cancel" Carlson amounted to "safe space wokeism."
"If we are labeled on the same side as Nick Fuentes, then we deserve to lose," a fourth source said. "Talking with some of the interns I think that there are a growing number of them who actually agree [with Fuentes]."
Fuentes, who has openly praised Adolf Hitler and repeatedly maligned the Jewish community, spent part of his interview with Carlson blaming Jewish people for the state of American politics. He also heaped praise on World War II-era Russian leader Josef Stalin, calling himself a "fan" of the dictator who killed millions of his own citizens.
Click here to read the Post's full report.
One major conservative group is experiencing a massive rift in its workforce, and the source of the division is reportedly a polarizing far-right influencer.
That's according to a Monday article in the New York Post, which reported that insiders at the Heritage Foundation (the group responsible for the authoritarian Project 2025 playbook) are sharing stories of "revolt" within the GOP-aligned organization. Many within Heritage are alarmed after the group's president, Kevin Roberts, refused to disavow right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson after his friendly interview with white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.
"We will always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda," Roberts said at the time. "That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation."
"I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes said," Roberts continued. “But canceling him is not the answer either.”
One source told the Post that Roberts' statement was "the most embarrassed I’ve ever been to be a Heritage employee," adding: "It’s not close." Another accused Carlson of "playing footsie with literal Nazis." A separate Heritage staffer said Roberts' refusal to "cancel" Carlson amounted to "safe space wokeism."
"If we are labeled on the same side as Nick Fuentes, then we deserve to lose," a fourth source said. "Talking with some of the interns I think that there are a growing number of them who actually agree [with Fuentes]."
Fuentes, who has openly praised Adolf Hitler and repeatedly maligned the Jewish community, spent part of his interview with Carlson blaming Jewish people for the state of American politics. He also heaped praise on World War II-era Russian leader Josef Stalin, calling himself a "fan" of the dictator who killed millions of his own citizens.
Click here to read the Post's full report.
Another Trump-Appointed U.S. Attorney Found to be Serving Unlawfully, Federal Judge Rules
Read more here.
www.democracydocket.com
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Bill Essayli, the Trump-appointed Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, has been serving unlawfully in the nation’s largest federal district — the third such finding against a prosecutor installed by President Donald Trump in recent months.
The decision by Judge J. Michael Seabright, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, adds to growing evidence of the Trump’s administration’s defiance of Senate confirmation rules.
“Bilal A. Essayli (“Essayli”) is not lawfully serving as Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California,” Seabright wrote. “And he has been unlawfully serving in that role since he resigned as Interim United States Attorney.”
Seabright’s opinion found that Essayli’s appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act — the law limiting how long a president can fill top federal posts without Senate confirmation. The court determined that Essayli’s installation amounted to an “end-run” around Congress’ constitutional power to vet and confirm key justice officials.
The ruling mirrors two earlier cases against Trump-appointed U.S. Attorneys, Alina Habba in New Jersey and Sigal Chattah in Nevada, where judges reached the same conclusion that the administration had unlawfully kept unconfirmed appointees in office beyond the FVRA’s 120-day limit.
“Based on the following, the court determines that Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney,” Seabright found. “He is disqualified from participating in Defendants’ prosecutions as Acting United States Attorney.”
The judge’s opinion underscored why the confirmation process matters, warning that the administration’s tactics threaten to erode the Senate’s constitutional oversight role.
“Recognizing that the Senate’s confirmation power was ‘being undermined as never before,’ Congress enacted the FVRA to ensure that ‘the Constitution’s separation of powers is maintained, and officers of the government are subjected to the scrutiny of the Senate for the benefit of the liberty of the people,'” Seabright added.
Judge Seabright dismissed the Justice Department’s claim that it could lawfully extend Essayli’s tenure through internal reshuffling, calling that interpretation a dangerous overreach.
The court’s decision casts a new light on Essayli’s anti-voting past.
Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office, he served as a Republican Assemblymember in California, where he championed restrictive “voter ID” measures — policies that voting rights groups warn can disenfranchise voters, particularly in communities of color.
He once said that when he joined the Legislature, “parental rights, illegal immigration, and voter ID were peripheral issues;” but under his influence, “we’ve made them centerpieces of our Party.”
