Tag: trump derangement syndrome

Federal Judge In California Remains At The Ready To Wrest Control Of National Guard From Trump

“The fight doesn’t end here.” Gavin Newsom made that announcement on Thursday, soon after a federal appellate court ruled President Donald Trump retains control over the California National Guard. By Friday morning, the overturned district court judge repeated the mantra, but in subtler, more judicious terms designed to obscure his bias and his intent to halt the president’s use of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles. The apparent plan is now to find the president’s deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which goes to show that judges bent on executing a coup by courts also have six ways to Sunday to rebel against the duly elected president.

After rioters attacked ICE agents and federal property in California, on June 7, 2025, President Trump federalized the California National Guard. Once under federal command, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered thousands of National Guard troops to deploy to Los Angeles. Secretary Hegseth later also deployed some 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles.

Within days of the president’s federalizing of the California National Guard, Governor Newsom filed a multi-count complaint in a San Francisco federal court. Then, at 11:00 a.m., on June 10, 2025, the governor asked the court to immediately (by 1:00 p.m.) grant him an ex parte temporary restraining order, barring the deployment of troops in Los Angeles and directing the president to return control of the National Guard to the governor. Presiding Judge Charlies Breyer instead provided the Trump administration 24 hours to respond to the motion and set a hearing for June 12, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.

Judge Breyer opened the June 12, 2025 hearing by noting he had refused to grant the requested injunction on an ex parte basis, with the Clinton appointee stressing the importance of hearing from both sides before ruling. However, Judge Breyer soon made clear his fist was firmly on Governor Newsom’s side of the scale, with the federal judge appropriating the language of the left and declaring we have no king in America.

It came as no surprise, then, to court listeners that by day’s end Judge Breyer had entered an injunction against President Trump, enjoining him “from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles,” and directing the Commander-in-Chief “to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.” The court stayed his order until noon on Friday, June 13, 2025.

The Trump administration immediately sought a stay of Judge Breyer’s injunction in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — the federal circuit court that hears appeals from district courts in California, among other western states. Within hours, a three-judge panel of the federal appellate court entered an administrative stay of Judge Breyer’s order, keeping the president in charge of the National Guard. The Ninth Circuit then set an expedited briefing schedule and scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, June 17, 2025.

Last Tuesday, Trump appointees Judges Mark Bennette and Eric Miller, joined by Biden-appointee Judge Jennifer Sung, heard the parties’ argument concerning the propriety of the injunction. Two days later, in a unanimous opinion, the court held the Trump administration “made the required strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal,” and stayed the lower court’s injunction against the president. That stay left the California National Guard under federal control and deployed in Los Angeles, as directed by Secretary Hegseth.

In concluding that Trump was likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal, the Ninth Circuit focused on Newsom’s claim that the president lacked authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize the California National Guard. That federal statute authorizes the president to federalize the National Guard of a state whenever, among other things, “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States . . . ”

While Judge Breyer concluded that Trump had failed to establish that he was unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States, the Ninth Circuit rejected the lower court’s reasoning in two respects. First, the three-judge panel concluded that courts owe great deference to the president’s conclusion that regular forces are unable to execute federal law.

Keep reading

Enemies Within: Information Ties Top USAID Official to Dirty Eric Ciaramella and the First Bogus Attempt to Impeach President Trump

Trump Attorney Rudy Giuliani joined Jesse Watters in 2020 where he broke news about the January 2016 meeting in the Obama White House organized by the anti-Trump CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.

This was previously reported at The Gateway Pundit in November 2019.

Records show Obama and his Deep State actors in the White House pressured Ukraine to provide dirt on candidate Trump and his team in early 2016.

Highly respected investigative reporter John Solomon called the 11 AM January 19, 2016 meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building “one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama administration’s intervention.”

Suspected Schiff whistleblower Eric Ciaramella chaired that meeting, which was also attended by his frequent collaborator Liz Zentos.

The meeting was ostensibly arranged by the Obama administration for anti-corruption training and coordination, but it didn’t take long for the Ukrainian participants, during the meetings and afterward, “to realize the Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.”

The Obama Department of Justice officials were interested in reopening a closed 2014 FBI investigation that “focused heavily on GOP lobbyist Paul Manafort, whose firm long had been tied to Trump through his partner and Trump pal, Roger Stone.”

