Former President Donald Trump is unharmed after gunshots were fired near the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, according to Fox News.
Reports indicate that the Secret Service shot at a man carrying a rifle, later identified as Ryan Wesley Routh. Authorities are investigating the situation as a possible assassination attempt.
At the time of the shooting, Trump was playing on the fifth hole of the course. His security team immediately escorted him to a secure location. The Secret Service is working alongside the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office on the investigation. The White House has confirmed that President Biden and Vice President Harris have been informed of the incident.
Secret Service agents reacted quickly to the perceived threat, discharging their weapons at the suspect. Routh reportedly fled the scene in a black Nissan but was swiftly apprehended by law enforcement. The rapid response of the protective detail ensured Trump's safety throughout the incident.
At the time of the shooting, Trump was on the fifth hole of the golf course. His security team immediately surrounded him and escorted him to the clubhouse for protection. The former president later praised the Secret Service for their prompt action and efficiency in handling the situation.
The incident is being thoroughly investigated, with authorities treating it as a serious security breach. The suspect was found to be carrying not only a rifle but also a GoPro camera and two backpacks, raising concerns about the potential for a premeditated attack.
Law enforcement officials are conducting a comprehensive investigation into the incident. The Secret Service confirmed they are working closely with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to gather all relevant information and evidence related to the case.
The White House has acknowledged the incident, releasing a statement that both President Biden and Vice President Harris have been briefed on the situation. They expressed relief upon learning of Trump's safety and are receiving regular updates from their team.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has also been briefed on the incident and is actively monitoring the situation. The Department of Justice is likely to play a role in the investigation, given the severity of the potential threat to a former president.
This incident marks the second potential attempt on Trump's life in a span of two months. On July 13, during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump was shot in the ear in what was determined to be an assassination attempt. That incident resulted in the death of a volunteer fire department captain who was attending the rally.
The frequency of these security breaches raises concerns about the safety of high-profile political figures and the challenges faced by protective services. It also underscores the ongoing political tensions and potential for violence surrounding public figures in the current climate.
Trump's reaction to the incident, as reported by Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Bret Baier, was one of concern for others' safety and gratitude towards the Secret Service. Trump reportedly told Baier: "Tell everybody I am fine and the Secret Service did a great job."
The incident at Trump International Golf Club has reignited discussions about security measures for current and former presidents. It highlights the ongoing threats faced by political figures and the crucial role of protective services in ensuring their safety. The swift response of the Secret Service in this case potentially prevented a tragic outcome, demonstrating the importance of vigilant and well-trained security personnel.
Republican Senator Roger Marshall has announced plans to investigate allegations of bias and potential coordination between ABC News and Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign during the recent presidential debate.
According to a report by The Washington Examiner, Marshall's inquiry comes in response to claims that debate moderators favored Harris over former President Donald Trump during their September 10 face-off.
The senator from Kansas stated his intention to demand all correspondence and records related to possible coordination between ABC News and the Harris campaign preceding the debate. This move follows accusations from Republicans that the network's moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, displayed bias through live fact-checking during the televised event.
Senator Marshall's investigation stems from unproven claims circulating among Republicans that Vice President Harris may have received debate questions in advance. These allegations gained traction despite ABC News firmly rejecting any such suggestions.
The network has not responded to requests for comment on Marshall's planned inquiry. Similarly, the Harris campaign has declined to address the matter publicly, maintaining silence on the controversy surrounding the debate.
This situation has reignited suspicions among Republicans about potential collusion between major networks hosting debates and Democratic presidential candidates. The specter of past incidents, such as former DNC interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile leaking potential topics to Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016, continues to fuel these concerns.
Former President Trump, in an interview with Fox News, expressed his dissatisfaction with the debate, characterizing it as a "rigged show." He suggested that Harris seemed unusually familiar with the questions, implying potential impropriety. Trump stated:
I watched her talk, and I said, 'You know, she seems awfully familiar with the questions.'
This sentiment echoes broader Republican criticisms of the debate's fairness. However, it's worth noting that polls conducted after the event indicated that a majority of voters believed Harris had performed better during the debate.
