ABC News reported that a Pakistani national, Asif Merchant, was arrested for allegedly planning to assassinate former President Donald Trump and other public officials.
The plot, which involved recruiting hitmen, was uncovered by undercover FBI agents, according to a criminal complaint.
The complaint, presented in Brooklyn federal court, reveals that Merchant, 46, had plotted to murder U.S. government officials. Although the document does not explicitly mention Trump, sources confirmed him as a target. Other targets spanned both political parties, indicating a wide-reaching scheme.
Merchant was apprehended on July 12, a day before Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He had traveled from Iran to the United States in April, where he reportedly spent time before attempting to engage hitmen for the plot. Merchant discussed his plan with a confidential source tied to the FBI in early June.
The Justice Department disclosed that Merchant sought individuals to commit murder, organize a protest as a distraction, and perform reconnaissance. Meeting with undercover law enforcement officers posing as hitmen by mid-June, he paid a $5,000 advance for the assassinations. Despite his plans to leave the country on July 12, authorities arrested him before he could escape.
“Fortunately, the assassins Merchant allegedly tried to hire were undercover FBI Agents,” said Christie Curtis, acting Assistant Director of the FBI's New York Field Office. The timely intervention of the FBI prevented a potentially catastrophic outcome.
The timing of his arrest and subsequent security measures at Trump's rally have raised additional concerns. Pat Young, head of the Beaver County Emergency Services Unit, noted a sudden deployment of Secret Service snipers. “This is the first time that a non-sitting president had been allocated Secret Service snipers,” Young stated, expressing unease over the unusual security adjustments.
Breon Peace, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, acknowledged Merchant's intentions: “Working on behalf of others overseas, Merchant planned the murder of U.S. government officials on American soil.” Such statements underscore the gravity of the charges brought against Merchant in the federal complaint.
Merchant's actions fall within a broader context of tensions between the United States and Iran. “For years, the Justice Department has been working aggressively to counter Iran's brazen and unrelenting efforts to retaliate against American public officials,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland in a statement. This ongoing effort follows the 2020 assassination of Iranian General Soleimani, which has sparked numerous retaliatory threats.
Merchant's request to assemble a team for the assassination highlighted the meticulous planning involved. “Specifically, Merchant requested men who could do the killing, approximately 25 people who could perform a protest as a distraction after the murder occurred, and a woman to do 'reconnaissance',” according to the complaint. These discussions laid bare the operational depth Merchant sought to achieve.
The Justice Department asserts its commitment to disrupting such violent plots. “The Justice Department will spare no resource to disrupt and hold accountable those who would seek to carry out Iran's lethal plotting against American citizens,” Garland emphasized. This resolute stance reflects the ongoing efforts to maintain national security in the face of international threats.
“Their success in neutralizing this threat not only prevented a tragic outcome but also reaffirms the FBI's commitment to protecting our nation and its citizens from domestic and international threats,” Curtis added.
Asif Merchant was arrested for his alleged plot to assassinate former President Trump and other public officials. While not naming Trump, the complaint revealed a broader scheme involving other U.S. government figures. Authorities disrupted the plot through a combination of informants and undercover FBI agents, underscoring ongoing national security efforts against international threats. Security measures at Trump's rally highlighted the immediate impacts of the thwarted plot, with additional snipers allocated to safeguard the event.
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (D) has opted to forgo the Democratic National Convention this year.
Breitbart News reported that Senator Brown will neither attend the DNC nor campaign with Vice President Kamala Harris, choosing instead to prioritize his own reelection campaign in Ohio.
The decision comes as Brown engages in a fierce battle to retain his Senate seat against Republican Bernie Moreno. In a state increasingly leaning toward former President Donald Trump, Brown has expressed the need to focus on local issues specific to Ohio rather than engaging in national party politics.
Senator Brown has made it clear that his priority is to address the concerns of Ohio voters. By skipping the DNC, he underscores his commitment to center his campaign on state-specific matters, distancing himself from broader Democratic presidential politics. "It’s not left or right. It’s not who you vote for, for president,” Brown told CNN. “It’s who stands up for people in the state.”
Brown's strategy involves concentrating on issues like abortion rights, the minimum wage, and the dignity of work, which he believes are crucial to Ohioans. He plans to draw stark contrasts between himself and his opponent, Bernie Moreno, particularly regarding their differing views and past business practices.