Nazar Kholodnytskyy, then Ukraine’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor and a meeting attendee, said he saw evidence in Ukraine of political meddling in the U.S. election, when the “black ledger,” key evidence against Manafort, who had joined Trump’s campaign on March 29, 2016 and then was promoted to campaign chairman on May 19, 2016, was suddenly released to the media in May 2016.

According to Ukrainian official Andriy Telizhenko, who has communicated with The Gateway Pundit numerous times, then a political officer at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC and a meeting attendee, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over (it is believed that the FBI attended the January 19, 2016 meeting).

Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company, was under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was paying then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as both a board member and a consultant.

All of the above suggests that the Obama Administration used U.S. government personnel in an attempt to enlist a foreign nation to provide negative information about political opponents and to quash investigation of political allies.

And when the Ukrainians did not agree, it appears that the U.S. government pressured the Ukrainian government to replace obstinate Ukrainian officials with more compliant ones.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom Tries to Blame Trump for California Wildfires; Still Wants Trump to Sign $40 Billion for Fire Relief

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) tried to blame President Donald Trump for the spread of wildfires across the state on Wednesday, claiming National Guard soldiers had been pulled from firefighting to stop riots.

Newsom made the accusation while still seeking $40 billion in federal relief funds for California in the next congressional spending bill, which Trump would have to sign into law after passage by a Republican majority.

There are currently eight wildfires burning in California, with evacuations ordered near Sacramento and San Diego.

A statement from Newsom’s office said:

As multiple fires burn across the state today, a critical firefighting resource is short-staffed due to President Trump’s illegal federalization of California’s National Guard troops.

CAL FIRE crews responding to the Monte Fire in San Diego have had to fill in gaps left by a California National Guard (CalGuard) Joint Task Force Rattlesnake team that is understaffed due to the federalization of some of its members.

Task Force Rattlesnake is made up of over 300 California National Guard members, who work at the direction of CAL FIRE to help fight and prevent fires. More than half of that team has been diverted to Los Angeles as part of President Trump’s illegal federalization of the Guard.

What the governor’s office refers to as “illegal” could soon be upheld as legal by the Ninth Circuit. Politico reported Wednesday that the three-judge panel — including one appointed by President Joe Biden — “sharply questioned Newsom’s argument that Trump had failed to sufficiently justify his decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops to protect federal buildings and support immigration authorities as they conduct arrests and enforcement operations.”

Newsom declined to blame rioters who attacked federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and local police. He also evaded the fact that his administration has failed to clear brush in forests for years.

Keep reading

“No Kings,” Except for the Bureaucrats

Over the weekend, thousands of anti-Trump advocates gathered for “No Kings” protests across the country, but their aims were not directed at constitutional norms; instead, they are engaged in a protest against the President’s authority over the Executive Branch. 

The chief issue in Washington since the second Trump inauguration is whether the commander-in-chief is empowered to control the Executive Branch, which houses nearly all federal agencies. 

The Vesting Clause answers that question with absolute certainty: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. 

In response to the Trump administration’s efforts to abolish the government’s vast censorship apparatus, however, Democrats and judicial activists offer an anti-constitutional alternative for the country: The power to fire taxpayer-funded bureaucrats or reduce their funding shall be vested in no person.

In April, Secretary of State Rubio announced the closure and defunding of the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI), formerly known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC). 

Under Rubio’s predecessor, Antony Blinken, the GEC was instrumental in silencing dissent, as it worked to “limit the reach of, the circulation of, and render unprofitable, disfavored press outlets by funding the infrastructure, development, and marketing and promotion of censorship technology and private censorship enterprises to covertly suppress speech of a segment of the American press,” according to one lawsuit. 

But this week, California District Judge Susan Illston upended the President’s control of the executive branch and ordered Secretary Rubio to halt the abolishment of R/FIMI. According to Judge Illston, not only is the Ministry of Truth permitted to censor Americans for alleged “disinformation,” such as the Hunter Biden laptop, the lab-leak theory, or natural immunity; but the Constitution actually prohibits the president from exercising control over the State Department. 

Unsurprisingly, the “No Kings” crowd offered no pushback to the judge’s defense of a censorious cabal’s entitlement to taxpayer funding. 

Keep reading

80 Percent Of Anti-Trump Lawsuits Are Filed In Courts Ruled By Democrat Appointees

As the Trump administration faces substantial pushback in the courts, including an unprecedented wave of nationwide injunctions halting its policies, some are claiming that his opponents are tilting the scales of justice by selectively bringing their lawsuits before sympathetic courts in a practice called “forum shopping.” They note that three-quarters of the lower court justices who have blocked Trump policies were appointed by Democrats.

