Category: Bureaucraps

ATF Requested Stay Denied in Force Reset Trigger Case

Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor for the Northern District of Texas denied the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) request for a stay on his ruling that blocked the ATF from taking enforcement actions over force reset triggers (FRT).

Earlier, Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority when it determined that FRTs were machine guns in the National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland. FRTs use the bolt carrier group (BCG) of an AR-15-style firearm to reset the trigger of the gun. This reset allows the shooter to increase the rate of fire of a firearm. The ATF claimed that since the rate of fire approaches that of a machine gun, it made the device a machine gun conversion device. Under federal law, any device that converts a semi-automatic firearm to a machine gun is itself a machine gun.

Machine guns are defined under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The actual law doesn’t reference a fire rate when determining a machine gun. According to the law, a machine gun fires multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger. An FRT doesn’t work that way. A firearm equipped with an FRT expels one round per trigger function. The ATF made the same argument about bump stocks in the Cargill case, but the Supreme Court ruled against the government and stated that bump stocks were not machine guns.

The statute reads: “For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

The plaintiffs claim that since an FRT requires that the user pull the trigger between each round, it could not be considered a machine gun. In the past, the ATF tried to use Chevron deference to change the meaning of a law, but because of the recent Supreme Court opinion in the Loper Bright Enterprises case, Chevron deference is dead. Chevron deference says when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the agency of authority has the final say as to the law’s meaning. This decision stripped the ATF of using Chevron deference in this case, even though it probably would not have been successful.

The ATF tried to use Chevron deference in the Cargill case, but SCOTUS rejected that tactic, stating that the definition of a machine gun is not unclear or ambiguous. Chances are high that the court would come to the same conclusion in this case. The ATF claimed that not issuing a stay would cause irreparable harm to public safety. The judge rejected the argument, saying that the only people charged with having an FRT were also charged with other crimes, so possessing an FRT was only an “add-on” crime. He also stated he did not believe that the defense was likely to succeed on the merits of the case.

The judge extended the time frame the ATF has to return the approximately 11,884 Rare Breed Triggers FRT-15s and Wide Open Triggers (WOT) it had confiscated from owners. Initially, Judge O’Connor gave the ATF 30 days to return all the triggers it confiscated from gun owners. The ATF went door to door to seize the triggers from owners but stated it could not return them in 30 days. The judge increased the time of the deadline by five months. The ATF now has six months to return all the triggers to their owners.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal (ECF No. 104),” the order reads. “The Court grants Defendants an additional SIX (6) MONTHS to comply with the affirmative obligation, which SHALL be completed by February 22, 2025. This extension does NOT apply to the Individual Plaintiffs or members of the Organizational Plaintiffs who specifically request the return of their FRT devices and provide sufficient documentation to the ATF. ATF shall return those as soon as is practicable following the specific request.”

The ATF is appealing the judge’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, although since this is the same court that ruled against the ATF in Cargill, it seems like a long shot that they will side with the ATF. The arguments in both cases are almost identical.

U.S. Government Appeals Pistol Brace Decision to 5th Circuit

After nearly three months of silence, the U.S. Government has now appealed the June 13, 2024, pistol brace decision to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The appeal was announced on August 12, 2024. The case is Mock v. Garland, and it was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The ATF pistol brace rule targets stabilizer braces attached to AR pistols, claiming the braces turn AR pistols into short barrel rifles (SBRs). And since SBRs are regulated under the National Firearms Act (1934), the ATF issued its rule on AR-pistol braces to stop what it saw as a way around SBR regulations.

Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction against the AR pistol brace rule on November 8, 2023.

Kacsmaryk observed that the “court is not insensitive to the ATF’s concerns over gun industry gamesmanship and attempts to circumvent the rules on SBRs.” But he followed that acknowledgement by quoting Bruen (2022), noting that the government may not justify the passage and/or existence of a regulation by “simply [positing] that the regulation promotes an important interest.”

