Justice Department Fires Four Prosecutors Who Weaponized FACE Act Under Merrick Garland and Jailed Christians Praying at Abortion Clinic

 The Justice Department has fired four prosecutors involved in the misuse of the FACE Act under the Biden administration. This act has been a point of contention, particularly regarding how it has been applied against pro-life protestors.

1. Prosecutors Dismissed:

At least four prosecutors from the Civil Rights Division were terminated for allegedly misusing the FACE Act, which was designed to protect access to reproductive health services. Sanjay Patel, a long-serving federal prosecutor, was among those fired.

2. Background of FACE Act:

The FACE Act, enacted in 1994, aims to prevent threats and intimidation at reproductive health clinics. Violations can range from misdemeanors to felonies based on prior offenses and the severity of the violation.

3. Pro-Life Activists Charged:

Nearly twenty pro-life activists have faced charges under the FACE Act for their peaceful protests at abortion clinics. Notably, Paula Harlow, a 75-year-old woman, was sentenced to two years in prison for her role in a protest, drawing significant media attention due to her age and health concerns.

4. Controversial Court Ruling:

During Harlow's sentencing, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reportedly mocked her faith, despite Harlow’s husband expressing fears for her well-being in prison. This incident has spurred criticism of the judicial treatment of peaceful protestors.

5. Investigation Context:

The prosecutor firings coincide with a report being finalized about the FACE Act and its enforcement under current and former administrations. The Justice Department confirmed that the personnel responsible for misapplying this law have been removed from their positions.

The recent firings signal a potential shift in how the Justice Department handles cases related to the FACE Act, amidst scrutiny over its enforcement against peaceful demonstrators. The treatment of individuals like Paula Harlow has raised concerns about fairness and justice in the application of federal laws. 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/justice-department-fires-four-prosecutors-who-weaponized-face/

‘What Evil Lurks In The Hearts Of Men’ To Cause A Betrayal Of Country?

 Courtney Williams, a former employee of the U. S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), who was arrested for sharing classified military information, leading to concerns about national security.

• Background on Williams: Courtney Williams worked as an operational support technician for elite special forces, including Delta Force, from 2010 to 2016. She held top-secret clearance and was bound by an oath to keep classified details confidential.

• Breach of Trust: Between 2022 and 2025, Williams provided sensitive Tactical, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP) information to journalist Seth Harp for a book he was writing. This release of information violated her life-long oath and posed risks to American forces, especially during missions.

• Consequences of Disclosure: The publication of the book, "The Fort Bragg Cartel," coincided with a critical operation in Iran to rescue a downed U. S. pilot. The information given to Harp could have aided Iranian forces in capturing the pilot during his escape.

• Investigation and Arrest: After a thorough investigation that revealed extensive communication between Williams and Harp, she was charged under the Espionage Act and arrested on April 7, 2026.

• Motivation for Betrayal: The article raises questions about what drove Williams to leak such vital operational details. Possible motives include fame, greed, personal grievances, or a desire for retribution. Williams herself expressed concern about the severity of her actions, suggesting awareness of the potential consequences.

• Comparison to Other Spies: The article compares Williams’s actions to other infamous cases of espionage, emphasizing the potential damage done to national security. It suggests that Williams’s actions were reckless and jeopardized the safety of U. S. servicemen.

The article reflects on the motivations behind Williams's betrayal of her country and the impact of her actions on military operations. The ongoing legal process may reveal more about her decision to jeopardize the safety of American special forces and the evil that prompted such a severe breach of trust.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/04/what_evil_lurks_in_the_hearts_of_men_to_cause_a_betrayal_of_country.html

Transcript From 2019 Exposes More Deep State Machinations Against Trump

 Recent documents released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) provide new insights into the events surrounding the first impeachment of President Donald Trump. These revelations focus on the whistleblower complaint that initiated the inquiry, the role of various individuals in the impeachment process, and the actions of intelligence officials.

• Transcripts Released: The HPSCI released transcripts of closed-door interviews with Michael Atkinson, the then-Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, revealing details about the whistleblower complaint that accused President Trump of wrongdoing during a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, 2019.

• Whistleblower Complaint: A complaint was filed by a whistleblower on August 12, 2019, alleging that Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate the Biden family to influence the 2020 election. The Department of Justice concluded that the complaint was outside the Inspector General's jurisdiction.

• Atkinson's Testimony: Atkinson's testimony on September 19, 2019, revealed that the Office of Legal Counsel had determined the lack of jurisdiction, preventing him from sharing details about the complaint with HPSCI. Media leaks, however, disclosed its substance, which led to the announcement of impeachment proceedings by then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

• Credibility of Witnesses: During the impeachment, Alexander Vindman testified about the call, although he was not the whistleblower. Reports have since suggested that the whistleblower was Eric Ciaramella from the CIA, who relied on second-hand accounts to support the claims made in his complaint. Atkinson did not interview Vindman or review the call transcript before deeming the whistleblower's claims credible.