Despite previously calling for multiple debates against Harris, Trump has now declared that he will not participate in a second debate with the Vice President. This decision marks a significant shift in his campaign strategy moving forward.
While Republicans have criticized the moderators for what they perceive as biased fact-checking, Democrats have countered that these claims are merely an acknowledgment of Harris's stronger performance. The debate over the fairness of moderation highlights the ongoing challenges in conducting political debates that satisfy all parties involved.
Linsey Davis, one of the moderators, offered insight into their approach, referencing lessons learned from previous debates. She explained their intent to address concerns about unchallenged statements, a criticism that had been leveled at moderators in past debates.
Jordan Klepper of "The Daily Show" provided a more lighthearted take on the controversy. He humorously pointed out that presidential debates often cover predictable ground, likening familiarity with debate questions to knowing the lyrics of a popular song.
The investigation announced by Senator Marshall underscores the heightened scrutiny surrounding presidential debates. It reflects ongoing concerns about fairness in political discourse and the role of media in shaping public perception during election seasons. As the 2024 election cycle progresses, the debate over debate fairness is likely to remain a contentious issue, influencing campaign strategies and public trust in the electoral process.
Hunters in Colorado are voicing strong opposition to a proposed bill that would ban trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynxes in the state.
According to a report by The Daily Caller, the initiative, known as Proposition 127 or Initiative 91, has drawn criticism from hunting advocates who argue it could have significant ecological and economic consequences.
The proposed legislation claims that trophy hunting of these big cats serves "no socially acceptable or ecologically beneficial purpose." However, hunters and their supporters contend that the initiative is misguided and fails to recognize the vital role hunting plays in controlling animal populations.
Mark Oliva, director of public affairs at the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and an avid hunter, expressed concerns about the potential ramifications of the bill. He suggested that the initiative could lead to unchecked population growth of big cats, particularly mountain lions, which could in turn negatively impact elk and deer herds.
Oliva pointed out that a decrease in elk and deer populations could result in fewer people purchasing hunting licenses, leading to reduced revenue for the state. Colorado is a popular hunting destination, and the economic impact of such a change could be substantial.
According to a report by the Common Sense Institute Colorado, the initiative is projected to cause between $4 million and $6.2 million in lost revenue for Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Additionally, it could result in $61.6 million in lost economic gains for the state.
Critics of the bill argue that it represents a form of "ballot box biology," which they consider an ineffective approach to wildlife management. Perry Will, a Republican Colorado state senator, emphasized the importance of relying on wildlife professionals for such decisions.
Will stated:
Ballot box biology is the absolute worst way you can manage wildlife. Our capable wildlife professionals are put in charge to manage our wildlife.
Supporters of the initiative, including conservation organizations like Cats Are Not Trophies, contend that the proposition would not negatively affect predator populations. They argue that trophy hunting is unethical and that predators play a crucial role in controlling the spread of chronic wasting disease in deer and elk populations.
Myron Ebell, chairman of the American Lands Council, suggested that the initiative takes advantage of the disconnect between urban and rural populations. He noted that many urban residents may not fully understand the role of hunting in managing animal populations.
Ebell explained:
I think that the states in the west [are] the most highly urbanized part of the country, and so rural people get very little understanding [about] the problems of rural life and of resource industries like livestock grazing.
This disconnect, according to Ebell, can lead to a misunderstanding of hunting practices and their ecological importance, potentially influencing public opinion on such initiatives.
The proposed bill in Colorado highlights the ongoing debate surrounding wildlife management and conservation practices. It underscores the tension between traditional hunting practices and evolving public attitudes toward wildlife protection. As the initiative moves forward, it will likely continue to generate discussion about the best approaches to maintaining ecological balance while respecting diverse perspectives on wildlife management.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued a ruling that mail-in ballots without correct dates on envelopes will not be counted in elections.
This decision, reported by Fox News, could have significant implications for the upcoming presidential election in the battleground state, where 19 electoral college votes are at stake.
