Tag: corruption

Illinois Law Would Shield Illegals From Arrest, Allow Them to Sue Agents Who Arrest Them

Far-left Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly have passed a bill that will provide sanctuary to illegal aliens in courthouses and give them a right to sue the federal agents who arrest them.

Hate-Trump Governor J.B. Pritzker, who believes federal immigration and other agents are “Gestapo” stormtroopers and vows to prosecute them, will almost certainly sign the bill as soon as it hits his desk.

The federal Justice Department will likely sue to overturn the bill under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, an action that might go nowhere. A federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden dismissed the department’s lawsuit to overturn Chicago’s and Illinois’ sanctuary statutes.

The law will shield illegal-alien sex fiends and murderers from arrest and deportation.

The Bill

The law is an amendment attached to a bill, of all things, for a POW-MIA recognition day.

It includes several provisions to help illegals escape deportation, as Capitol News Illinois reported:

Under the bill, civil immigration arrests would be barred inside state courthouses and within a 1,000-foot buffer zone outside of the buildings. Though there had long been a de facto understanding that such were off-limits for immigration enforcement, they have increasingly been the site of apprehensions over the past year. Those who violate the act would face statutory damages of $10,000.

The bill also allows Illinois residents to sue immigration agents for violating their constitutional rights. They would be able to collect punitive damages, which can be increased if the agents are wearing a mask, concealing their identity, failing to wear a body camera or using a vehicle with a non-Illinois or obscured license plate.

In other words, legislators hope to endanger the lives of federal agents by forcing them to reveal their identity, which illegal-alien gangs and their supporters could use to harass, assault, or murder the agents or their families. Federal prosecutors have charged two men who solicited the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, one of them in Chicago. As well, as The New American reported, citing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Mexican drug cartels have created a three-tiered bounty system on agents, with a $10,000 reward for murdering one.

Not surprisingly, one enthusiast for the bill is an immigrant Democratic legislator from Vietnam, Hoan Huynh. He called ICE’s behavior “un-American,” the website reported:

We cannot continue to allow gun-toting mercenaries, often without agency badges, to roam our communities and abduct our neighbors. Enough is enough. ICE conduct is unacceptable and un-American. If you love the Constitution of the United States, if you love America as much as you say you do, and if you believe in due process, then I urge you to vote yes on this bill.

Keep reading

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Refuses To Recuse After Openly Mocking Defendant

isconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Dallet has denied a motion to recuse herself from a case after openly criticizing the defendant, former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. She is now slated to rule on whether Gableman should have his law license suspended. Gableman has been attacked for his aid in investigating concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. 

Dallet is part of a growing movement of judges becoming more vocal about their partisan beliefs. Especially on the campaign trail, they promote not their impartiality but their political agendas. The courts are not meant to be benches of activists. For judges to avoid recusal issues, they need to maintain their impartiality and integrity. 

In early October, Gableman submitted a request to have two sitting justices removed from presiding over his case. He showed they each had a history of making biased statements that might affect the outcome of the court’s decision. One, Justice Susan Crawford, who had reportedly accused him of being a “disgraced election conspiracy theorist,” agreed to recuse herself because she had personal knowledge of the case that would prevent her from proceeding in unbiased decision-making. 

The other, Justice Rebecca Dallet, has refused to remove herself from the case. This is alarming because Dallet has a history of openly attacking Gableman, including during her election campaign, when she said Gableman “ran one of the most unethical campaigns in our state’s history,” and that he “was a rubber stamp for his political allies.”

Dallet has argued that her previous statements about Gableman being corrupt are irrelevant because they were made between 2008 and 2018 — but the dates don’t matter, only her record of attacks on her perceived political opponent. Dallet has repeatedly shown she’s biased against Gableman. Her record of attacks indicates she is unfit to rule on his law license. 

For the courts to maintain their dignity, they must not have any semblance of bias. Judges are required to recuse themselves from cases if there is any reasonable public doubt about their partiality. Crawford’s recusal was right and proper. Dallet refusing to do the same would be an abuse of power against someone she clearly once viewed as a political enemy — and may still. Further, Dallet’s unwillingness to recuse leaves a precarious 3-3 split between liberals and conservatives.

Gableman’s law license hangs in the balance over accusations of ethics violations, stemming from his investigation into Wisconsin’s 2020 election. In 2021, he was hired by the leader of the Wisconsin Assembly to investigate allegations of voter fraud as the head of a new Office of Special Counsel.