Essayli is also listed as one of the attorneys behind a lawsuit targeting Orange County election officials over access to voter records — a case voting rights advocates have described as part of a broader push to sow distrust in California’s elections.
With Seabright’s ruling now declaring his federal service unlawful, it remains unclear whether his involvement in that case could face new scrutiny or potential challenges.
While the judge declined to dismiss ongoing cases brought by Essayli, the ruling marks another major flashpoint in Trump’s efforts to install unconfirmed loyalists in charge of the Justice Department. With three federal judges now striking down similar appointments, the dangerous pattern is clear.
So just to be clear the Trump admin TRIED to starve Americans (including children).. and is only backing down under a court order.
President Donald Trump announced that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits would not be disbursed until the government shutdown ends after attorneys for his administration promised a federal judge that at least half of the payments would be sent out in November.
"SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden's disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly 'handed' to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before! Thank you for your attention to this matter," the president announced Tuesday in a post on Truth Social.
On Friday, Trump insisted that "it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding, just like I did with Military and Law Enforcement Pay" after multiple courts ordered his administration to use contingency funds to pay SNAP benefits.
Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN that payments "could be" restored by Wednesday.
Trump suddenly reneges on SNAP benefits despite judge's order
"SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden's disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly 'handed' to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before! Thank you for your attention to this matter," the president announced Tuesday in a post on Truth Social.
On Friday, Trump insisted that "it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding, just like I did with Military and Law Enforcement Pay" after multiple courts ordered his administration to use contingency funds to pay SNAP benefits.
Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN that payments "could be" restored by Wednesday.
Trump suddenly reneges on SNAP benefits despite judge's order
Trump makes emergency Supreme Court appeal
President Donald Trump’s administration is urging the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings that blocked the deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Chicago.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has filed an emergency appeal — the first time the administration has gone directly to the nation’s highest court over this issue.
The Supreme Court’s decision has big implications, as it could set a legal precedent that defines how much power the president has to send federal troops into cities that oppose such moves — a debate that’s playing out in other states and cities, too.
What the lower courts decided first
President Donald Trump has ordered National Guard troops to cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Memphis. His deployments to Chicago and Portland, Ore., remain stalled in court. By: ZUMAPRESS.com / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Before the Supreme Court got involved, a district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals both stopped Trump’s plan to activate National Guard soldiers in Chicago.
The courts said the legal requirements for this kind of federal intervention weren’t met.
The 7th Circuit bluntly stated that “political opposition is not rebellion” and found that evidence didn’t back up the Trump administration’s claims that violence in Chicago is out of control.
The Trump admin’s argument for Supreme Court intervention
In the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that “The lower court’s ruling improperly impinges on the president’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.” By: Julia Nikhinson – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued that sending troops to Chicago is critical to protect “ongoing and intolerable risks to the lives and safety” of federal agents.
According to Sauer’s filing, the lower courts are wrongly interfering with the president’s authority and putting federal personnel and property at risk.
Trump has claimed the National Guard is necessary to deal with protests at an immigration enforcement facility near Chicago, which he describes as “coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law.”
A twist: The Supreme Court wants more information
The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump during his first term in office. By: Eric Lee – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
In a rare move, the Supreme Court has asked for more information before it rules. The justices requested more detailed legal arguments, signaling they aren’t rushing the case, and made clear they won’t issue a ruling until at least mid-November.
Legal experts say this hesitation may be a bad sign for Trump’s case, which rests on an 1827 law that limits court interference in presidential troop deployments.
“Although we can’t know for sure, the order certainly seems like a bad sign for President Trump,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “There would be no need for the Supreme Court to ask the parties to address this question if five justices had already agreed to vote for the federal government…”
Illinois pushes back, the White House stands firm
“There is no need for military troops on the ground in the state of Illinois,” Governor J.B. Pritzker said. “I will not call up our National Guard to further Trump’s acts of aggression against our people.” By: Mattie Neretin – CNP for NY Post / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker blasted Trump’s plan, painting it as an invasion. “Donald Trump will keep trying to invade Illinois with troops — and we will keep defending the sovereignty of our state,” Pritzker said. “Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy.”