In a decision dated June 13, 2024, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor vacated the ATF’s AR pistol brace rule, saying it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The U.S. Government has now appealed the pistol brace decision to the Fifth Circuit.

Breitbart News pointed out the Fifth Circuit decided against another ATF rule–a ban on bump stocks–on January 6, 2023. The court did so in light of the ATF’s arbitrary recategorization of bump stocks as “machine guns.”

Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC’s Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium.

The 2-1 decision overrules a trial court decision that went the other way, and could set an important property rights precedent.

On Wednesday, in Darby Development Co. v. United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which reviews takings claims against the federal government ruled that a takings lawsuit against the 2020-21 federal eviction moratorium can proceed. In so doing, it overruled a trial court decision by the Court of Claims, which I criticized here. The decision could well end up setting an important takings precedent.

In September 2020, during the Covid pandemic, the Trump Administration Centers for Disease Control (CDC) imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium, claiming that it would reduce the spread of the disease. The Biden Administration extended the moratorium multiple times.

In August 2021, the eviction moratorium was invalidated by the Supreme Court because the CDC lacked proper statutory authority to institute it. But, in the meantime, numerous landlords suffered financial losses, because they could not evict tenants who weren’t paying rent.

Some of the property owners filed a lawsuit arguing that the eviction moratorium violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay “just compensation” whenever it takes private property. As I explained at the time, their position was backed by the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which held that even temporary physical occupations of property qualify as “per se” (automatic) takings requiring compensation.

In May 2022, the US Court of Claims dismissed the takings lawsuit against the CDC moratorium on the perverse ground that there was no taking because the CDC’s eviction moratorium was never properly “authorized.” In other words, the government could escape takings liability because its actions were illegal! The recent Federal Circuit decision reversed that ruling.

Continue reading “”

Second court crushes Biden’s assault on AR-style pistols.

Today [the 9th]  another federal court rejected President Joe Biden’s war on guns, ruling against his effort to require 3 million to 7 million owners of AR-style pistols to register and pay a $200 tax on their firearms or face prison.

In the latest blow to liberal gun control politicians and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s plan, claiming it was likely to get tossed by the Supreme Court.

For now, the millions of users of guns equipped with “pistol braces” can keep them without fear of being fined or jailed.

The court said the ATF rule was poorly written and vague and gave the agency too much leeway to go after owners of the popular firearms.

Continue reading “”

ATF Moves to Halt Forced Reset Trigger Ruling, Appeals Decision

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is arguing in a new filing that it cannot meet a federal court’s order to return the forced reset triggers (FRTs) they collected when they effectively banned the devices last year.

Last month, U.S. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor ordered the vacatur of an ATF rule classifying FRTs—a rapid-fire trigger device—as regulated machinegun parts. O’Connor further ordered the ATF to return, within 30 days, any FRTs it seized from manufacturers, resellers, or individual owners while its rule was in effect.

The ATF has since filed motions challenging O’Connor’s ruling, including appealing the ruling up to the U.S. Fifth Circuit of Appeals and requesting a stay of the lower court’s decision.

Arguing their motion to stay O’Connor’s ruling, the ATF said it would be difficult to meet the requirement to turn over any seized FRTs within 30 days.

“ATF does not know the identities of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claimed members,” the federal agency wrote in its Aug. 1 filing, referring to the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights.

“Thus, ATF has no ability to determine who must be returned devices under the Order,” the ATF’s legal filing continues. “And even if an individual approaches ATF and self-identifies as an Organizational-Plaintiff member, ATF does not have the means to verify the accuracy of that representation, or whether they were, in fact, a member at the time the complaint was filed, as is necessary to receive relief.”

O’Connor’s order for the ATF to return seized FRT’s didn’t stipulate that the agency should only return the devices to the organizational plaintiffs. Rather, his ordered simply directed all of the seized devices be returned.