In a notable departure from his peers in other contested states, Brown will not defend President Joe Biden’s management of contentious issues, such as the situation at the Southern Border with Mexico. This approach differentiates him from other Senate Democrats who are facing the challenge of dissociating themselves from the national party’s less favorable perceptions.
Historical precedents show that splitting the ticket is a daunting task. From 2016 to 2020, only one Senate candidate succeeded in winning a state that voted for a presidential candidate from the opposing party. Brown hopes to defy these odds by convincing voters to support Trump for president while choosing him for the Senate.
"I’ve got my own schedule. She’s got her own schedule. I will focus on my race," Brown remarked, further emphasizing his plan to stay aligned with Ohio-specific issues. "My strategy is perhaps different from hers… talking about the differences on abortion rights and on the minimum wage between Bernie Moreno and me and how I fight every day for the dignity of work.”
Brown frequently skips political conventions, reinforcing his image as an independent-minded representative focused on his constituents. "I often skip conventions," Brown said, reiterating that his objective is to advocate for Ohio workers. He added, "My job is to fight for Ohio workers. You can talk about the presidential race. That’s your job. … I know that what will matter is people vote for me because I stand up for workers and will continue to fight for workers.”
On the other side of the aisle, Bernie Moreno sees Brown’s decision as advantageous. "Oh, it helps me tremendously,” Moreno noted, implying that Kamala Harris’s presence at the top of the Democratic ticket could potentially benefit his campaign. "So maybe Scranton Joe had a little bit of credibility here in Ohio. San Francisco Kamala absolutely does not,” Moreno added.
With the control of the Senate at stake, Brown’s reelection is being closely scrutinized. Alongside Ohio, other states like West Virginia and Montana are also seen as potential Republican gains, which could shift the balance in the Senate.
By emphasizing local issues rather than national politics, Brown is betting that Ohio voters will prioritize state concerns over party loyalty. This approach aims to resonate with constituents who may be swayed by Trump’s popularity in the state but are also concerned about issues closer to home.
Senator Sherrod Brown’s decision to skip the DNC and not campaign with Kamala Harris highlights his focus on his reelection in Ohio. He aims to address state-specific concerns rather than engaging in national party debates. Brown’s strategy involves concentrating on key issues such as abortion rights, the minimum wage, and workers' dignity. Despite the historical difficulty of splitting the ticket, Brown hopes to win support from Trump voters by zeroing in on differences between him and Bernie Moreno. Meanwhile, Moreno believes Harris's position on the Democratic ticket could enhance his chances.
The Supreme Court has ruled against Missouri's intervention in the New York case against former President Donald Trump.
According to Fox News, the justices declined to hear Missouri’s request to intervene, with only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially supporting the state’s effort.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, filed the motion as he seeks a full term in the upcoming fall election. Bailey alleged that Trump's prosecutions were orchestrated between the New York authorities and the U.S. Department of Justice. This claim was based on Matthew Colangelo's movement from the DOJ to the Manhattan DA's office to assist in prosecuting Trump.
In May, a jury in New York found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James led the civil litigation against the former president. Bailey contended that Bragg's prosecution was intended to keep Trump off the campaign trail.
Bailey expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court's ruling during the legal proceedings. "It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court refused to exercise its constitutional responsibility to resolve state v. state disputes," Bailey stated. He also said he would continue to bring legal actions against what he views as coordinated efforts from the Biden administration.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas stood apart from their colleagues by supporting Missouri's right to file a bill of complaint, although they did not endorse the other relief requests. Their stance was one of the few elements of support Missouri received from the Supreme Court.
Legal analyst David Gelman described Bailey’s effort as a "Hail Mary" to interrupt the ongoing trial. Gelman also noted that even if the sentencing happens as scheduled in September, it will likely face rapid appeals. "This still doesn’t mean the sentencing will happen in September," Gelman said, adding that the appeals process could be swift.
Bailey’s accusations extend to involving Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden’s DOJ in what he describes as "illicit prosecutions against President Trump." He insists the investigations had political motivations, especially given their timing after Trump's announcement of his candidacy for President. Bailey argued that this was an attempt by the Biden administration to influence the upcoming elections.