The high court's decision overturned a lower court's previous ruling that had halted the enforcement of the handwritten date requirement on exterior envelopes. The justices ruled 4-3, with two Democrats joining both Republicans on the Supreme Court to vacate the Commonwealth Court decision, citing procedural grounds for their ruling.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling was based on procedural grounds, stating that the lower Commonwealth Court should not have taken up the case because it did not involve election boards from all 67 counties in the state. The lawsuit, filed by left-leaning groups, only targeted two counties - Philadelphia and Allegheny.
In its decision, the high court emphasized that the Commonwealth Court "lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter." This technicality effectively reinstated the requirement for mail-in ballots to have correct dates on their envelopes to be counted in elections.
The ruling has sparked mixed reactions from various political entities and voting rights advocates, with some viewing it as a victory for election integrity and others expressing concern about potential disenfranchisement of voters.
The court's decision could prove crucial in the 2024 presidential election, given Pennsylvania's status as a key battleground state. In the 2020 election, President Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by a margin of more than 80,000 votes, underscoring the state's importance in determining the overall outcome.
Recent campaign activities in Pennsylvania by former President Trump and Vice-President Harris highlight the state's significance in the upcoming election. Both candidates have been actively engaging with voters in the Keystone State, recognizing its potential to sway the final results.
The ruling's impact may be particularly significant considering the high number of mail-in ballots used in recent elections. In the April primary election, over 800,000 people requested mail ballots, with officials disqualifying nearly 16,000 for irregularities, including missing signatures and incorrect dates on outer envelopes.
The decision has elicited strong reactions from both political parties and voting rights advocates. RNC Chairman Michael Whatley hailed the ruling as a significant victory for election integrity. He stated:
Following legal action from the RNC and @PAGOP [Republican Party of Pennsylvania], the PA Supreme Court REJECTED a Democrat attempt to count undated ballots. This makes mail voting in the Keystone State less susceptible to fraud. We will keep fighting and winning!
On the other hand, Steve Loney, the senior supervising attorney for the ACLU in Pennsylvania, expressed disappointment with the ruling, viewing it as a setback for Pennsylvania voters. Loney argued:
These eligible voters who got their ballots in on time should have their votes counted and voices heard. The fundamental right to vote is among the most precious rights we enjoy as Pennsylvanians, and it should take more than a trivial paperwork error to take it away.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in ballots without correct dates has significant implications for the upcoming presidential election. The decision, based on procedural grounds, overturned a lower court's ruling and reinstated the requirement for properly dated envelopes. This could impact the counting of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state with 19 electoral votes. The ruling has sparked contrasting reactions from political parties and voting rights advocates, highlighting the ongoing debate over election integrity and voter access.
New York City's administration is facing significant upheaval as key officials resign amidst an ongoing federal corruption investigation.
According to Just The News, the city's chief legal counsel and the police commissioner have both stepped down, while several other high-ranking officials are under scrutiny by federal investigators.
The resignations come in the wake of FBI raids on the homes of Mayor Eric Adams' top aides, signaling a widening probe into potential corruption within the city's government. These developments have sent shockwaves through the administration and raised questions about the extent of the investigation.
Lisa Zornberg, who had served as New York City's chief counsel since July 2023, tendered her resignation on Saturday. Her decision to step down comes just one week after the FBI conducted raids on the residences of Mayor Adams' close associates. Zornberg, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor, had been in her role for just over a year before her abrupt exit.
In her statement, Zornberg expressed gratitude to Mayor Adams for the opportunity to serve the city and voiced her continued support for his work. Mayor Adams, in turn, thanked Zornberg for her service and indicated that a replacement would be announced soon.
The timing of Zornberg's resignation, so close to the FBI raids, has fueled speculation about the potential connection between her departure and the ongoing federal investigation.
Prior to Zornberg's resignation, New York Police Department Commissioner Edward Caban had also stepped down from his position. Caban's resignation came in the immediate aftermath of federal investigators raiding his home and the residences of other high-ranking NYPD officials as part of the corruption probe.
The investigation has cast a wide net, encompassing not only Caban but also his twin brother, James. According to reports, James Caban is under scrutiny for allegedly acting as a "fixer" for Manhattan restaurants and clubs under the guise of providing consulting services.
The scope of the federal investigation appears to be extensive, with raids also targeting the homes of Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Phil Banks and the shared residence of Schools Chancellor David Banks and First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright.