“The Court ORDERS Defendants to return to all parties, including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals, all FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within thirty (30) days of this decision,” O’Connor’s July 23 instruction states. Continue reading “”

Somebody got an earful.

Defense secretary abruptly revokes plea deal with alleged 9/11 mastermind KSM, co-conspirators

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin abruptly revoked a plea deal for the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and his co-conspirators, and he relieved the overseer in charge after years of effort to reach an agreement to bring the cases to a close.

In a surprise memo quietly released Friday night, Austin said the responsibility for such a significant decision “should rest with me.” Only two days earlier, the Pentagon announced that it had reached a plea deal with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, more commonly known as KSM, and two other defendants – Walid Bin ‘Attash, and Hawsawi – accused of plotting the attacks.

The memo, addressed to Susan Escallier, the convening authority for military commissions who runs the military courts at Guantanamo Bay, said the defense secretary would immediately withdraw her authority in the cases and “reserve such authority to (himself).”

Austin said that he was withdrawing from the three pre-trial agreements, which had taken the death penalty off the table for the three men.

Prosecutors in the case had been discussing the possibility of a plea deal for more than two years, which would have avoided a lengthy trial complicated by questions over the admissibility of evidence obtained during torture.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
If you can give an innocent explanation for the mountain of evidence that this was allowed to happen, I really want to hear it, because a plot to get Trump killed is the worst-case scenario. I really don’t want to believe it.

Right now I believe it. Please prove me wrong.

Director Rowe Personally Crippled Trump’s Secret Service Team

The tap dancing, lies, and coverup of the Trump assassination attempt by the Secret Service, FBI, and now the mainstream media is so far beyond bureaucratic ass-covering that it’s hard to conclude that the events in Butler were not desired.

I still maintain that it is unlikely in the extreme that anybody inside the government recruited Crooks to take his shots at Trump because it seems so implausible that any sane person would recruit an untrained kid to do the deed, but it is now clear to me that the top levels of the Secret Service and Homeland Security wanted Trump in danger.

For weeks, I wanted to believe that massive incompetence led to the events in Butler. I really did because the alternative didn’t bear thinking of. I thought the lawfare campaign was banana republic stuff, but assassination? That is Putin-level evil.

But consider the facts: the security “breakdowns” were so massive and implausible when combined that any large police force could have done a better job than the most elite protection unit in the world. The shooter was identified, tracked, photographed, filmed on the roof, the Secret Service was warned multiple times, the shooter was in the line of sight of the snipers, and Trump was trotted out onto the stage and kept there as the shooter was lining up his shot in full view of the Secret Service snipers.

None of that is disputable.

Continue reading “”

Question O’ The Day
Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?
Answer O’ The Day:
Yes

If we can thank Senator McConnell for one thing, it’s keeping this moron hack off the Supreme Court

AG Garland slams dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case: ‘Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?’

Attorney General Merrick Garland suggested Tuesday that his lengthy legal career makes it unlikely that he illegally appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate alleged crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, ruling that the special counsel was not lawfully appointed by Garland – a determination that made the Biden administration official bristle.

“For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don’t think so,” Garland said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.”

The attorney general noted that his “favorite room” in the Justice Department is its law library to hammer down the point.

“Our position is, it’s constitutional and valid. That’s why we appealed,” Garland added.

“I will say that this is the same process of appointing special counsel as was followed in the previous administration, Special Counsel [John] Durham and Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller, in multiple special counsels over the decades going back to Watergate and the special prosecutor in that case,” he said.

“Until now every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment has upheld it.”

In her July 15 order, Cannon ruled that Congress was required to appoint “constitutional officers” and the legislature was also needed to approve spending for such a prosecution.

“That role cannot be usurped by the executive branch or diffused elsewhere — whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not,” she wrote in her 93-page ruling.

The judge determined that “Special Counsel Smith’s investigation has unlawfully drawn funds from the Indefinite Appropriation.”