The political ramifications of Trump’s legal troubles remain significant for the Republican Party. Bailey’s legal actions are closely tied to his campaign for a full term as Missouri’s Attorney General. His stance resonates with a portion of the GOP base that supports Trump and believes the former President is being treated unfairly by the judicial system.
In Bailey's view, the timing and nature of the charges against Trump show a clear pattern of political bias:
Given the timing (Bragg charged Trump only after Trump declared his candidacy for President), the transparent weakness of the charges, and the effect the charges have in keeping Trump off the campaign trail.
While Bailey continues his legal fight, Trump's camp prepares for potential outcomes in September. The political landscape remains charged as both sides await the next developments.
This decision marks another chapter in Trump’s ongoing legal battles, which have had widespread political implications. Bailey’s future legal actions could further complicate the landscape as Trump's team gears up for an appeal if the sentencing proceeds.
To summarize, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Missouri’s intervention in Trump's New York case reflects the complexities of the legal and political dimensions involved. Alito and Thomas slightly differed from their peers, while veteran observers highlighted the ingenuity of Bailey’s legal maneuvers. The decision leaves many questions about the future implications of Trump's judicial struggles and their effects on the 2024 presidential race.
Despite a lack of confirmation, speculations continue about a past relationship between Vice President Kamala Harris and Sharon Stone’s ex-husband, Phil Bronstein.
According to Daily Mail, the speculation about a previous romantic involvement between Kamala Harris and Phil Bronstein has persisted for many years without verification. Phil Bronstein, now 79, has steadfastly declined to comment on the matter.
A former official from San Francisco has stated they often saw Harris and Bronstein together and believed they were romantically involved. Bronstein and Harris have been acquainted since 2003, the same year his marriage to Sharon Stone ended following a Komodo dragon bite incident.
Bronstein and Harris were part of the same social network, frequently attending gatherings, such as at Tosca Café in 2004. An article penned by Bronstein in 2018 painted a picture of a young, focused Kamala Harris observing a pool game at the café.
In the 2018 piece, Bronstein described Harris as mysterious and analytical, a quiet, focused, and restrained observer. This evening took place when Harris was a political newcomer, only one year into her tenure as San Francisco's district attorney.
Despite the continuous rumors, Harris and Bronstein have never publicized any relationship, although they made occasional public appearances together, such as during the Project Avary dinner in 2008. Bronstein has provided mixed signals, refusing to comment directly on the speculation.
A Harris’s office staff member mentioned that while the rumors were known, Harris never discussed them. Meanwhile, Amelia Ashley-Ward, a close friend of Harris, expressed disbelief in the rumor, emphasizing that Harris would have confided in her. "I don’t know anything about any relationship she had with Phil Bronstein," Ashley-Ward said.
Other insiders also dismissed the possibility of a serious relationship between the two. One staffer from the DA’s office suggested Harris might have had a few dates with Bronstein but strongly doubted it was significant or prolonged.
Bronstein has consistently spoken positively about Harris. In a 2020 Q&A, he supported her vice-presidential candidacy, highlighting her integrity, strength, and commitment to social justice. He praised her multifaceted heritage, seeing its value for a political ticket in contemporary society and noting her potential to balance Joe Biden's perceived deficiencies.
By 2014, Harris had married Doug Emhoff after meeting him on a blind date the previous year. Bronstein, on the other hand, married Christine Borders and relocated to Hawaii with their two children.
Despite years of rumors, there hasn't been a single piece of solid evidence confirming any serious romantic relationship between Harris and Bronstein. The story remains a blend of speculation, occasional public sightings, and a few insiders' comments, with Bronstein and Harris themselves staying largely silent on their personal histories.
The pair met at social gatherings and were seen together at notable events such as the Project Avary dinner in 2008. Contradictory insider statements leave their rumored relationship as a persistent question mark.
Bronstein consistently praised Harris, advocating for her vice-presidential selection in 2020. Harris went on to marry Doug Emhoff, while Bronstein moved to Hawaii with his new wife and children. The rumors endure, lending an air of mystery to their past interactions.
According to sources close to him, Senator John Fetterman is concerned that Vice President Kamala Harris might choose Josh Shapiro as her running mate.
As reported by Breitbart News, sources close to Senator John Fetterman have revealed his unease over the prospect of Governor Josh Shapiro being chosen as Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate.