Meanwhile, the White House defended the president’s actions and the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court. “President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
President Donald Trump’s administration is urging the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings that blocked the deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Chicago.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has filed an emergency appeal — the first time the administration has gone directly to the nation’s highest court over this issue.
The Supreme Court’s decision has big implications, as it could set a legal precedent that defines how much power the president has to send federal troops into cities that oppose such moves — a debate that’s playing out in other states and cities, too.
What the lower courts decided first
President Donald Trump has ordered National Guard troops to cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Memphis. His deployments to Chicago and Portland, Ore., remain stalled in court. By: ZUMAPRESS.com / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Before the Supreme Court got involved, a district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals both stopped Trump’s plan to activate National Guard soldiers in Chicago.
The courts said the legal requirements for this kind of federal intervention weren’t met.
The 7th Circuit bluntly stated that “political opposition is not rebellion” and found that evidence didn’t back up the Trump administration’s claims that violence in Chicago is out of control.
The Trump admin’s argument for Supreme Court intervention
In the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that “The lower court’s ruling improperly impinges on the president’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.” By: Julia Nikhinson – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued that sending troops to Chicago is critical to protect “ongoing and intolerable risks to the lives and safety” of federal agents.
According to Sauer’s filing, the lower courts are wrongly interfering with the president’s authority and putting federal personnel and property at risk.
Trump has claimed the National Guard is necessary to deal with protests at an immigration enforcement facility near Chicago, which he describes as “coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law.”
A twist: The Supreme Court wants more information
The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump during his first term in office. By: Eric Lee – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
In a rare move, the Supreme Court has asked for more information before it rules. The justices requested more detailed legal arguments, signaling they aren’t rushing the case, and made clear they won’t issue a ruling until at least mid-November.
Legal experts say this hesitation may be a bad sign for Trump’s case, which rests on an 1827 law that limits court interference in presidential troop deployments.
“Although we can’t know for sure, the order certainly seems like a bad sign for President Trump,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “There would be no need for the Supreme Court to ask the parties to address this question if five justices had already agreed to vote for the federal government…”
Illinois pushes back, the White House stands firm
“There is no need for military troops on the ground in the state of Illinois,” Governor J.B. Pritzker said. “I will not call up our National Guard to further Trump’s acts of aggression against our people.” By: Mattie Neretin – CNP for NY Post / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker blasted Trump’s plan, painting it as an invasion. “Donald Trump will keep trying to invade Illinois with troops — and we will keep defending the sovereignty of our state,” Pritzker said. “Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy.”
Meanwhile, the White House defended the president’s actions and the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court. “President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
Trump prosecutor 'outmatched' in controversial case
Former FBI Director James Comey is facing federal charges in a case being led by Lindsey Halligan, a newly appointed U.S. attorney and former member of President Donald Trump’s legal team.
But since a grand jury indicted Comey weeks ago — just days before the statute of limitations on his alleged crimes expired — the prosecution has suffered a series of procedural setbacks critics say paint Halligan as struggling in court.
With Comey’s team winning early rulings, there’s a growing sense the defense appears to be controlling the pace of proceedings and shaping the narrative — fueling the idea that Halligan is being outmaneuvered.
Uneven matchup
James Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, came out of retirement to represent him. Fitzgerald was appointed as a federal prosecutor in Chicago by President George W. Bush and earned a reputation as a relentless, principled U.S. attorney who went after corruption in Illinois politics. By: BRIAN KERSEY/UPI/Newscom/The Mega Agency© Knewz (CA)
The matchup between Comey’s defense attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, and new DOJ hire Halligan is being closely watched.
Fitzgerald is regarded as one of the most experienced federal trial lawyers in the country.
His prosecutions during his 12-year tenure as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois took down the Chicago mob, put two governors behind bars and won a conviction against a top donor to former President Barack Obama. He’s more widely known as the special prosecutor who led the CIA leak investigation that resulted in charges against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Halligan, on the other hand, is a former Miss Colorado USA pageant semi-finalist and Trump personal lawyer who worked in real estate law in Florida and had no prosecutorial experience until this case. Her tenure as the new U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia can be measured in weeks, which has fueled questions about whether she’s prepared to manage a politically explosive case against a courtroom veteran.