“The Special Counsel’s office has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all drawn unconstitutionally from the Indefinite Appropriation,” Cannon wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, arguing that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed by the attorney general.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed,” she added.

Smith’s team is expected to file a brief related to their appeal in the case, which charged the 78-year-old Republican nominee for president with improperly hoarding sensitive and classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency, by the end of August.

Trump faced up to 450 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the case.

Supreme Court to hear disputes over ghost guns, veteran disabilities, pollution during new term

The Supreme Court will return from its summer recess in October and hear legal battles involving ghost guns, veteran disability claims and water pollution in the justices’ first sitting of the new term.

On Friday, the court released its October calendar, which includes four notable disputes:

Ghost guns

On Oct. 8, the justices will take up a dispute over ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled and lack serial numbers. It will be the second day for the justices after they return from a three-month recess to kick off the 2024-25 term.

The Biden administration asked the justices to review a case in which a federal appeals court struck down a regulation governing the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Justice Department lawyers say ghost guns have turned into an end-run around federal gun control laws, allowing “anyone with access to the internet to anonymously buy a parts kit or partially complete frame or receiver that can be assembled into a working firearm in as little as 20 minutes.”

Gun rights advocates say if the government wants to regulate the sale of ghost guns, it must pass a new law, arguing the feds can’t stretch the 1968 legislation that far.

NRA Challenges ‘Engaged In The Business’ Rule In Alabama Court

The National Rifle Association on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging the DOJ/ATF’s Final Rule redefining who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms.

The NRA, along with two individuals, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Specifically, Butler v. Garland argues that the rule, which arguably bans most private sales of firearms, violates the Administrative Procedures Act.

Along with the NRA, the individual plaintiffs are Don Butler and David Glidewell. Butler, from Talladega, Alabama, is an NRA member, firearms hobbyist and collector. Glidewell, from Ragland, Alabama, is also an NRA member, firearms hobbyist and collector, according to the complaint.

Randy Kozuch, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said the lawsuit is a follow-up on the promise made by NRA when the Final Rule was announced.

Continue reading “”

The Elephant in the Room: Female Secret Service Agents

It was clear today during the House Oversight Committee hearing on the Secret Service’s failure on July 13 that Director Kimberly Cheatle is either a shameless liar or completely incompetent—probably both. Her refusal to answer the most basic questions about the shooting, which nearly killed Donald Trump, has disqualified her for the job—full stop. She needs to be fired, along with other incompetent Secret Service bureaucrats in the agency.

Among other things, she revealed that she didn’t sign off on Trump’s protective plan that day. In fact, she doesn’t sign off on any of the plans. She also admitted that even though she’s deeply involved in the supposed investigation of her agency’s failures (wherein she is investigating herself), she hasn’t bothered to visit the shooting site.

One issue that repeatedly came up during the hearing was DEI hires in the agency and whether the female agents assigned to Trump were qualified for the job. Last year, Cheatle announced a goal of 30% female recruits, along with a whole host of diversity measures.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) called Cheatle a “DEI horror story.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) accused Republicans of racism and misogyny because that’s all she knows how to do.

Republicans have exploited this moment to continue to attack programs for racial justice and gender equity in America. Disappointing, but not surprising. I hesitate to repeat their racist and sexist tropes. But in summary, Republicans have wrongfully and shamefully stated that hiring women and people of color hindered the response to the shooting.

Now, this is part and parcel of Republican strategy to constantly attack necessary diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts to undermine the contributions that women, people of color, the disability community, and others each and every day, and it is disgraceful in the wake of gun violence and tragic loss of life.

Asked about diversity hires at the agency, Cheatle replied that she’s focused on hiring the “best and brightest” and “best-qualified candidates.”

But is that true?