Gableman’s concerns about the 2020 election have been vindicated as evidence has arisen. For instance, according to the MacIver Institute, “Between January 1, 2020, and November 3, 2020, 33,473 deceased individuals matched records in the state voter system and were identified,” and the response from local clerks “seems to suggest again that state law is being ignored” and “raises all sorts of questions about the competency of the WEC staff and the local clerks.”

WEC also reportedly violated state laws by not requiring many newly registered voters to electronically sign their forms or provide proof of a valid driver’s license. Early absentee voting accounted for almost 60 percent of all ballots cast in the state’s 2020 election. Despite this, the city of Madison refused auditors the ability to physically review their absentee ballots. In a sampling of absentee ballots reviewed by statewide auditors, about 7 percent lacked the full witness address mandated by law.

Gableman’s investigation into Wisconsin’s discrepancies received pushback from elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum. Many news outlets targeted both him and Trump for their inquiries — but they’re far from the only two targets of left-wing lawfare.

Keep reading

JPMorgan Discloses Government Probe Into Debanking Practices

US regulators are examining whether JPMorgan Chase has denied customers fair access to banking, as pressure grows over debanking decisions that were made against conservative figures, according to reporting from Financial Times and the company’s 10-Q filing.

In its quarterly filing, the bank noted it was “responding to requests from government authorities and other external parties regarding, among other things, the firm’s policies and processes and the provision of services to customers and potential customers”.

JPMorgan linked the scrutiny to an August executive order from Donald Trump directing regulators to review possible “politicised or unlawful debanking”. The bank said related inquiries include “reviews, investigations and legal proceedings,” without identifying the agencies involved.

Bank of America has similarly reported responding to government demands about “fair access to banking.” Industry lobbyists argue that regulatory rules around politically exposed persons and “reputation risk” have pushed banks to deny certain customers.

Recall, just yesterday, we noted that a top bank watchdog was making sure big banks have finally ditched debanking policies. You remember those, right? We sure do. It happened around the same time Google, Paypal and Amazon all banned us due to our (correct) take on the origins of Covid-19 and because they didn’t like our (correct) take on the BLM movement.

For those that missed it, a slew of banks under the Biden administration outright cancelled people’s accounts and didn’t allow them access to a bank account based on the industry they worked in, or many times their political views (surprise, none of them were Democrats).

Jonathan Gould, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC, told a conference that supervisors are double-checking banks really did stop blacklisting sectors like firearms from banks, according to Reuters.

Keep reading

Oregon declines criminal investigation into those who illegally voted

Oregon election officials announced that they will not pursue criminal investigations against the dozens of non-citizens who illegally cast ballots in elections in recent years after they were unlawfully registered to vote due to a DMV clerical error.

According to a statement from the Oregon Secretary of State, the decision rests on the fact that the non-citizens allegedly did not knowingly violate election laws or were either eligible to vote at the time they did. “The Secretary of State’s Office will not refer anyone for criminal prosecution because the DMV mistakenly registered them to vote,” the statement reads. “A clerical error at DMV caused these mistaken registrations, not the unlawful actions of any of the people registered.”

This comes after a last year investigation revealed that at least 1,863 individuals were unlawfully registered to vote under the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) voter registration system. Hundreds of those individuals were determined to be non-citizens. Oregon law allows anyone to obtain a driver’s license despite immigration status. The error occurred when DMV staff mistakenly selected “US passport” or “US birth certificate” while entering documentation data for individuals applying for driver’s licenses. This error led to non-citizens being added to the voter registration system.

39 of the 1,863 individuals who were unlawfully registered, many of whom were noncitizens, had cast ballots in elections in recent years, the Oregonian reported. Election authorities argued that the number of people who voted illegally did not affect the outcome of an election, giving them another excuse to avoid inquiries.

At least three individuals were referred to the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) for a criminal probe due to the Secretary of State’s Office stating that they had not responded to their inquiry about voting history. However, the state DOJ decided not to proceed with the investigations.

Keep reading

Judge Rips DOJ Prosecutors, Gives Comey Another Win in Federal Criminal Case

A magistrate judge on Wednesday ripped DOJ prosecutors and accused them of a slap dahs indictment against James Comey.

A grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted former FBI Director James Comey in September. He was indicted on two counts – false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

Comey’s false statements charge is related to his September 2020 Senate testimony on whether he authorized leaks to the media.

In 2020, James Comey lied when he told congressional investigators that he never gave anyone permission to anonymously leak information about Hillary Clinton’s email investigation to the media.

However, evidence presented by prosecutors proves Comey gave his friend-turned-lawyer Daniel Richman permission to leak to The New York Times – and cheered it on.