Critics say Halligan is out of her depth
Some social media observers have been critical of newly appointed Justice Department attorney Lindsey Halligan’s work in the James Comey case, with one X user claiming Halligan “doesn’t have a clue about what she’s doing.” By: Al Drago – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Online commenters observing the case as it plays out are fueling the belief that Halligan is in over her head.
“Comey prosecution headed by outmatched Lindsey Halligan is in a panic filing motion showing they are scared witless by Comey’s atty team,” one X user wrote. Added another, “After Comey wins he’s going after Trump’s administration. Halligan is inexperienced and outmatched.”
More commenters echoed those sentiments, with another X poster writing, “Lindsey Halligan is gravely outmatched. But as former Miss Colorado she fits the important Trump qualifications!” Yet another added, “This is going to be fun. I better buy some popcorn. I remember Fitzgerald. Lindsey Halligan is completely outmatched.”
Do you think Lindsey Halligan is outmatched by James Comey’s attorney? Let us know in the comments section.
The recent filter protocol issue — and what the judge decided
President Donald Trump called Lindsey Halligan “a tough, smart and loyal attorney” who helped him “in the winning fight against the weaponization of our justice system by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats” when she served on his legal team amid the DOJ probe into his handling of classified material. By: Jim LoScalzo – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Halligan recently sought court approval for a “filter protocol” in the Comey case — a system where a special Justice Department team screens seized files to pull out anything covered by attorney-client privilege before investigators see it.
Her filing leaned on a 2019 Inspector General report that said Comey “failed to live up to [his] responsibility” to safeguard FBI records and “set a dangerous example.” She hinted that Comey’s lawyer, Fitzgerald, might appear in some of those old communications, raising possible conflicts of interest.
Comey’s defense called the request “premature” and “provably false,” saying the government was trying to reopen an investigation that ended years ago “without criminal charges.”
When Halligan pushed for a fast ruling, Judge Michael Nachmanoff said no. In his order, he noted the DOJ had “had the materials at issue for several years” and had “failed to seek any guidance” on how to handle them until now.
He denied her request to speed things up and gave the defense more time to respond. The move slowed the case — and once again highlighted the contrast between Halligan’s inexperience and Fitzgerald’s lengthy record.
The charges against Comey — and claims he’s being targeted
Former FBI Director James Comey’s defense called his case a “retaliation effort dressed in legal process,” branding President Donald Trump’s push for the Justice Department to target him an act of political revenge. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Comey was charged with lying to Congress and obstructing a Senate investigation.
Halligan has claimed the former FBI director, who served during Trump’s first term, falsely told senators during a 2020 Judiciary Committee hearing that he had never authorized anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source in news stories related to the Trump administration. The second count accuses him of trying to mislead and obstruct Congress by giving false testimony.
Comey has pleaded not guilty to all charges. His defense has challenged the legality of Halligan’s appointment, claiming it was unlawful, so therefore any indictments she signed are invalid. The defense is also arguing that Comey’s criminal prosecution is an act of vindictive political retribution orchestrated by Trump due to a long-standing personal and political feud.
Former FBI Director James Comey is facing federal charges in a case being led by Lindsey Halligan, a newly appointed U.S. attorney and former member of President Donald Trump’s legal team.
But since a grand jury indicted Comey weeks ago — just days before the statute of limitations on his alleged crimes expired — the prosecution has suffered a series of procedural setbacks critics say paint Halligan as struggling in court.
With Comey’s team winning early rulings, there’s a growing sense the defense appears to be controlling the pace of proceedings and shaping the narrative — fueling the idea that Halligan is being outmaneuvered.
Uneven matchup
James Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, came out of retirement to represent him. Fitzgerald was appointed as a federal prosecutor in Chicago by President George W. Bush and earned a reputation as a relentless, principled U.S. attorney who went after corruption in Illinois politics. By: BRIAN KERSEY/UPI/Newscom/The Mega Agency© Knewz (CA)
The matchup between Comey’s defense attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, and new DOJ hire Halligan is being closely watched.
Fitzgerald is regarded as one of the most experienced federal trial lawyers in the country.