I wrote this on our liveblog the day of the shooting:

It’s time to have an adult conversation about the elephant in the room — women in the Secret Service. The question must be asked: Was Trump’s security detail compromised by diversity hires (women, gays, trans people, etc.)? In the case of women, it’s indisputable that men are stronger and faster than women. No one but the hopelessly deluded DEI enforcer believes otherwise. Someone going by the moniker @eyeslashoposted this chart on X today:


(click on image for a larger one)

It shows how the physical fitness standards are lower for female Secret Service trainees—in this case, pushups, with men’s scores on the left. For a man to be considered “Excellent” in the 20s age group, he must complete 55 pushups; for a woman, it’s only 40. Women can get away with only 26 pushups and still be considered “Good.” (Note: a man in his 20s should be able to do WAY more than 55 pushups.)

Eyeslasho added, “Shockingly, a total of only 6 points is required to pass the four-element test,” which includes pushups, sit-ups, chin-ups, and a 1.5 mile run. “And even if you don’t score 6 points, you can still be admitted upon further ‘review and recommendation.'”

“Overall, I’m not impressed by what is physically required of those who enter the Secret Service,” he concluded.

Neither am I.

We’ve all seen the pictures of a bloodied Trump surrounded by his protective detail. The men on the team were tall enough to place their heads between Trump’s head and the shooter; the female agent was significantly shorter, exposing Trump’s head.

Make no mistake: The agent in the picture above was incredibly brave. She placed her body between Trump and the shooter without hesitation and deserves to be praised for her effort. It’s not her fault that she is shorter than the male agents or that someone at the Secret Service placed her in that position.

Diversity, for its own sake, is ridiculous; diversity in jobs where someone’s life is on the line could be deadly.

I work out with some female law enforcement officers, and they are absolute beasts in the gym. But the strongest women in the gym can’t compete with the men when it comes to strength tests.

If I place my life in the hands of the Secret Service, I want the strongest, fastest, and best-trained agent possible. Women can be incredibly strong and fit and can certainly be well-trained. But if I had to choose between a man and a woman of similar age and training, I’d go with the man every time. If someone’s going to have to carry my lifeless body off a dais, I want the guy with huge biceps and legs like tree trunks. “Yasss girl power!” is not going to cut it.

Yes, I know it’s not politically correct to speak about gender in a way that suggests women ≠ to men, but as the managing editor of PJ Media, I don’t demand political correctness. I don’t force writers to use “preferred genders,” unlike other sites (one of which rhymes with “box”). That decision has gotten us demonetized, throttled, and censored, but we refuse to back down. You should demand no less of the websites you frequent.

The Secret Service’s Day Of Reckoning: What Kim Cheatle’s Evasion Means For America

United States Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle sat before the House Oversight Committee yesterday. The committee subpoenaed Cheatle to ensure her appearance. Her responses were predictable and tiresome. Whenever possible, she deflected questions, citing the FBI’s “ongoing investigation.” Her response to every substantive question was a simple variation on a theme — “I’m not going to get into the specifics.”

It’s a response that has rolled with ease off the lips of FBI Director Christopher Wray whenever confronted with the ire of congressional committee members. Anger — genuine or manufactured — displayed as the result of inexcusable incidents of politicization. But, these sorts of responses to congressional oversight committees have become so common they’re mundane.

However, Congress plays a significant role in the automatic and cavalier dismissals of pointed questioning by agency heads. Oversight has become a joke. Unless you’re a Trump appointee or official, contempt of Congress has absolutely no meaning. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro are the only two examples in living memory of the efficacious use of Congress’ power of contempt. It seems only Democrats have the political will.

Cheatle easily dismissed the blustery, reddened faces congressional inquisitors assumed, like so many tomatoes set atop starched collars. Cursing and grandstanding only serves to elicit reshares on social media, and ensures a few early afternoon hits on broadcast news channels. All very important if you’re obsessed with the perpetual fundraising cycle, and convincing gullible constituents you really care one whit about their questions or concerns.