The Justice Department also has other materials related to Comey’s case “on a desk” at the FBI headquarters. Comey’s lawyers accused the DOJ of withholding evidence in violation of the Constitution.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick scolded prosecutors for their handling of the case and said they quickly moved to “indict first, investigate second.”

Fitzpatrick also ordered the Justice Department to turn over all grand jury materials to Comey’s attorneys by Thursday.

Comey’s attorneys are arguing that some of the documents used in the indictment may be privileged.

Keep reading

Judge Orders Prosecutors to Turn Over Evidence Against James Comey

A federal judge on Nov. 5 ordered prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hand over evidence in its case against former FBI Director James Comey.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick gave the DOJ until the end of Thursday to provide Comey’s attorneys with grand jury materials, along with other evidence related to the case. Comey’s attorneys told the court that they had no access to relevant evidence that had been collected years ago as part of an FBI probe into media leaks.

The DOJ alleges that Comey lied to Congress in 2020 during a hearing in which he said he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports.”

Comey has pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss his case as “selective and vindictive” prosecution. He argues that the case was brought in retaliation for his role in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, in which President Donald Trump was falsely accused of colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

His attorneys argued in a court filing that the Trump administration declined to prosecute other individuals who allegedly lied to Congress, saying it was because they were his political allies.

Judge Fitzpatrick, during Wednesday’s hearing, questioned whether the prosecution may have acted too hastily to indict Comey.

“The procedural posture of this case is highly unusual,” he said.

The judge asked the DOJ to provide Comey’s defense team with evidence seized from his former attorney, Daniel Richman, in 2019 and 2020.

The DOJ alleges that Comey repeatedly leaked information to the media through Richman for years, in contradiction of his statement to Congress that he never authorized any leaks.

Keep reading

Sen. Markwayne Mullin Reveals Schumer Held Secret BACKROOM MEETING — Ordered Democrat Senators to Keep Government SHUT Until After Elections

Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of orchestrating a secret “backroom deal” with fellow Democrats to deliberately keep the government shut down until after Tuesday’s elections.

During an interview, Mullin disclosed that Schumer privately instructed Senate Democrats to “wait it out” rather than negotiate with Republicans to reopen the government.

Mullin blasted the strategy as a cynical move to protect Democrat turnout in key states.

Sen. Mullin:
“Senate Democrat said, “We feel like now, after the No Kings rally, our neck is simply in a guillotine, and now they’ve got to wait until after the election.”

Last week, Liz, I know Dick Durbin wanted to break with the Democrats and reopen the government. Chuck Schumer, in a private meeting with other Democrat senators, said that if they’d just wait until after the election, he’d release the handcuffs. I added the “handcuffs” part, but basically, I’m paraphrasing what he said.

The reason why is because they’re afraid their base wouldn’t show up today in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York. It’s been about politics—it’s never been about policy. It’s been about holding the American people as leverage points, regardless of the damage they caused to the livelihood of these individuals.

But elections are more important to the Dems because their polling numbers are at the very bottom—lower than they’ve ever been for the Democrat Party.”

The ongoing Schumer Shutdown is now entering its fifth week, with Democrats repeatedly voting against efforts to reopen the government.

They continue to demand taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, federal funding for far-left PBS “propaganda,” and a staggering $1.5 trillion in new spending.

Keep reading

Gov’t departments riddled with criminal misconduct, from immigration fraud to child porn

The rot inside Canada’s federal bureaucracy runs deep. A sprawling order paper question (Q-315) has exposed an alarming pattern of criminal and unethical behaviour among public servants — spanning everything from immigration fraud and sexual misconduct to child pornography and theft.

The revelations came through responses tabled by multiple departments, each quietly admitting to cases that would get private-sector employees fired or even jailed.

Instead, in many cases, the government handed out little more than wrist slaps or simple reassignments.

At Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, one employee was caught aiding immigration fraud, while another was implicated in illegal activity abroad; their “discipline” was a reassignment.

At Crown-Indigenous Relations, several serious allegations — including fraud and theft — remain “under investigation” or have yet to be examined at all.

The National Research Council, which is supposed to house some of Canada’s top scientists, reported incidents of child pornography and break and enter that were referred to police.

The Canada Border Services Agency handed out a five-day suspension to an employee who paid for sexual services, while another staffer with known criminal associates was given a written reprimand.

Shared Services Canada admitted that “fewer than 10” employees were working under fake names, all of whom somehow received security clearance.

Even the Privy Council Office, which serves as the prime minister’s own department, confirmed an employee was caught leaking classified information.

And at the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, two employees were caught using illegal drugs in the very office responsible for enforcing federal law.