While no charges have been filed as of yet, the federal corruption probe seems to be intensifying and expanding its focus. The investigation appears to be centered on Mayor Adams' inner circle and his allies, suggesting a comprehensive examination of potential misconduct within the city's administration.
The raids on multiple high-ranking officials' homes indicate that federal investigators are gathering evidence and information from various sources within the city government. This broad approach suggests that the probe may be looking into systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
The fact that the investigation has reached such senior levels of the administration, including the deputy mayor and schools chancellor, underscores the seriousness and potential far-reaching implications of the probe.
New York City's government is grappling with a major crisis as key officials resign amid a federal corruption investigation. The departures of Chief Legal Counsel Lisa Zornberg and NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban have left significant gaps in the city's leadership. FBI raids on the homes of Mayor Adams' top aides and other high-ranking officials suggest a wide-ranging probe into potential misconduct. While no charges have been filed, the investigation's scope and the resignations it has prompted indicate serious concerns about corruption within the city's administration.
Former President Donald Trump escaped unscathed following a shooting incident near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida.
According to Fox News, the Secret Service engaged a suspect who was armed with a rifle outside the golf course on Sunday.
The incident, which authorities are treating as a potential assassination attempt, resulted in the arrest of a man identified by sources as Ryan Wesley Routh. The Secret Service opened fire after observing the suspect raising his weapon, prompting a brief chase before his apprehension.
The Secret Service's swift action played a crucial role in ensuring Trump's safety. Agents fired at Routh when they spotted him attempting to aim his rifle through a chain-link fence, possibly targeting the former president. The suspect, who was equipped with a GoPro camera and two backpacks, quickly fled the scene in a black Nissan but was apprehended shortly after.
Authorities discovered the suspect's rifle in nearby bushes following the incident. The presence of additional equipment, including the camera and backpacks, has raised concerns about the potential premeditation of the attack. A law enforcement official emphasized that this did not appear to be a random occurrence.
The Secret Service confirmed their involvement in the investigation, working in collaboration with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. They referred to the event as a "protective incident" involving the former president.
At the time of the incident, Trump was on the fifth hole of the golf course. His security detail promptly surrounded him and escorted him to the safety of the clubhouse. Trump later spoke with Fox News host Bret Baier, praising the Secret Service for their quick response and reassuring the public about his well-being.
Trump conveyed his message through Baier: "Tell everybody I am fine and the Secret Service did a great job."
The White House acknowledged the incident, releasing a statement confirming that both President Biden and Vice President Harris had been briefed on the situation. They expressed relief upon learning of Trump's safety and committed to receiving regular updates on the matter.
The incident has prompted a thorough investigation, with U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland receiving regular briefings on the situation. The Secret Service, in conjunction with local law enforcement, is leading the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the shooting.
This event marks the second potential attempt on Trump's life in recent months. In July, Trump was shot in the ear during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, resulting in the death of a volunteer fire department captain. The assailant in that incident was fatally shot by a Secret Service sniper.
As a precautionary measure, the Trump National Golf Club has been placed on lockdown. Authorities are conducting a comprehensive review of security protocols and gathering evidence from the scene, including items found near the fence of the golf course.
The shooting incident at Trump International Golf Club has raised serious concerns about the safety of political figures. Former President Trump emerged unharmed thanks to the quick action of the Secret Service. The suspect, Ryan Wesley Routh, was apprehended after a brief chase, and authorities are treating the case as a potential assassination attempt. The investigation is ongoing, with both local and federal agencies involved in uncovering the full details of this alarming event.
The social media account @KamalaHQ, affiliated with Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign, has been accused of repeatedly sharing misleading and deceptively edited video clips targeting former President Donald Trump.
These social media videos have distorted Trump’s statements, triggering a response from a counter-campaign that seeks to highlight the Harris camp's inaccuracies, as CNN reports.
Since mid-August, the account, which has over 1.3 million followers, has posted multiple videos that misrepresent Trump’s comments. The posts portray Trump as confused or making false statements on various topics. These edits have resulted in a growing concern over the account's methods of sharing information.
