Category: Judicial Watch
Keep On Truckin’ — If You Are Rightly Licensed
WASHINGTON — What happens when rules designed to ensure public safety fray so much that undocumented residents can obtain commercial…
Federal judge in Florida orders release of long-hidden Epstein grand jury documents
After the nearly unanimous passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act last month, many have wondered what other files and information have yet to be disclosed amid the heated controversy over the Epstein files.
A federal judge in Florida just ordered the release of grand jury documents from an old case against Epstein, defying past orders not to release them.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith argued that a recent law now takes precedence over the rules that prohibited past disclosure.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith has ordered the release of grand jury transcripts related to investigations from 2005 and 2007 involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
RELATED: Was the latest Epstein document dump just Trump’s 4D chess trap? Steve Deace answers.
Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images
Grand jury proceedings are often conducted in private and there are higher standards to meet in order to disclose transcripts from them.
However, U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith, in his short decision to release the transcripts, argued that a recent law now takes precedence over the rules that prohibited past disclosure.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky), who spearheaded the effort for disclosure, posted the news of the ruling on X on Friday afternoon.
Massie highlighted the fact that the Epstein Files Transparency Act played a crucial role in the judge’s decision to override past decisions against disclosure.
The Act, being “later-enacted” and more “specific”, trumps the rules barring the release of the documents in the past.
Epstein was not convicted of any crimes as a result of this grand jury investigation..
Instead, he famously pleaded guilty to comparatively minor charges in 2008 under the U.S. Attorney at the time, Alex Acosta, who later became Trump’s Labor Secretary in his first term. Acosta subsequently resigned following scrutiny over the non-prosecution agreement in 2008.
It is not clear when the grand jury transcripts will be released or exactly how much new information will be disclosed.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law on November 19, gives the government 30 days to prepare and release all relevant records.
Those following the case can expect an update on the release of any remaining files by December 19.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Gavin Newsom’s Twisted ‘Crotch Clench’ Sparks Concern, Baffles Experts
There’s something wrong with Gavin Newsom. Americans recoiled in horror, then squinted in fascination at the images of Newsom’s appearance at the New York Times Dealbook Summit. There he was, the greaseball California governor, sitting in a chair with his legs crossed impossibly tight, protruding akimbo at improbable angles like a human swastika, a wanton display of “testicle-crushing” contortion. It was the opposite of manspreading, the inverse of kink-splaying, yet Newsom’s gnarled pose, his tangled appendages—like a steel-beamed hedgehog standing guard at Omaha Beach—still managed to intrude upon the public space in a way that many found unsettling.
The post Gavin Newsom’s Twisted ‘Crotch Clench’ Sparks Concern, Baffles Experts appeared first on .
Epstein Files Update!
Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Epstein Records Subpoenaed by House Committee Judicial Watch Sues for Jack Smith’s Emails Targeting Donald Trump New Air Marshal Assistant Director has a Questionable Past Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Epstein Records Subpoenaed by House Committee The U.S. Department of Justice is sitting on information about Jeffrey Epstein that […]
The post Epstein Files Update! appeared first on Judicial Watch.
10 Years After San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
Tuesday, December 2 marked 10 years since Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot dead Robert Adams, Isaac Amianos, Bennetta Betbadal,…
Supreme Court will hear arguments for ending birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear arguments for and against President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship.
The Trump administration appealed a lower court order that struck down the restrictions in July over a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of children affected by the policy.
‘We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.’
Trump issued the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship executive order on his first day in office of his second term. The order prohibits granting citizenship to persons born in the country to mothers illegally or temporarily in the U.S. and whose father is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
Opponents of birthright citizenship say it stems from a false reading of the 14th Amendment, which was intended to apply only to former slaves when it was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War.
“Congress has never passed a federal statute that confers birthright citizenship. So it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not in federal law, it’s not in the legislative history, and yet it is being used,” argued BlazeTV host Mark Levin.
“Birthright citizenship is the argument, is the position, is the policy the Democrat Party holds on to because they want monopoly power for all time,” he added, “and they don’t care if it’s foreigners or not.”
Supporters of the policy point to the longstanding precedent of automatically granting citizenship to babies born in America.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
The case will be heard in the spring, and a decision is expected by early summer.
RELATED: DHS slams Newsom over illegal alien accused in death of 11-year-old boy on Thanksgiving
Others point to the troublesome practice of “citizenship tourism” as justification for the order.
“There is a tourism industry surrounding this whole birthright citizenship. Women come here before they give birth so that they can just give birth here, and then their babies become United States citizens. That’s nuts, and to [Trump’s] point, nobody else does this,” said Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” on BlazeTV.
The birthright order would not take away citizenship from those who already obtained it before the order went into effect.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump administration limits work permits for asylum seekers following deadly National Guard shooting
Following the tragic shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., last week, allegedly by an Afghan national, President Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against foreigners coming into our country. Now his administration is taking action with some important policy changes.
On Thursday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a major slash in the duration of work permit validity, according to the Washington Post.
‘It’s even more clear that USCIS must conduct more frequent vetting of aliens.’
Specifically the new policy affects asylum seekers by changing the work permit authorization period from five years to a mere 18 months.
“Reducing the maximum validity period for employment authorization will ensure that those seeking to work in the United States do not threaten public safety or promote harmful anti-American ideologies. After the attack on National Guard service members in our nation’s capital by an alien who was admitted into this country by the previous administration, it’s even more clear that USCIS must conduct more frequent vetting of aliens,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said in a Thursday press release.
RELATED: Suspect in Guardsmen shooting tied to Biden’s Operation Allies Welcome
Photo by MANUEL BALCE CENETA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
USCIS stated in the press release that these changes to maximum validity period for Employment Authorization Documents are part of a broader policy update to ensure more thorough screenings of foreigners.
Fwd.us, an immigration advocacy group, told the Washington Post that the move is expected to impact hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers.
The group also estimated that around 1.4 million of the three million asylum seekers currently in the United States are working.
These policy changes come shortly after it was revealed that the suspected shooter is an Afghan national tied to the Biden-era migrant relocation program, Operation Allies Welcome.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Supreme Court allows Texas redistricting map for midterm elections; liberals dissent
The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily approved the redistricting map in Texas for the midterm election over the dissent of the liberal justices.
The 5-3 partisan vote means Republicans will likely gain several seats from Texas. The decision blocks a lower court injunction just as politicians begin to qualify for elections in the state.
‘Congratulations to Texas for advancing the rule of law.’
The court has not yet issued a permanent decision on the lawsuit, claiming that the redistricting effort pushed by Republicans is discriminatory and unlawful.
Republicans hope the redrawn map will lead to five additional seats in the U.S. House, but Democrats have countered with their own redistricting effort, including one in California.
The Trump administration is suing against the new district map in California.
“To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map,” U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown previously wrote in the Texas case. “But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi praised the decision on social media.
“Federal courts have no right to interfere with a State’s decision to redraw legislative maps for partisan reasons,” she asserted.
“A federal district court ignored that principle two weeks ago, and the Supreme Court correctly stayed that overreaching decision tonight,” she added. “Congratulations to Texas for advancing the rule of law, my Solicitor General John Sauer, and our team of lawyers for their excellent brief supporting Texas in this important case.”
RELATED: Gov. Hochul says New York is jumping into redistricting feud between California and Texas
The redistricting effort in California was championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who campaigned to push the proposition by characterizing it as a chance for Californians to push back against President Donald Trump.
The president accused them of rigging the election for the redistricting proposition, which passed easily.
“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump said at the time. “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