Fetterman's advisors suggested that the senator is worried about Shapiro’s focus on his own ambitions. This concern is rooted in a long-standing rivalry that dates back to their shared tenure on Pennsylvania’s Board of Pardons.
The rivalry between John Fetterman and Josh Shapiro has intensified as both have risen in Pennsylvania's political landscape. While President Joe Biden's endorsement of Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee has bolstered Shapiro's candidacy, Fetterman remains wary.
Fetterman's advisors argue that Shapiro is overly ambitious. Despite these reservations, Shapiro's track record and moderate political stance make him an appealing choice for Harris, especially considering Pennsylvania's crucial role as a swing state.
Fetterman and Shapiro consistently clashed on criminal justice reform during their time on the Board of Pardons. Fetterman sought to rejuvenate the board and grant second chances, whereas Shapiro often opposed Fetterman's more lenient positions.
One notable clash between the two centered on the cases of Lee and Dennis Horton. The Hortons, convicted for a 1993 shooting and robbery, have long maintained their innocence. These cases highlighted the differing philosophies of Fetterman and Shapiro.
In defense of his position, Shapiro’s spokesperson emphasized his comprehensive evaluation of each pardon case. The spokesperson pointed out that Shapiro has approved more pardons and commutations in the last 25 years than any of his predecessors.
Critics from the far-left wing of the Democratic Party have also scrutinized Shapiro for his pro-Israel stance. An anti-Palestinian op-ed he wrote in 1993 revealed his controversial views, citing his skepticism towards Palestinian self-governance.
In the op-ed, Shapiro disclosed his experience volunteering at an Israeli army base as a teenager. He voiced doubts about the Palestinians' ability to establish a peaceful homeland, a stance that continues to draw criticism.
Despite these concerns, Shapiro's spokesperson defended his record on the Board of Pardons, highlighting his significant contributions to criminal justice reform. Shapiro’s team argues that his decisions are rooted in making Pennsylvania communities safer.
Yet, the larger question remains unanswered: Will Vice President Kamala Harris select Josh Shapiro as her running mate? Fetterman's concerns paint a picture of a broader ideological battle within the Democratic Party.
Senator Fetterman's qualms about Governor Shapiro's perceived ambitions are not without merit. Given their history on Pennsylvania’s Board of Pardons, Fetterman’s worries present a notable subplot in the unfolding narrative of the upcoming presidential election.
Amid escalating Middle Eastern tensions, President Joe Biden is set to convene with his national security team as Iran threatens an imminent attack on Israel.
Daily Mail reported that President Biden plans to meet with his national security team in the Situation Room later on Monday as concerns mount over a potential Iranian attack on Israel within the next 24 to 48 hours.
The heightened anxiety follows a recent attack by Hezbollah on northern Israel, which injured two Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers, and Israel's assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has informed the G7 ministers about the urgency of the situation, emphasizing that the Iranian response could significantly escalate regional hostilities.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III assured Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant of unwavering United States support during a conversation on Sunday. This impending attack by Iran would mark a second direct strike on Israel in the ongoing crisis, with the first occurrence in April involving missiles and drones. The volatile environment underscores the uncertainty faced by U.S. officials, who privately acknowledged to G7 members their limited specifics on the potential retaliation by Iran.
Nasser Kanani, spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry, contends that Iran has a 'legal right' to retaliate following the targeted killing of Haniyeh.
General Hossein Salami of the Revolutionary Guard echoed this sentiment, ominously warning that "they will see the result of their mistake." Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for launching 30 missiles from Lebanon into the upper Galilee region, a move they describe as retribution for Israeli strikes and targeted assassinations in southern Lebanon.
Israel's Iron Dome air defense system played a crucial role in intercepting many of Lebanon's missiles, mitigating further damage and casualties. However, the latest wave of violence has sparked fears of a broader conflict developing in the Middle East.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has termed the current period a 'multi-front war' with Iran, affirming Israel's readiness to confront any threats. Despite criticism over his perceived reluctance toward a ceasefire, particularly after Haniyeh's assassination halted months of peace talks, Netanyahu maintains his hard stance on national security.
The recent deaths of Haniyeh and Fuad Shukr disrupted negotiations led by American, Qatari, and Egyptian mediators, as highlighted by Middle East expert Andreas Krieg. Despite aggressive rhetoric from all sides, Israel's international allies are striving for de-escalation through diplomatic means.