Gaming the federal justice system, however, is harder than it sounds because plaintiffs bring cases before courts rather than judges. Most federal courts have a mix of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. The plaintiff’s goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice — ideally, this district would also include an appellate court stacked with like-minded judges.

To see whether Trump’s adversaries are engaging in forum shopping, RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 cases brought against the administration. We found that plaintiffs have brought 80 percent of those cases before just 11 of the nation’s 91 district courts. While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60 percent of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration’s challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.

The analysis of these 350 cases, which covers all those identified in popular litigation trackers and RCI’s independent research as of last week, lends credence to claims that anti-Trump litigants may be strategically filing suit in courts where they are most likely to receive a favorable ruling — a practice that has been both pursued and decried by Democrats and Republicans.

RCI also analyzed three dozen cases in which judges imposed the most extreme restraint on the Trump administration by entering a nationwide or universal injunction — prohibiting the administration from enforcing its policy not only against the party bringing the case, but anyone, everywhere. The analysis shows that these injunctions have disproportionately emerged from Democrat-leaning courts where plaintiffs have brought the lion’s share of suits, and that Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering them.

This is consistent with other analyses indicating that Democrat-appointed judges have handed down the bulk of all adverse rulings against the Trump administration.

Trump critics note that Republican-appointed judges have also ruled against the administration. They contend that the courts have halted Trump’s policies at an unprecedented scale because of his administration’s unprecedented overreach.

Nevertheless, evidence shows that the anti-Trump cases used to stymie policies in areas ranging from immigration to DEI and the administrative state have overwhelmingly come before courts that, on their face, would appear unfriendly. Plaintiffs have brought roughly 60 percent of all cases against Trump in three district courts with a disproportionate number of active judges appointed by Democratic presidents: the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

Plaintiffs filed 41 percent of all cases RCI identified — 143 in all — in the D.C. District Court, where Democratic presidents appointed 73 percent of active judges.

Keep reading

Obama Judge Holds Florida AG in Contempt For Cooperating with Trump Admin, Enforcing State’s Anti-Illegal Immigrant Laws

A federal judge held Florida’s Attorney General in contempt of court for enforcing the state’s anti-illegal immigration laws.

Last month Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier told a corrupt Obama judge that he will not order state authorities to halt enforcement of immigration law.

US District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, issued an injunction claiming Florida’s (state) law violates the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution in response to a lawsuit filed by the anti-American ACLU.

Uthmeier asked state law enforcement to continue to enforce immigration laws even though the judge issued an injunction barring them from doing their jobs.

Under the threat of contempt, AG Uthmeier refused to back down to the judge.

“That law does nothing more than exercise Florida’s inherent sovereign authority to protect its citizens by aiding the enforcement of federal immigration law,” Uthmeier wrote Wednesday, according to Fox News.

“I’m just not going to do that. We believe the court has overstepped and lacks jurisdiction there, and I will not tell law enforcement to stop fulfilling their constitutional duties.”

Judge Williams denied Uthmeier’s request to pause her injunction while he appealed it to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Earlier this month the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied similar request by Uthmeier.

On Tuesday, Judge Williams held Uthmeier in contempt of court and ordered him to file bi-weekly reports detailing whether any arrests, detentions or law enforcement actions have occurred.

Keep reading

Former Coast Guard Lieutenant and Sharpshooter Who Identifies as Antifa Arrested For Threatening to Kill Trump

A former Coast Guard Lieutenant and sharpshooter who self-identifies as Antifa was arrested for threatening to kill President Trump, according to CBS News.

CBS News reported:

A former Coast Guard lieutenant and sharpshooter has been arrested for allegedly making threats to kill President Trump.

A 19-page Federal Bureau of Investigation affidavit lists out scores of alleged social media threats by Peter Stinson, who served 33 years in the U.S. Coast Guard through 2021, and also served as a Federal Emergency Management Agency instructor.

The social media posts quoted in charging documents, which span from 2020 to 2025, include online statements that suggested using a gun, a knife and poison against Mr. Trump. In several cases, Stinson allegedly said he didn’t have the skills to kill Mr. Trump himself, but said he’s willing to “serve in a support capacity” or raise money for a “contract hit.”

Federal investigators also allege within 48 hours of the 2024 attempted assassination of Mr. Trump in Butler, Pa., Stinson posted: “Just three inches and today would be a different day,” followed by criticisms of the shooter’s skills.