How do I know this is all a put-on? I’ve witnessed it firsthand. As a member of a dignitary protection detail, I’ve seen behind the veritable curtain, and witnessed the handshaking, back slapping, and laughing transform into Oscar winning tragedies of political theater when the cameras and lights come on. The outrage is a ploy — maybe not for everyone, but for most.

The American people can do the analysis for themselves. Congress doesn’t have the power to fire Cheatle directly, that option is solely within the purview of the lame duck president Joe Biden. But, Congress does control the purse strings, and the power to arrest and jail for contempt.

Cheatle followed the disaster of July 13th with a disastrous day before Congress. With nine days to anticipate obvious questions, she refused to provide a real answer to a single one. There’s no question she has access to accurate, preliminary findings — information the public has a right to know. A quick perusal of the operations plan would tell her who was responsible for covering the building from which the shooter fired.

Democrat members of the House Oversight Committee like Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC) used the publicity opportunity to vamp for gun confiscation. Norton asked Cheatle, “Would Secret Service protectees be safer or less safe if people could carry handguns in D.C?” What that has to do with the most significant Secret Service failure in almost fifty years is beyond the powers of mortal reason.

Incompetence is a feature of Democrat party policy, politics, and governance at every level.

Cheatle also failed to convincingly defend the men and women who responded within three seconds of the first shot fired on the July 13th assassination attempt, or to debunk the plethora of wild conspiracy theories infesting the dark environs of social media.

Keyboard jockeys immediately pounced on the female members of Trump’s protection detail, zeroing in on one in particular who seemed overcome by events. Though performance was certainly an issue during some of the tactical movements leading to securing Trump in his limousine, these criticisms are coming almost exclusively from people who have no dignitary protection background. The same critics have failed to realize the potentially pivotal role played by the Butler County Sheriff’s deputy who was boosted to the roof where the would-be assassin had positioned himself. It is highly likely that the actions of this deputy saved Trump’s life, having disturbed the shooter’s firing rhythm.

Ridiculous conspiracy theories abound. Rep. Jake LaTurner (R-KS) leveled a series of important questions, asking Cheatle to provide detail to dispel the growing body of wild and uninformed narratives surrounding the assassination attempt. She refused.

A particularly laughable theory posits that an FBI Assistant Director (AD) was placed behind Trump in the crowd during the rally. Any surveillance professional knows how ridiculous it is to suggest that an AD would be involved in surveillance at all, much less in one where she’d be placed directly behind Trump, in a position to be photographed countless times. But, this is the kind of nonsense that flourishes in the absence of information from professionals who are in the position to know.

Cheatle did get one thing right: she called the January 13th assassination attempt the worst lapse in decades. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) called her incompetent, and demanded her instant resignation. Failing that, Turner called on Biden to fire her immediately. More notably, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) compared Cheatle to former USSS Director H. Stewart Knight after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, citing his resignation. Khanna said flatly, “I think you should resign.” Humorously, though stated in the most grave tones, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) called Cheatle, “a DEI horror story.”

It has been often said that the Secret Service’s duties are a “no fail mission.” That’s absolutely true. The responsibilities of dignitary protection are too weighty to allow for chance, mistake, or complacency. There are no take backs or do overs. That’s why former Director Stewart tendered his resignation. However, providing an acceptable level of transparency is also a no fail mission. Without it, as we have seen, everyone loses faith in our democratic institutions. That is an existential threat.

We must not just demand, but secure accountability from our representatives. We have an unparalleled opportunity to do just that this presidential election cycle. Trump can exercise executive authority to correct the leadership problems at the Secret Service, the FBI, and across the deep state apparatus.

A Major Lie From the Secret Service About the Trump Assassination Attempt Just Got Busted

The Secret Service is hiding in the bunker. They haven’t held a press conference on the July 13 assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. There’s been a code of silence on his harrowing and historic event, and we know why: they got busted for peddling a lie. Shocker—but we have another Biden-era scandal emerging, one where the agency appears to have hidden from the public because there was no spinning what was inevitably going to be asked by the media: the allegation that the Biden Department of Homeland Security denied requests for more resources. After initially denying it, the agency finally had to admit this was true.