His prosecutions during his 12-year tenure as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois took down the Chicago mob, put two governors behind bars and won a conviction against a top donor to former President Barack Obama. He’s more widely known as the special prosecutor who led the CIA leak investigation that resulted in charges against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Halligan, on the other hand, is a former Miss Colorado USA pageant semi-finalist and Trump personal lawyer who worked in real estate law in Florida and had no prosecutorial experience until this case. Her tenure as the new U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia can be measured in weeks, which has fueled questions about whether she’s prepared to manage a politically explosive case against a courtroom veteran.
Critics say Halligan is out of her depth
Some social media observers have been critical of newly appointed Justice Department attorney Lindsey Halligan’s work in the James Comey case, with one X user claiming Halligan “doesn’t have a clue about what she’s doing.” By: Al Drago – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Online commenters observing the case as it plays out are fueling the belief that Halligan is in over her head.
“Comey prosecution headed by outmatched Lindsey Halligan is in a panic filing motion showing they are scared witless by Comey’s atty team,” one X user wrote. Added another, “After Comey wins he’s going after Trump’s administration. Halligan is inexperienced and outmatched.”
More commenters echoed those sentiments, with another X poster writing, “Lindsey Halligan is gravely outmatched. But as former Miss Colorado she fits the important Trump qualifications!” Yet another added, “This is going to be fun. I better buy some popcorn. I remember Fitzgerald. Lindsey Halligan is completely outmatched.”
Do you think Lindsey Halligan is outmatched by James Comey’s attorney? Let us know in the comments section.
The recent filter protocol issue — and what the judge decided
President Donald Trump called Lindsey Halligan “a tough, smart and loyal attorney” who helped him “in the winning fight against the weaponization of our justice system by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats” when she served on his legal team amid the DOJ probe into his handling of classified material. By: Jim LoScalzo – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Halligan recently sought court approval for a “filter protocol” in the Comey case — a system where a special Justice Department team screens seized files to pull out anything covered by attorney-client privilege before investigators see it.
Her filing leaned on a 2019 Inspector General report that said Comey “failed to live up to [his] responsibility” to safeguard FBI records and “set a dangerous example.” She hinted that Comey’s lawyer, Fitzgerald, might appear in some of those old communications, raising possible conflicts of interest.
Comey’s defense called the request “premature” and “provably false,” saying the government was trying to reopen an investigation that ended years ago “without criminal charges.”
When Halligan pushed for a fast ruling, Judge Michael Nachmanoff said no. In his order, he noted the DOJ had “had the materials at issue for several years” and had “failed to seek any guidance” on how to handle them until now.
He denied her request to speed things up and gave the defense more time to respond. The move slowed the case — and once again highlighted the contrast between Halligan’s inexperience and Fitzgerald’s lengthy record.
The charges against Comey — and claims he’s being targeted
Former FBI Director James Comey’s defense called his case a “retaliation effort dressed in legal process,” branding President Donald Trump’s push for the Justice Department to target him an act of political revenge. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Comey was charged with lying to Congress and obstructing a Senate investigation.
Halligan has claimed the former FBI director, who served during Trump’s first term, falsely told senators during a 2020 Judiciary Committee hearing that he had never authorized anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source in news stories related to the Trump administration. The second count accuses him of trying to mislead and obstruct Congress by giving false testimony.
Comey has pleaded not guilty to all charges. His defense has challenged the legality of Halligan’s appointment, claiming it was unlawful, so therefore any indictments she signed are invalid. The defense is also arguing that Comey’s criminal prosecution is an act of vindictive political retribution orchestrated by Trump due to a long-standing personal and political feud.
Republicans launch bid to impeach judge who sent Trump a stern message
A Republican lawmaker is pushing to impeach President Donald Trump's latest enemy — a "radical activist" judge the DOJ has previously targeted — but failed after a clerical error put a stop to the attack.
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) announced Tuesday in a social post that he filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and his alleged role in the FBI's "Arctic Frost" investigation under former special counsel Jack Smith. Boasberg reportedly issued nondisclosure orders in Smith's investigation.
"Judge Boasberg abused his power by weaponizing the judiciary against critics of the Biden Administration," Gill wrote. "As part of the Arctic Frost Investigation, Judge Boasberg signed off on frivolous nondisclosure orders to conceal the fact that sitting US Senators were being surveilled. Not only was this action egregiously improper; it was a gross violation of the separation of powers.