According to an affidavit, Pete Stinson posted the threats against President Trump to X and BlueSky between 2020 and 2025.

Stinson used a series of code names for Trump including “the orange,” “orange mf,” “orange thug,” “Krasnov,” “tfg,” “one ear,” or an orange emoji.

Keep reading

‘Not Illegal to Be Undocumented’: Watch Sunny Hostin Flip Out Over ‘Misinformation’

On Monday, co-hosts from “The View” criticized President Donald Trump for sending the National Guard to Los Angeles in order to help quell the rioting.

As noted by Hanna Panreck with Fox News, one co-host, Sara Haines, suggested that President Trump intentionally amplified the rioting to bolster his approval ratings, which she said are “ … dropping like rocks.”

Haines continued, saying, “But there’s one catch here, current support right now, though, is that 66 percent of the American public actually thinks it’s crime enough to be undocumented and therefore deported.”

Co-host Sunny Hostin questioned Haines, asking, “That it’s criminal to be undocumented?”

Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin responded, “Even if it’s a civil offense.”

Referring back to Trump and the LA riots, Haines continued, “So what I’m saying is, a massive amount of this country actually agrees with, not how he’s doing it, but with what he’s doing.”

This prompted further discussion, with one co-host remarking, “So there’s misinformation out there.”

Haines said of President Trump, “I think the strategy here is, he’s leaning into a scene right now, creating a bigger thing, because it is the one thing that he remains supported in.”

This exchange visibly agitated co-host Sunny Hostin, who stuttered, “Well let’s, let’s let’s fix that right now, because it is not illegal to be undocumented.”

Turning to speak directly to the camera, Hostin said, “It is not a crime to be undocumented. People are not illegal … We need to put that information out there.”

Keep reading

Tipping The Scales: Why So Many Cases Against Trump Are Heard By Democrat-Appointed Judges

As the Trump administration faces substantial pushback in the courts, including an unprecedented wave of nationwide injunctions halting its policies, some are claiming that his opponents are tilting the scales of justice by selectively bringing their lawsuits before sympathetic courts in a practice called “forum shopping.” They note that three-quarters of the lower court justices who have blocked Trump policies were appointed by Democrats.

Gaming the federal justice system, however, is harder than it sounds because plaintiffs bring cases before courts rather than judges. Most federal courts have a mix of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. The plaintiff’s goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice – ideally, this district would also include an appellate court stacked with like-minded judges.

To see whether Trump’s adversaries are engaging in forum shopping, RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 cases brought against the administration. We found that plaintiffs have brought 80% of those cases before just 11 of the nation’s 91 district courts. While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60% of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration’s challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.

The analysis of these 350 cases, which covers all those identified in popular litigation trackers and RCI’s independent research as of this week, lends credence to claims that anti-Trump litigants may be strategically filing suit in courts where they are most likely to receive a favorable ruling – a practice that has been both pursued and decried by Democrats and Republicans.

RCI also analyzed three dozen cases in which judges imposed the most extreme restraint on the Trump administration by entering a nationwide or universal injunction – prohibiting the administration from enforcing its policy not only against the party bringing the case, but anyone, everywhere. The analysis shows that these injunctions have disproportionately emerged from Democrat-leaning courts where plaintiffs have brought the lion’s share of suits, and that Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering them.

This is consistent with other analyses indicating that Democrat-appointed judges have handed down the bulk of all adverse rulings against the Trump administration.

Keep reading

North Carolina State Rep Waves Trump’s Decapitated Head at ‘No Kings’ Protest: ‘Some Cuts May Be Necessary’

A North Carolina state representative has called for President Trump’s beheading.

Rep. Julie von Haefen attended the “No Kings” protest yesterday in North Carolina holding an effigy of what appeared to be the decapitated heads of Trump and his senior policy advisor Stephen Miller.

“Amazing turnout all across the Triangle today, including this event at the Capitol hosted by @wakedems and @ncdemocrats #lfg #nokings #nokingsprotest #nokingsinamerica #raleigh #raleighnc,” she wrote in a Facebook post.

As well as the gruesome heads of Trump and Miller, von Haefen appeared to be waving a banner that said: “In These Difficult Times, Some Cuts May Be Necessary.”

Stephen Miller’s forehead was also engraved with a swastika, a reference to Nazi symbolism. Miller himself is Jewish.

Von Haefen’s gruesome stunt was particularly iill-timed given that hours before, two members of the Minnesota legislature were shot by a man posing as police, killing Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortmun and her husband.

Keep reading