One of the earliest instances occurred on Aug. 17, when @KamalaHQ posted a video from a Trump rally, suggesting that Trump confused the location of his supporters. The clip claimed that Trump mistakenly addressed North Carolina while in Pennsylvania. In the post, @KamalaHQ captioned, “Trump: Would that be okay, North Carolina? (He is in Pennsylvania).” However, a full review of the rally showed Trump was addressing a group of North Carolina supporters in the audience.
A similar instance occurred the following Thursday, when the account suggested Trump was again confused about his location. The post showed Trump speaking in Arizona but referenced Pennsylvania. The caption read, “Trump: ‘Pennsylvania, remember this when you have to go to vote’ (He is in Arizona).” This post quickly gained attention but was found to omit context, as Trump was discussing national issues involving Pennsylvania voters.
These repeated instances of selective video editing prompted the creation of a counter-campaign under the handle @KamalaHQLies, which aims to expose inaccuracies and provide fuller context to the clips posted by the Harris campaign's account.
Another significant controversy came on Friday when @KamalaHQ misrepresented Trump’s comments about the 2017 Charlottesville protest incident. The campaign’s post suggested Trump defended white supremacists, citing a quote that said “nothing was done wrong” regarding the violence. The full context of the clip showed that Trump was defending his controversial “very fine people” remark, adding that his statement was misunderstood. Trump had claimed that his comments were not an endorsement of the violence but were taken out of context.
In response, Harris’ campaign defended the post, stating that Trump's defense of his remarks about the “very fine people” involved in the incident was what they were highlighting. However, critics, including fact-checkers, noted that the edited video removed important context. This back-and-forth has further fueled the tension between the two political figures as they gear up for the next election cycle, with both campaigns now engaging in public battles over the accuracy of their statements.
In addition to Trump’s misrepresented comments, @KamalaHQ also targeted Sen. JD Vance. On Thursday, the Harris campaign posted a misleading clip of Vance discussing the potential privatization of veterans' health care. The clip suggested that Vance was open to privatizing VA services. However, the full quote showed Vance offering more nuanced support for Trump’s policies and stopping short of endorsing full privatization.
William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, clarified the senator’s position, asserting that Vance did not support privatizing the Department of Veterans Affairs. This clarification contradicted the narrative being promoted by @KamalaHQ. The Harris campaign defended the post, claiming that Vance was suggesting the possibility of considering privatization, although no direct endorsement was made by the senator in the full clip.
The pattern of misleading posts from @KamalaHQ raises ethical questions about the tactics used in political campaigns. Critics argue that selective editing and deceptive captions can undermine public trust in political discourse, leading to a misinformed electorate. Supporters of Harris, however, maintain that the account is drawing attention to the troubling aspects of Trump’s rhetoric, even if the clips omit certain details.
As the 2024 election season intensifies, the scrutiny over both campaigns’ use of social media is expected to increase. The back-and-forth between @KamalaHQ and the @KamalaHQLies account illustrates the growing role of fact-checking in real-time during campaign season.
The use of social media to sway public opinion through edited clips and selective information is a phenomenon that has become increasingly prevalent in modern politics. With both sides of the political aisle accusing each other of distortion, the challenge for voters lies in discerning fact from manipulated content.
Former first lady Melania Trump has spoken out against the FBI’s 2022 raid of Mar-a-Lago, describing it as an invasion of her privacy and warning Americans about the broader implications for their rights and freedoms.
In a video shared on social media, Mrs. Trump criticized the raid, framing it as a violation of her rights and a cautionary tale for the nation and confirming rumors of her outrage in the wake of the event, as The Hill reports.
The video, posted to promote her forthcoming memoir, featured the words of the Fourth Amendment, underscoring the former first lady’s concerns over the raid. Images of the Trump family’s Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, were interspersed with the text and set to music. It concluded with an image of her upcoming book, Melania, set for release on Oct. 1.
Melania Trump’s video prominently referenced the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. She emphasized that the raid was not just a personal affront but also a symbol of the erosion of rights that should alarm every American. “I never imagined my privacy would be invaded by the government here in America,” she said in the video, reflecting on the experience. “The FBI raided my home in Florida and searched through my personal belongings. This is not just my story, it serves as a warning to all Americans, a reminder that our freedom and rights must be respected.”