Perhaps most troubling: across multiple departments, the most common outcome for thieves and fraudsters wasn’t termination or prosecution, it was simply that they “left the department.”

Keep reading

After Persecuting Trump for $130K Hush Money Case, Eric Swalwell Suddenly Has $360K FEC Storm Brewing

Serial blowhard Eric Swalwell, the California Democrat who’s built a career attacking Donald Trump, could be facing some serious scrutiny of his own.

In a report published Friday, Fox News Digital revealed that Federal Election Commission filings for Swalwell’s campaign and a political action committee show mysterious payments to a staffer totaling more than $360,000 over the past three years.

Supposedly covering services on the gamut from “flower reimbursements” to security, they’re payments one former FEC commissioner said deserve serious questioning by the agency.

“This is the type of bizarre inconsistency that should catch the attention of the FEC,” Hans von Spakovsky, now a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Fox News.

The payments, recorded by the Swalwell for Congress campaign and Swalwell’s Remedy PAC, were made to Darly Meyer, a Haitian-American, for amounts ranging from a trifling $53 to more than $12,000, Fox reported.

“The FEC filings list several different reasons for the payments, ranging from travel expenses, car service to security services to salary. There are also several payments to Meyer for things like ‘personal travel expense reimbursement,’ ‘event flowers reimbursement’ and postage,” Fox reported.

There could well be innocent explanations for all of those expenses. Political campaigns, after all, include a variety of events.

And according to Fox, Meyer is not just a staffer on Swalwell’s campaign; he’s the owner of a North Hollywood, California, limousine company called CYD Global Car Service LLC.

Political campaigns obviously involve a lot of travel, and security arrangements are a part of modern public life. (The Charlie Kirk assassination alone proves that).

But according to Fox, one snag for Swalwell comes from the filings that note Meyer was paid for “security.” Fox noted that Meyer does not appear to have a security license, according to California’s Bureau of Security and Investigative Services.

Meyer is also an administrator of a Facebook page called Calihaitians, made up of Haitian expatriates living in California, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

The Fox revelations are another turn for Swalwell in the national spotlight — and virtually none of them are good.

Keep reading

On the Five-Year Anniversary of 2020 Election, Michigan Court Moves the Goalposts on the Attorneys Who Exposed Antrim County’s Machines

On November 3, 2025—the five-year mark of the 2020 election—the Michigan prosecution of attorneys Matt DePerno and Stephanie Lambert took a troubling turn.

The Oakland County Circuit Court order, People of the State of Michigan v. Stefanie Lambert (Case No. 2023-285759-FH), leaves no question where the balance tilts.

Judge Jeffrey Matis denied every defense request—fifteen in all—and granted the prosecution’s positions in full.

Key Excerpts from the Court’s Order

“The request to modify the instructions regarding Count 24 is DENIED.”
“The request to modify the Court’s prior rulings … is DENIED.”
“The special non-standard instruction captioned Unauthorized Possession of a Voting Machine shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is charged with the crime of unauthorized possession of a voting machine. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly obtained or had possession of
2. A ballot box or voting machine
3. Without authorization by the Secretary of State or valid court order.”

That third element—the “authorization by the Secretary of State” requirement—has never appeared in Michigan’s election-law statutes. By inserting it into the official jury instruction, the court has effectively created a new legal requirement after the fact.

The order also denies the defense’s proposed instructions on lawful authority, investigative intent, and definitions vital to the defense theory; rejects all four sections of Lambert’s Supplemental and Revised Requested Jury Instructions (“Law,” “Lawful Instruction,” and “Private Investigator”); and refuses reconsideration based on People v. Holkeboer (2024). Even Lambert’s request for clarification of the definition of “voting machine” was denied.

Finally, the court imposed a strict exhibit deadline: “Defendant shall produce trial exhibits on or before December 3, 2025. Exhibits not provided by this date and time may be excluded at trial.”

The trial is set for Monday, March 2, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in person. Defense counsel warns that the combination of denials and deadlines pre-loads the case in favor of the prosecution.

A Law That Never Existed

The centerpiece of this dispute is simple: no statute in 2020—or now—required “authorization from the Secretary of State” before examining election equipment pursuant to a court-ordered discovery.

In the Antrim County litigation, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was the opposing party. Requiring her permission to obtain discovery evidence would have been absurd; she was actively fighting to suppress the very records the plaintiffs sought to examine.

A December 20, 2020, email in the case file confirms that no such authorization rule existed. The state’s later attempts to reinterpret procedures only arose after the Antrim forensic findings became public.

Keep reading