Judge Boasberg is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit for office, and should be impeached."
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) announced that he is a co-sponsor on X, saying, "Boasberg must be brought to account for his actions."
Boasberg "dramatically scolded" Department of Justice officials in March, sending a "message" to the entire administration that their continued challenges to the U.S. judicial system "is not acceptable." The judge reportedly issued the takedown of deputy assistant attorney general Drew Ensign "over the government’s conduct in the case" as the DOJ continued to defend the administration’s failure to comply with a court order to return flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador.
At the time, Trump responded in a social post on his Truth Social platform and argued that Boasberg was trying to usurp his presidential authority.
"No District Court Judge, or any Judge, can assume the duties of the President of the United States. Only Crime and Chaos would result," Trump wrote.
A Republican lawmaker is pushing to impeach President Donald Trump's latest enemy — a "radical activist" judge the DOJ has previously targeted — but failed after a clerical error put a stop to the attack.
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) announced Tuesday in a social post that he filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and his alleged role in the FBI's "Arctic Frost" investigation under former special counsel Jack Smith. Boasberg reportedly issued nondisclosure orders in Smith's investigation.
"Judge Boasberg abused his power by weaponizing the judiciary against critics of the Biden Administration," Gill wrote. "As part of the Arctic Frost Investigation, Judge Boasberg signed off on frivolous nondisclosure orders to conceal the fact that sitting US Senators were being surveilled. Not only was this action egregiously improper; it was a gross violation of the separation of powers.
Judge Boasberg is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit for office, and should be impeached."
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) announced that he is a co-sponsor on X, saying, "Boasberg must be brought to account for his actions."
Boasberg "dramatically scolded" Department of Justice officials in March, sending a "message" to the entire administration that their continued challenges to the U.S. judicial system "is not acceptable." The judge reportedly issued the takedown of deputy assistant attorney general Drew Ensign "over the government’s conduct in the case" as the DOJ continued to defend the administration’s failure to comply with a court order to return flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador.
At the time, Trump responded in a social post on his Truth Social platform and argued that Boasberg was trying to usurp his presidential authority.
"No District Court Judge, or any Judge, can assume the duties of the President of the United States. Only Crime and Chaos would result," Trump wrote.
Expert warns GOP hasn't given up after massive court loss
A prominent election lawyer blasted President Donald Trump during a podcast interview on Tuesday after the Trump administration suffered a loss in court.
Last week, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., permanently halted Trump's efforts to require people who file federal voter registration forms to prove they are U.S. citizens. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly argued that such a directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, according to a report by PBS News.
Marc Elias, a voting rights attorney, discussed the court case with progressive YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen on Tuesday.
"This is a blockbuster ruling from the Washington, DC federal court," Elias said. "...This proof of citizenship requirement is at the top of the voter suppression checklist of the Republican Party. They tried to pass it as a law, and when they couldn't get it through there, Donald Trump went with this executive order. Now that has been thwarted."
Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order that claimed the United States was not "adequately enforcing" laws that prohibit "non-citizens" from registering to vote.
The order was swiftly challenged by civil rights groups, who argued that the order would disproportionately impact voters of color.
Elias also warned that Republicans would likely try to pass the law again in the future.
"But make no mistake, they will be back with this," Elias said. "And their goal is to use this as a way to disenfranchise married women who change their last names, first-time registrants who don't have a passport or an original birth certificate. This is a big deal as we head towards the 2026 midterm elections."
A prominent election lawyer blasted President Donald Trump during a podcast interview on Tuesday after the Trump administration suffered a loss in court.
Last week, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., permanently halted Trump's efforts to require people who file federal voter registration forms to prove they are U.S. citizens. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly argued that such a directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, according to a report by PBS News.
Marc Elias, a voting rights attorney, discussed the court case with progressive YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen on Tuesday.
"This is a blockbuster ruling from the Washington, DC federal court," Elias said. "...This proof of citizenship requirement is at the top of the voter suppression checklist of the Republican Party. They tried to pass it as a law, and when they couldn't get it through there, Donald Trump went with this executive order. Now that has been thwarted."
Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order that claimed the United States was not "adequately enforcing" laws that prohibit "non-citizens" from registering to vote.