U.S. military buildup in the region aims to bolster defense capabilities while political figures advocate for diplomatic solutions to lower the prevailing tensions. G7 ministers have strongly urged involved parties to avoid further propagating retaliatory violence, emphasizing that no nation stands to benefit from an escalation in the Middle East.
Many countries, including Japan and Turkey, have advised their citizens to leave Lebanon, following similar actions by France and Italy. This caution is reflective of widespread concerns over the volatile regional climate.
In a stark declaration, Israel has vowed to dismantle Hamas following the group's deadly attack on October 7, which resulted in 1,197 fatalities and the capture of 251 hostages, with 111 still held captive in Gaza. Israel's retaliatory actions in Gaza have led to the deaths of at least 39,583 individuals, as reported by the region's health ministry.
As the globe watches, President Biden's impending meeting signifies a pivotal moment in these escalating hostilities. The international community is collectively holding its breath, hoping for diplomatic measures rather than further militaristic escalations in a region already fraught with historical and contemporary strife.
Senator J.D. Vance finds himself at the center of a controversy due to his resurfaced 2021 comments about 'childless cat ladies.'
According to Daily Mail, J.D. Vance's wife, Usha, defended his years-old 'childless cat lady' comments amidst ongoing backlash, addressing the negative press surrounding the remarks.
Sen. J.D. Vance's remarks from 2021 have reignited public debate, drawing disapproval from left-leaning individuals and some conservatives. During an interview with Tucker Carlson, Vance criticized certain demographics, calling them 'childless cat ladies.' The comments have resurfaced, causing significant criticism directed at him.
In response to the backlash, Usha Vance appeared on Fox News to defend her husband. She described the situation since J.D. Vance rose to prominence, becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee. Usha communicated that her husband never intended to offend women who were facing challenges in starting families.
Usha Vance's defense was a concerted effort to clarify the intent behind J.D. Vance's controversial remarks. She argued that J.D.'s comments were intended to convey a substantive point rather than to cause offense. "He made a quip," Usha noted, taking pains to emphasize that the intent was not malicious.
Moreover, she highlighted misconceptions about her husband that have surfaced in the wake of these old remarks. She lamented that J.D. Vance's overall message had been lost in the ensuing controversy. "Let's try to look at the real conversation that he's trying to have," she urged.
Usha also used the opportunity to address the changes their family has experienced since J.D. Vance's entry into the national political arena. She spoke about their family's resilience and how they have adapted to media attention. "We've been doing this now for a little while and I've grown accustomed to it and grown a thick skin," she remarked.
Senator J.D. and Usha Vance share three children: Ewan, 6; Vivek, 4; and Mirabel, 2. This personal aspect was highlighted to further humanize J.D. Vance as she recounted their life since meeting at Yale Law School and building a family together.
Usha was careful to acknowledge the sensitivity surrounding fertility and family planning. "J.D. absolutely, at the time and today, would never, ever, ever want to say something to hurt someone who was trying to have a family who really, you know, was struggling with that," she explained.
In her defense, Usha focused on the broader social issues that J.D. Vance's comments were trying to address. She stressed the importance of having substantive discussions about supporting families. "What can we do to make it easier to live in 2024, and live a very full life that isn't just professional, that also has this kind of rich personal life and community behind it?" she questioned.
Usha Vance also highlighted that there are valid reasons why some individuals might choose not to have families. "For those of us who do have families, for the many of us who want to have families and for whom it's really hard. What can we do to make it better?" she asked rhetorically, stressing the need for accommodating diverse lifestyles.
Despite the backlash, Usha called for a reassessment of her husband's comments in the context of broader societal challenges. She asserted that the goal was to spark a conversation on how to better support families and personal well-being, not to disparage any group of people.
To recap, Sen. J.D. Vance's 'childless cat lady' comments from 2021 have drawn renewed criticism, prompting his wife, Usha Vance, to defend him publicly. She elaborated on their family dynamics and stressed the substantive intentions behind his controversial remarks. Usha highlighted the need for meaningful conversations on supporting families and understanding diverse life choices.
Jenna Ellis, a former attorney for Donald Trump's campaign, has reached an agreement to assist Arizona prosecutors in a high-profile case.
According to Daily Mail, Ellis has struck a deal to aid the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, resulting in nine charges being dropped against her.