The Washington Post and New York Times confirmed it. However, it was The Federalist’s Sean Davis who first reported that a source told him this was the case in the initial aftermath of the assassination attempt against the former president. It only adds to the incompetence of this administration, along with dousing the fires of a cover-up. At this point, there are too many coincidences, security failures, and now lies to dismiss this narrative outright (via NYT):

The Secret Service acknowledged on Saturday that it had turned down requests for additional federal resources sought by former President Donald J. Trump’s security detail in the two years leading up to his attempted assassination last week, a reversal from earlier statements by the agency denying that such requests had been rebuffed.

Almost immediately after a gunman shot at Mr. Trump from a nearby warehouse roof while he spoke at a rally in Butler, Pa., last weekend, the Secret Service faced accusations from Republicans and anonymous law enforcement officials that it had turned down requests for additional agents to secure Mr. Trump’s rallies.

“There’s an untrue assertion that a member of the former president’s team requested additional resources and that those were rebuffed,” Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said last Sunday, the day after the shooting.[…]

On Saturday, Mr. Guglielmi acknowledged that the Secret Service had turned down some requests for additional federal security assets for Mr. Trump’s detail. Two people briefed on the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, confirmed that the Trump campaign had been seeking additional resources for the better part of the time that Mr. Trump had been out of office. The denied requests for additional resources were not specifically for the rally in Butler, Mr. Guglielmi said.

U.S. officials previously said the Secret Service had enhanced security for the former president before the Butler rally because it had received information from U.S. intelligence agencies about a potential Iranian assassination plot against Mr. Trump.[…]

The service never held or took part in a public briefing the night of the shooting, while other law enforcement officials held a news conference a few hours after the fact. The service did not hold a public briefing to answer questions in the week after the assassination attempt.

Continue reading “”

Trump Scores Major Legal Victory!

Donald Trump received a major legal victory Monday morning when U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Biden administration’s classified documents case against him.

Cannon granted former President Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him, citing the unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The judge ruled that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, leading to the dismissal of the superseding indictment. Additionally, the court found that Smith’s use of a permanent, indefinite appropriation violated the Appropriations Clause, though it did not address the remedy for this violation.

In early April, Judge Cannon had rejected Trump’s previous attempt to dismiss the case, which was based on the argument that the documents found at his estate were personal records. Trump had filed multiple motions for dismissal back in February, employing various arguments, such as asserting presidential immunity and questioning the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment.

Merrick Garland handpicked Jack Smith in November to investigate former President Donald J. Trump over the alleged mishandling of classified documents and the ridiculous case over the Capitol riot.

Cannon’s new ruling is limited to this specific case.

Garland called Smith the “right choice to complete these matters in an evenhanded and urgent manner.” But in reality, Smith is a hardcore partisan with a shoddy record whose sole purpose was to get the result the Biden administration wanted.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump had been on shaky ground for months. As far back as March, it appeared to be falling apart.

In April, Cannon unsealed a trove of new documents in the case, revealing that an FBI agent had testified that the General Services Administration (GSA) was in possession of Trump’s boxes in Virginia before ordering Trump’s team to retrieve them. These same boxes, which the GSA had held and then ordered Trump’s team to retrieve, ended up being the ones containing classified markings. This raised questions about whether the Biden administration had set up Trump.

In May, Smith’s team admitted to misleading Cannon and tampering with the evidence used to support his case against Trump.

The case against Trump was widely seen as political because Joe Biden had classified information that he was never entitled to have stored in boxes in his garage for years but was not charged, even though he had never had the authority to declassify them.

In February, Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report concluded that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen” and that his actions “presented serious risks to national security.” However, Hur wouldn’t bring charges against him because Biden “would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

You can read the entire ruling here.