The FBI’s raid in August 2022 was part of an investigation into the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. During the raid, agents recovered over 100 classified documents, prompting former President Donald Trump to call the search politically motivated.
The raid, which took place at the Florida estate, reportedly left the former first lady feeling “very violated.” In a 2022 interview, former President Trump elaborated on his wife’s reaction, stating, “She felt very violated. I mean, this is a terrible thing. They go into her closet, they go through her dresses, and who knows what else, and it wasn’t left the way it -- they found it.”
The raid drew significant media attention and public debate, particularly around the nature of the classified documents found. The government alleged that Donald Trump had mishandled these materials, leading to 40 charges related to his actions. Melania Trump’s public response, however, focused less on the legal aspects of the case and more on the emotional toll the event took on her personally. Her emphasis on privacy resonates with many Americans concerned about government overreach.
The raid's legal consequences have been far-reaching. Special Counsel Jack Smith pursued the investigation, which resulted in multiple charges against former President Trump. However, in July 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case, ruling that Smith’s appointment was not lawful.
The ruling provided some relief for Trump, but the legal battle is far from over. Special counsel Jack Smith quickly appealed the dismissal, leaving the case in legal limbo. For Melania Trump, the raid and its aftermath appear to have left a lasting impression, influencing the tone and message of her upcoming memoir.
The political ramifications of the raid have also been significant. Many of Trump’s supporters viewed the FBI’s actions as an example of political bias, while critics of the former president saw the raid as a necessary step in safeguarding national security. As the debate over the raid continues, Melania Trump’s comments are likely to further inflame tensions surrounding the investigation and the larger conversation about government powers and individual rights.
Melania Trump’s video ends with a promotional image of her forthcoming memoir, simply titled Melania. The book is scheduled to be released on Oct. 1 and is expected to delve into her experiences as the former first lady, including the FBI raid.
While the exact contents of the memoir remain unclear, it is likely that her criticism of the raid and its implications for privacy and freedom will play a prominent role. The book promises to offer a rare glimpse into Melania Trump’s perspective, one that has been largely private throughout her public life.
In her video, Melania Trump underscores that her experience is not unique but rather emblematic of a larger concern about the protection of personal rights in America. She frames her story as a reminder to all Americans about the importance of privacy and civil liberties. With the memoir set to release just weeks before the 2024 election, it could also reignite discussions about the role of government, personal freedom, and the legal scrutiny surrounding her husband.
Former first lady Melania Trump has broken her silence on the FBI raid at her Florida home.
In a video posted on social media, Mrs. Trump expressed her shock at the 2022 search, calling it an invasion of her privacy and a cautionary tale for Americans, as Just the News reports.
On Saturday, Melania Trump voiced her concern about the FBI’s August 2022 raid on Mar-a-Lago, the Florida estate she shares with her husband, former President Donald Trump. She explained how the search, which focused on recovering classified materials, left her stunned by the government's actions.
The FBI conducted the search after claims that the Trump administration had failed to turn over certain documents to the National Archives. This raid became one of the most high-profile investigations of Donald Trump’s post-presidency, adding to the already mounting legal challenges he faced.
In a video shared on X, the former first lady reflected on the raid, revealing her feelings about the federal government’s search of her personal space. Melania Trump’s tone was measured but firm, as she noted her disbelief that such an event could happen in the United States.
"I never imagined my privacy would be invaded by the government here in America," she remarked in the video. She went on to recount how federal agents rifled through her belongings during the search, which was part of a larger investigation into classified documents.
Melania Trump expressed that this event was not just a personal affront, but also served as a warning to the American public about the potential for government overreach. "This is not just my story, it serves as a warning to all Americans, a reminder that our freedom and rights must be respected,” she added.
The raid, which took place over a year ago, was part of a broader investigation into how classified materials were handled after Donald Trump left the White House. In June 2023, the former president was indicted for allegedly retaining classified documents and obstructing the federal government’s efforts to retrieve them.
Although Donald Trump was charged, the case faced hurdles. In July 2023, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case, a decision that temporarily relieved Trump of legal consequences. However, special counsel Jack Smith has since taken steps to have the case reinstated, and legal battles over the documents are far from over.