• Investigation Details: Atkinson admitted that the whistleblower did not disclose prior communications with Democrats on the HPSCI before filing the complaint, raising questions about the whistleblower's motivations and credibility.

• FBI Involvement: Atkinson referred President Trump to the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division post-complaint, but the DOJ later concluded there were no violations. Despite this, parts of the FBI sought access to preliminary review files after the investigation had been closed by the DOJ.

This recent release of transcripts sheds light on the intricate dynamics between intelligence officials and political actors during Trump’s first impeachment. It reveals potential complications regarding the whistleblower’s credibility and the apparent collaboration between certain intelligence community officials and the House Democrats. As former Congressman Devin Nunes pointed out, these developments expose how the intelligence establishment may have attempted to undermine an elected president and highlights the continuing need for transparency and accountability within government institutions. 

https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/13/breaking-transcript-from-2019-exposes-more-deep-state-machinations-against-trump/

Alan Dershowitz: Trump could move to expunge 2019 impeachment after release of bombshell evidence

 In a recent interview, renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz discussed the possibility of President Donald Trump expunging his 2019 impeachment based on new evidence. This evidence suggests that the main accuser in the impeachment may have had biases and relied on hearsay.

1. Possible Expungement of Impeachment: Dershowitz claims that Trump could potentially ask Chief Justice John Roberts or Congress to expunge his impeachment, citing the right to confront accusers and new exculpatory evidence that was not presented during the impeachment process.

2. New Evidence Revealed: The U. S. intelligence community's documents, newly declassified, contain significant concerns about the 2019 impeachment whistleblower. These include:

• The whistleblower submitted false information in his complaint.

• His allegations were primarily based on hearsay rather than direct evidence.

• The whistleblower had political biases, notably admitting to being a registered Democrat and having strong connections with Joe Biden regarding Ukraine.

3. Criticism of Whistleblower Processes: Former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson is accused of manipulating the whistleblower process, leading to a flawed impeachment inquiry. Tulsi Gabbard stated that there were concerns about the legitimacy of the whistleblower's claims, which were not disclosed initially.

4. Historical Context: Dershowitz reflects on the impeachment as lacking credibility, noting that public sentiment may eventually view the impeachment in a negative light due to the doubts raised by the new evidence.

5. Legal Recourse for Trump: Dershowitz mentioned that beyond seeking an expungement, Trump might also consider filing a civil lawsuit against responsible government officials for constitutional violations, especially regarding the Sixth Amendment rights concerning the right to confront witnesses.

6. Wider Political Reactions: The new evidence has sparked reactions from various political figures:

• FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson indicated that the agency is reviewing the evidence, suggesting it parallels tactics used in the Russia collusion investigation.

• CIA Director John Ratcliffe's office expressed concerns over the integrity of the impeachment process.

• EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin criticized the impeachment as a politically motivated charade.

Alan Dershowitz's remarks introduce the idea that new evidence could allow Trump to challenge the legitimacy of his 2019 impeachment. With allegations against the accuser's credibility and the processes involved in the impeachment inquiry being questioned, there is potential for Trump to seek legal remedies or expungement. The ramifications of these revelations continue to provoke discussions among political leaders and legal experts about the integrity of the impeachment proceedings. 

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/alan-dershowitz-trump-could-move-expunge-2019-impeachment-after

News roundup:

 Trump admin agrees to fly pride flag at Stonewall National Monument

Judge tosses Trump’s lawsuit against WSJ over Epstein letter

Rubio to host Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors for talks amid ceasefire effort

Americans hate the 2026 economy

Christians condemn Trump post depicting him as Jesus-like figure

Marjorie Taylor Greene: Trump’s ‘Mental Stability’ Questionable Based on His Posts

Mississippi Legislators Make Illegal Migration a State Crime

Stephen Miller Urges ‘High-Value Migration,’ not ‘Low-Value Migration’

Report: 60% of Australian Teens Are Evading Social Media Ban

FTC Moves to Settle with Ad Companies Involved in Boycotting X

Los Angeles hotel industry ‘struggling’ under wage mandate signed by Mayor Karen Bass, new survey finds

Strike at LA Unified School District could start Tuesday unless agreement with 3 unions occurs

Oil blockade would strip cash-strapped Iran of significant revenue stream amid economic crisis

Maps highlight 140 planned data centers in Texas

Trump refuses to back down from Pope Leo feud: ‘I don’t think he should be getting into politics’