The order was swiftly challenged by civil rights groups, who argued that the order would disproportionately impact voters of color.
Elias also warned that Republicans would likely try to pass the law again in the future.
"But make no mistake, they will be back with this," Elias said. "And their goal is to use this as a way to disenfranchise married women who change their last names, first-time registrants who don't have a passport or an original birth certificate. This is a big deal as we head towards the 2026 midterm elections."
Judge poised to demand sweeping changes at immigration facility
A federal judge signaled on Tuesday he is likely to demand changes to the conditions at a Trump administration immigration detention facility in Illinois.
"The government is accused of denying detainees proper access to food, water and medical care and coercing them to sign documents they don’t understand. Without that knowledge, and without private communication with lawyers, they have unknowingly relinquished their rights and faced deportation, the lawsuit alleges," reported PBS.
The court appeared to agree.
"I think the evidence has been pretty strong that this facility is no longer just a temporary holding facility ... It has really become a prison," U.S. Senior District Judge Robert Gettleman said during a hearing, as reported by Chicago Sun-Times courts reporter Jon Seidel.
Gettleman was thoroughly unconvinced by the testimony of Trump administration officials, accusing them of being dishonest and saying, "I haven't heard one person say that they got a hot meal."
"I'm going to rule on the record that I have," he said. "And it's a disturbing record. I think everybody can admit that we don't want to treat people the way that I heard people are being treated today."
Chicago has become ground zero for the nationwide clash over immigration rights and Trump's deportation raids. Protests have been growing in the city, with a separate round of litigation and federal courts accusing the administration of using violence on peaceful protesters and defying judicial orders to stop — though an appellate court stepped in and prevented the harshest sanctions against Trump's Border Patrol chief.
A federal judge signaled on Tuesday he is likely to demand changes to the conditions at a Trump administration immigration detention facility in Illinois.
"The government is accused of denying detainees proper access to food, water and medical care and coercing them to sign documents they don’t understand. Without that knowledge, and without private communication with lawyers, they have unknowingly relinquished their rights and faced deportation, the lawsuit alleges," reported PBS.
The court appeared to agree.
"I think the evidence has been pretty strong that this facility is no longer just a temporary holding facility ... It has really become a prison," U.S. Senior District Judge Robert Gettleman said during a hearing, as reported by Chicago Sun-Times courts reporter Jon Seidel.
Gettleman was thoroughly unconvinced by the testimony of Trump administration officials, accusing them of being dishonest and saying, "I haven't heard one person say that they got a hot meal."
"I'm going to rule on the record that I have," he said. "And it's a disturbing record. I think everybody can admit that we don't want to treat people the way that I heard people are being treated today."
Chicago has become ground zero for the nationwide clash over immigration rights and Trump's deportation raids. Protests have been growing in the city, with a separate round of litigation and federal courts accusing the administration of using violence on peaceful protesters and defying judicial orders to stop — though an appellate court stepped in and prevented the harshest sanctions against Trump's Border Patrol chief.
Trumps threaten author with £1bn lawsuit over Epstein
An author says he’s being targeted by the Trump family for writing about the relationship between Donald and Melania Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.
Michael Wolff has written four books about Trump and interviewed Epstein before he was found dead in a prison cell in 2019.
He’s now offered an open plea for legal assistance after being threatened with a lawsuit of $1,000,000,000 – and has already raised $416,111 in just 20 hours.
Wolff said: ‘I’ve spoken publicly about aspects of those interviews and the things Epstein said, including things he said about Melania Trump.
‘I was notified the other day by Melania Trump’s lawyers that they intend to sue me for a billion dollars related to some of those statements. I’m not the first here. They have threatened and sued other people for saying similar things.
‘These are called slap suits. They may have really no chance at all of proving defamation, but they sue anyway to intimidate you and really to shut down any discussion.’
Wolff says he’s been targeted by the Trumps before (Picture: Getty)
Wolff added: ‘I can’t live like that. My lawyers last night, turning the tables and refusing to acquiesce to these threats, went into court in New York and asked for a declaratory judgment.
‘This gives us the ability to effectively sue Melania and to subpoena witnesses. So everybody who has been involved in this Epstein-Trump circle is going to have to come forward and testify.’