Former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis has agreed to cooperate with Arizona prosecutors regarding a scheme involving 'fake electors.' This development comes as the state pursues charges against 18 Republicans for attempting to alter the 2020 election results in favor of Donald Trump.
The Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced that Ellis's collaboration would be crucial in their case against the accused. Eighteen Republicans, including prominent figures like Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, have been charged with trying to misrepresent Arizona's 11 electoral votes for Trump during the 2020 Presidential election. Ellis had previously accompanied Giuliani in promoting unsubstantiated claims of election fraud in several states.
In exchange for her help, Ellis will provide the necessary documents and evidence to strengthen the prosecutor's case. Despite initially pleading not guilty to charges of fraud, forgery, and conspiracy in Arizona, her agreement stems from a similar case in Georgia, where she also pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting false statements and writings. This plea has led to a three-year suspension from practicing law in Colorado.
Jenna Ellis's plea deal means she will not face incarceration despite initially facing multiple serious charges. Her insights and evidence are expected to play a significant role in the prosecution of the 17 other accused individuals.
Her attorneys, Matt Brown and Matt Melito expressed gratitude towards the Arizona Attorney General's Office for fully dismissing the indictment against her, clarifying that Ellis was not involved in the 'fake elector' scheme.
The charges against the 18 Republicans, including those against Giuliani and Meadows, are severe. They allegedly tried to certify Arizona's 11 electoral votes for Trump despite Joe Biden's official victory in the state. The alleged false certification took place in Phoenix on December 14, 2020. The Congress and the National Archives subsequently ignored this fraudulent electoral document.
Ellis has become a key figure in the unraveling of these legal proceedings. Her readiness to assist prosecutors highlights her continued willingness to disclose the truth about the events following the 2020 election. Attorney General Kris Mayes emphasized the importance of safeguarding American democracy and declared Ellis's cooperation a victory for the rule of law.
Former President Donald Trump has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Arizona case, underscoring his connection to the accused plotters.
The developments in Arizona provide insight into the extensive efforts to overturn the 2020 election results across multiple battleground states. These legal battles lay the groundwork for holding those responsible for fraudulent actions accountable.
Ellis and Giuliani's December 1, 2020, meeting with Arizona Legislature members failed to produce evidence of alleged election fraud. This event further solidified the prosecutorial narrative that the 2020 election fraud claims lacked substantive proof. The ongoing legal scrutiny continues to shed light on the activities of Trump's allies post-election.
Jenna Ellis's cooperation with Arizona prosecutors is pivotal to proving the state's case against 18 Republicans accused of manipulating the 2020 election results. The dropping of charges against Ellis, coupled with her provision of evidence, underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of American democracy. The continuing legal actions across various states emphasize a unified effort to hold those accountable for actions that threaten the electoral process.
According to Fox News, a recent House report indicates that nearly 100 illegal immigrants on the terror watch list have been released into the United States during the Biden administration, raising significant concerns about national security.
The report underscores the increasing number of migrants from high-risk countries being encountered at the southwest border and the potential threat they pose.
Prepared by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, the report details that more than 250 individuals on the terrorist watchlist were stopped at the southwest border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023. Out of these, at least 99 were released into various American communities. Meanwhile, 34 remain in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody but have not yet been removed from the country.
Additionally, the report highlights that immigration judges granted bonds to at least 27 of these individuals who entered illegally. Border Patrol has also encountered tens of thousands of migrants hailing from nations deemed high-risk, including Afghan, Chinese, Iranian, Syrian, and Uzbek nationals among others. Specifically, there were 2,134 Afghan, 33,347 Chinese, 541 Iranian, 520 Syrian, and 3,104 Uzbek nationals.
The situation is further complicated by nearly 2 million 'gotaways'—migrants who have evaded Border Patrol—since the beginning of the Biden administration. These individuals' origins span 36 different countries, some of which are known for active terror presences, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, and Yemen.
According to the House report, the Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) encompasses both known or suspected terrorists and others considered a "potential threat." The number of encounters involving persons on the watchlist has surged by over 3,000% since President Biden took office in 2021.
The Biden administration attributes the crisis to inadequate funding and lack of comprehensive reforms, blaming Republicans for failing to address a “broken” immigration system. Conversely, Republicans pin the rising numbers on the current administration's rollback of Trump-era policies, which they claim has exacerbated the problem.