California exodus strikes again as homebuilding giant pulls out

Sicko dumps puppy in coyote country, drives off

Tulsi Gabbard exposes the flimsy ‘false narrative’ intel community watchdog pushed to impeach Trump in 2019

Billionaire details Eric Swalwell’s final days holed up inside his $26M mansion — and brutal eviction

Panic on campus as college students exposed to drug-resistant contagious disease

Tony Gonzales says he will resign from House

The whisper network that caught up to Eric Swalwell

New York Times Runs Cover For Terrorist-Sympathizing Streamer Cozying Up With Democrats

Trump DoorDashes McDonald’s To Oval Office To Prove A Point On Taxes

California Introduces Law Banning Investigations of Somali Fraud

 California has introduced a new law, AB 2624, aimed at protecting immigration support service providers from investigations and scrutiny, especially in light of ongoing allegations of fraud within the Somali community. This development has sparked concerns about censorship and the erosion of First Amendment rights.

1. California's Growing Corruption: California is described as one of the most corrupt states in America, with allegations of its government shielding corrupt practices through various laws and non-disclosure agreements.

2. Response to Somali Fraud Allegations: When Somali childcare providers became associated with fraud allegations, state officials shifted focus from the alleged fraudsters to those investigating them, claiming harassment and intimidation against the providers.

3. Attorney General's Statements: Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that resources for hate crimes are available in the Somali language, addressing supposed harassment faced by Somali childcare providers from "internet vigilantes. "

4. Governor's Warnings: Governor Gavin Newsom indicated that the Somali community feels threatened by right-wing activists investigating daycare fraud, going so far as to suggest that those looking into the issues might face arrest.

5. Details of AB 2624:

• The law aims to protect individuals providing immigration support from harassment, including doxxing and threats.

• It defines harassment broadly, suggesting that any reporting on them may constitute harassment.

• Includes severe penalties for anyone who publicly discloses the names or addresses of these providers, advancing the idea of special legal status for them.

• Individuals whose information is disclosed may seek legal action, potentially receiving significant damages.

6. Concerns about Freedom of Speech: This law significantly limits the ability of individuals to report on or investigate immigration support providers, raising alarms about the implications for free speech and equal rights.

California's AB 2624 sets a precedent that could prevent scrutiny of immigrant support services and suppress free speech under the guise of protection from harassment. Critics argue it fosters a culture that shields fraudulent activities from investigation while claiming to uphold community safety.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/california-introduces-law-banning-investigations-of-somali-fraud/

Trump Delivers Europe’s Much-Needed Wake-Up Call

 Recent statements from President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicate a significant reevaluation of the United States' commitment to NATO. The American leadership is questioning the purpose and effectiveness of the alliance following a lack of support from European allies in military operations, particularly concerning Iran.

1. NATO's Status: Trump described NATO as a “paper tiger,” expressing disbelief at the lack of support from European members during current military engagements. He stated that NATO’s reliability as an ally is diminishing.

2. U. S. Military Operations: In response to perceived refusals from European nations like Italy, France, and Spain to allow U. S. military use of bases or airspace, there is a sentiment that these countries are no longer acting as true allies of the U. S.

3. Reevaluation of Membership: Trump is reconsidering America's involvement in NATO, aligning with Rubio's assertion that the U. S. membership needs to be “re-examined. ” This may be influenced by NATO members' refusal to assist in military actions against Iranian threats.

4. Historical Context: Rubio had previously co-authored legislation to protect U. S. NATO membership, but the current situation presents new challenges that have led to this rethinking. There is a belief that European nations are no longer reliable partners, as seen in their reluctance to assist with military operations.

5. European Military Capabilities: Concerns have been raised about the military readiness of European countries. For example, during recent conflicts, the British Royal Navy was unable to defend British bases in Cyprus, highlighting potential weaknesses in NATO’s collective defense capabilities.

6. American Interests vs. European Self-Preservation: The rationale for NATO is being questioned, particularly as European countries seem to prioritize their own interests, including potential neutrality towards hostile states like Iran, rather than standing alongside the U. S.

7. Future of NATO: As U. S. participation is downgraded, there is an implication that NATO could naturally disband. The author posits that European countries may soon face existential crises that leave them unable to effectively act as allies.

8. Conclusion on Alliances: The author concludes that the interests of the U. S. and European nations have diverged significantly. They suggest that America’s historical role as a security provider for Europe may no longer be viable, reflecting a shift in geopolitical dynamics.

The discourse around the U. S. role in NATO represents a substantial shift in foreign policy thinking. With increasing questions about the alliance's effectiveness and the reliability of European partners, the future of NATO may well be in jeopardy. The evolving situation underscores a critical reassessment of national alliances and mutual responsibilities among member states. 

https://spectator.org/trump-delivers-europes-much-needed-wake-up-call/