The search of Mar-a-Lago has been a focal point in the investigations into Trump’s handling of classified information, and the raid itself drew sharp criticism from Trump’s supporters, who have long claimed the investigation is politically motivated.
The video was not solely a critique of the FBI. At its conclusion, Melania Trump’s upcoming memoir, titled Melania, was promoted. The former first lady had announced earlier this month that the memoir would soon be released, and pre-orders are already available through her website. Her book is expected to cover her time in the White House and the years following, offering a deeper look into her perspective on both her public and private life. The timing of the memoir’s promotion with her statement on the FBI raid has drawn interest from her supporters and critics alike.
Melania Trump has largely stayed out of the public eye in recent years, but her decision to speak out now underscores the personal impact the FBI investigation has had on her. The video may also be an effort to generate additional attention for her forthcoming memoir.
The Mar-a-Lago raid remains a critical moment in the legal battles surrounding the former president, and Melania Trump’s comments have reignited discussion about the implications of the federal government’s actions. As special counsel Smith continues his pursuit of the case, it’s clear that the legal saga is poised to continue.
Two IRS investigators have filed a $20 million defamation lawsuit against Hunter Biden’s attorney, claiming malicious retaliation after they exposed Hunter Biden’s tax crimes.
IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler have accused Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, of defamation following their whistleblowing efforts on Hunter Biden’s alleged tax misconduct, for which he has since pleaded guilty, as the New York Post reports.
The lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., alleges that Lowell made defamatory statements about Shapley and Ziegler to the media after the two men revealed details of the investigation into Hunter Biden’s tax affairs. Specifically, the IRS agents claim that Lowell falsely accused them of illegally leaking Hunter Biden’s tax information, a charge they strongly deny.
Shapley and Ziegler contend that Lowell’s accusations were made with clear malice and aimed at damaging their reputations. According to the lawsuit, these statements caused significant harm to both investigators, who believe they acted with integrity in revealing potential conflicts of interest during the investigation of President Biden’s son.
In their court filing, the whistleblowers argue that their decision to come forward was driven by concerns about political interference in the case. They maintain that their role in the investigation was to expose such issues and to ensure that Hunter Biden’s tax case was handled without preferential treatment. The two men are seeking $20 million in damages, claiming that Lowell’s statements led to "incredible and malicious harm" to their personal and professional reputations.
This legal battle comes after a highly publicized breakdown in the plea deal between Hunter Biden and Delaware U.S. attorney David Weiss, a deal that collapsed last year. Shapley and Ziegler’s decision to air concerns about the handling of the investigation is believed to have been a major factor in the collapse of that agreement.
In the lawsuit, Shapley and Ziegler insist they never disclosed any tax return information that wasn’t already public knowledge. They describe themselves as whistleblowers who acted "with honor and integrity" by exposing what they believed were serious issues affecting the integrity of the investigation.
The lawsuit portrays the two IRS investigators as trying to correct what they saw as improper political motivations and preferential treatment influencing the investigation into Hunter Biden’s finances.
The whistleblowers strongly deny any wrongdoing, asserting that they followed all legal protocols in disclosing information related to the case. In fact, they believe Lowell’s accusations were not only false but also intended to discredit their work in the eyes of the public.
The lawsuit points to the significant damage done to Shapley and Ziegler’s reputations as a result of Lowell’s statements, alleging that the attorney’s actions were an attempt to shield Hunter Biden from further scrutiny.
Shapley and Ziegler argue that their reputations have been tarnished by what they describe as an orchestrated effort to undermine their credibility as whistleblowers. They have called Lowell’s comments both false and defamatory. The legal filing in D.C. emphasizes that both men acted ethically and with a sense of duty in bringing their concerns forward, and that they never crossed any legal lines in doing so.
As the case proceeds, it could have significant implications for the wider investigation into Hunter Biden, who last week pleaded guilty to felony tax charges. The plea comes after months of intense scrutiny over his financial dealings and allegations of preferential treatment in the legal process.
Both Shapley and Ziegler continue to assert that their actions were justified, and they are seeking a judgment in their favor to clear their names.