Adding a layer of severity to the situation, DHS reported that an ISIS-affiliated smuggling network facilitated the entry of over 400 individuals from Eastern European and Central Asian countries into the U.S. Among them, eight Tajik nationals with connections to ISIS were arrested in urban centers like New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia after crossing the southern border. Three of these individuals made use of the CBP One phone application to arrange an appointment, while Border Patrol encountered four others.
The House report states, "Under the Biden-Harris Administration, of the more than 250 illegal aliens on the terrorist watchlist who were encountered by Border Patrol at the southwest border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023, DHS has released into American communities at least 99, with at least 34 others in DHS custody but not yet removed from the United States.”
The report further emphasizes the potential danger posed by the nearly 2 million migrants who have evaded capture. It contends, "That does not include the untold numbers of potential terrorists that evaded Border Patrol to enter the United States as part of nearly 2 million ‘gotaways’ since the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration."
One segment of the document warns that the current impact on national security could be dwarfed by future threats. "Although American communities already feel the disastrous effects of the Biden-Harris Administration’s immigration policies, the worst could still be yet to come," the report claims.
Echoing a growing sentiment among national security experts and immigration officials, the report urges immediate action:
With national security experts and immigration officials increasingly concerned about the threat of terrorism originating from the border, it is clear that policymakers must take all necessary steps to secure the border and stop the flow of illegal aliens. However, the Biden-Harris Administration has refused to address the national security nightmare created by its radical, open-borders agenda.
The public debate over immigration policies is likely to intensify as both sides of the political spectrum seek solutions to these pressing concerns. Whether through policy reform or increased funding, it remains to be seen how, or if, the reported issues will be effectively addressed moving forward.
Knewz.com reported that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has definitively denied former President Donald Trump's attempt to dismiss the case, accusing him of interfering in the 2020 election.
Judge Chutkan's decision means that allegations of Trump's efforts to overturn the election results will continue to be heard in federal court.
The ruling came after the Supreme Court granted Trump partial immunity from prosecution for official acts during his presidency. Despite this, Judge Chutkan concluded that Trump’s legal team had failed to present convincing evidence of political bias or prosecutorial misconduct.
The case, based in Washington, DC, focuses on accusations that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, which he lost to Joe Biden. Federal prosecutors have accused Trump of attempting to pressure officials, disseminating false claims about election fraud, and leveraging the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, to retain power.
Trump's legal team argued that the case was a "political witch hunt" purportedly orchestrated by the Biden administration to influence the 2024 election. However, Judge Chutkan highlighted the lack of substantial evidence supporting this claim.
The former president's defense additionally contended that he was specifically targeted and that the charges were intended to obstruct his potential re-election campaign. Judge Chutkan dismissed these assertions, pointing out that Trump’s actions were not merely in challenging the election results but involved knowingly making false statements to further criminal conspiracies and obstructing the electoral certification process.
Chief Justice John Roberts, addressing the scope of presidential immunity, clarified that the president cannot be prosecuted for exercising essential constitutional functions but does not enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. The president, according to Roberts, is not above the law.
By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court granted Trump partial immunity, sparing him from prosecution for specific official actions taken during his tenure. However, Chief Justice Roberts emphatically stated that the president does not possess immunity for actions outside the trajectory of his official duties.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent emphasized that the ruling undermines a core constitutional principle — that no individual, including the president, is above the law. Her argument underscores ongoing concerns about accountability within the executive branch.
As federal prosecutors continue to build their case, Trump faces four criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against the rights of citizens. The resilience of this case reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law.
Judge Chutkan has scheduled a follow-up hearing on August 16 to discuss the next steps in the trial. This hearing is crucial for setting timelines and addressing procedural issues as the case moves forward.
In his defense, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the case is a politically motivated attempt to prevent him from running for president in 2024. These assertions, despite being robustly dismissed by the court, continue to shape public perception and media discourse.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed former President Donald Trump's attempt to have the 2020 election interference case thrown out. The case involves accusations of Trump leading efforts to overturn the election results, pressuring officials, spreading misinformation, and attempting to use the Capitol riot chaos to stay in power. Judge Chutkan found no evidence of prosecutorial vindictiveness and stated that Trump was charged with making false statements and obstructing election certification proceedings. The next court hearing is scheduled for August 16.