‘I think this is finally going to be the way to find out exactly what the Epstein-Trump story was, and to finally pull back this dark curtain.
Donations are already flooding in from around the world, with supporters offering words of encouragement.
‘Good luck and lots of strength from France,’ one wrote.
New Zealand, the Netherlands, Ireland, and people from other countries have expressed support.
What is a SLAPP suit?
A SLAPP, short for a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, is a lawsuit filed by people who are normally very wealthy in a bid to silence organisations, media outlets or individuals.
The lawsuits are often for obscene amounts of money, like the rumoured billion-dollar one against Wolff.
The UK government defines them as ‘an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper means’.
In layman’s terms, this means to lodge such a frivolous lawsuit against someone that they’re financially unable to continue – often silencing legitimate criticisms.
The president has previously accused Wolff of making up stories to sell books.
Trump has also previously stated he ended his association with Epstein after a fallout in the early 2000s.
The Trump family has previously lodged lawsuits against authors, comedians and newspapers.
In August, Melania Trump threatened to sue Hunter Biden after he linked her to sex trafficker Epstein,
Trump confessed to lodging a $5billion lawsuit against author Tim O’Brien in 2005 for his biography, in which he allegedly underestimated his wealth.
After the case was dismissed, Trump said he only sued him to ‘make his life miserable’.
After the 2024 election, Trump sued an Iowa newspaper, alleging ‘election interference’ after they published a poll suggesting Kamala Harris could win Iowa.
When offered a chance to apologise, Biden said: ‘F**k that. That won’t happen.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
An author says he’s being targeted by the Trump family for writing about the relationship between Donald and Melania Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.
Michael Wolff has written four books about Trump and interviewed Epstein before he was found dead in a prison cell in 2019.
He’s now offered an open plea for legal assistance after being threatened with a lawsuit of $1,000,000,000 – and has already raised $416,111 in just 20 hours.
Wolff said: ‘I’ve spoken publicly about aspects of those interviews and the things Epstein said, including things he said about Melania Trump.
‘I was notified the other day by Melania Trump’s lawyers that they intend to sue me for a billion dollars related to some of those statements. I’m not the first here. They have threatened and sued other people for saying similar things.
‘These are called slap suits. They may have really no chance at all of proving defamation, but they sue anyway to intimidate you and really to shut down any discussion.’
Wolff says he’s been targeted by the Trumps before (Picture: Getty)
Wolff added: ‘I can’t live like that. My lawyers last night, turning the tables and refusing to acquiesce to these threats, went into court in New York and asked for a declaratory judgment.
‘This gives us the ability to effectively sue Melania and to subpoena witnesses. So everybody who has been involved in this Epstein-Trump circle is going to have to come forward and testify.’
‘I think this is finally going to be the way to find out exactly what the Epstein-Trump story was, and to finally pull back this dark curtain.
Donations are already flooding in from around the world, with supporters offering words of encouragement.
‘Good luck and lots of strength from France,’ one wrote.
New Zealand, the Netherlands, Ireland, and people from other countries have expressed support.
What is a SLAPP suit?
A SLAPP, short for a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, is a lawsuit filed by people who are normally very wealthy in a bid to silence organisations, media outlets or individuals.
The lawsuits are often for obscene amounts of money, like the rumoured billion-dollar one against Wolff.
The UK government defines them as ‘an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper means’.
In layman’s terms, this means to lodge such a frivolous lawsuit against someone that they’re financially unable to continue – often silencing legitimate criticisms.
The president has previously accused Wolff of making up stories to sell books.
Trump has also previously stated he ended his association with Epstein after a fallout in the early 2000s.
The Trump family has previously lodged lawsuits against authors, comedians and newspapers.
In August, Melania Trump threatened to sue Hunter Biden after he linked her to sex trafficker Epstein,
Trump confessed to lodging a $5billion lawsuit against author Tim O’Brien in 2005 for his biography, in which he allegedly underestimated his wealth.
After the case was dismissed, Trump said he only sued him to ‘make his life miserable’.
After the 2024 election, Trump sued an Iowa newspaper, alleging ‘election interference’ after they published a poll suggesting Kamala Harris could win Iowa.
When offered a chance to apologise, Biden said: ‘F**k that. That won’t happen.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
