Category: fox-news/person/donald-trump

How James Comey’s indictment could go south for the DOJ

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

As former FBI Director James Comey stares down a two-count federal indictment alleging he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, the Department of Justice faces an uphill climb in securing a conviction. 

Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia is under pressure to move the prosecution forward against Comey’s formidable defense team, which has multiple ways to challenge the charges.

Halligan, a Trump ally and former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, is up against the possibility that Comey's lawyers will file requests to toss the case out. If Comey is unsuccessful and the case goes to trial, Halligan will then face a new hurdle: persuading a jury. Critics say President Donald Trump, Halligan and any others involved in the case could also see external repercussions for rushing to bring what they view as a flimsy, retributive indictment.

In terms of pre-trial efforts, several lawyers have speculated that Comey will argue to the court that his two charges should be dismissed on numerous grounds.

COMEY INDICTMENT SPARKS FIERCE POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDE

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade of Michigan told Fox News Digital one possibility is that Comey could argue the prosecution was selective.

"To prevail on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show not only that the prosecution was motivated by an improper purpose, but also that other similarly situated individuals were treated differently," McQuade said.

She said it would be "remarkably easy to demonstrate the first factor," pointing to Trump’s extraordinary comments on social media openly saying he wanted Comey charged out of vengeance. Comey, one of Trump’s top political nemeses, led the FBI when it opened a controversial investigation into Trump over his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia.

McQuade said, however, that the second factor would be difficult to prove — that others have not been prosecuted for false statements to Congress — since that "essentially requires a defendant to prove a negative."

COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES 'I AM NOT AFRAID'

Jim Trusty, a former DOJ prosecutor who once worked on Trump’s defense team, told Fox News the indictment is still in an early stage, the specific allegations remain unclear and that a "wait and see" approach was best. Trusty said, though, that critics who claim Trump is weaponizing the DOJ against his enemies are misguided.

"Lawfare was certainly used as a weapon to go after Trump, but it also protected people, and so you can also look at this as four years of love from the Biden administration kept Comey out of the crosshairs," Trusty said.

Trusty said Comey’s indictment could be perceived as a "tit for tat," or it could simply be "overdue."

McQuade said that at this early stage, she viewed Comey's acquittal as the "more likely" way the DOJ would fail, pointing to what she said was "convoluted" language in the indictment.

She said it seemed to rely on congressional testimony Comey gave in 2020, when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, referenced a question asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2017 about whether Comey authorized a leak to the media. Cruz also slightly misquoted Grassley, she said.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO INDICT FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING TO CONGRESS

"Because the prosecution must show that Comey knowingly and willfully made a false statement, that messy record may be a fatal flaw," McQuade said.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of the Western District of Virginia told Fox News Digital that if the court permits Comey to access any records related to the DOJ’s "internal deliberations" about the case, those details could undermine the prosecution and bolster a defense that the case was tainted by political motivations.

"The biggest potential fallout for DOJ will be if the judge permits the Comey legal team to get under the hood of the internal deliberations of DOJ to prosecute or not prosecute Comey," Fishwick told Fox News Digital. "The Comey team wants to argue this prosecution is just about politics and revenge, but they will need as much evidence as possible to buttress this claim as DOJ will counter the grand jury indicted Comey, not DOJ."

Trump’s appointment of Halligan as U.S. attorney was a last-minute move, as the five-year statute of limitations on Comey’s testimony expired on Sept. 30. Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the Virginia office, and brought in Halligan, a willing participant in Trump’s mission to take down his political rivals.

While Trump has suggested other indictments are coming down the pike, critics have zeroed in on Comey's case, calling it weak enough that Trump also risks impeachment over it and that Halligan and any other prosecutors who decide to join the case risk career penalties. No DOJ prosecutors have joined Halligan on the case at this stage.

Former DOJ official Harry Litman, host of "Talking Feds" and vocal Trump critic, said "some accountability" would come if Democrats take the House next year, advocating they impeach Trump for what he says is an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

"If we can just get through the midterms and give the House of Representatives the power to subpoena all of these jokers on Capitol Hill, grill them and then impeach Trump again … all of the evidence of the crime that Donald Trump just committed will be laid out for public inspection," Litman said.

He also cited a report that career prosecutors advised Halligan against charging Comey, suggesting she faces the "possibility of serious professional sanctions" because of it.

How James Comey’s indictment could go south for the DOJ

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

As former FBI Director James Comey stares down a two-count federal indictment alleging he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, the Department of Justice faces an uphill climb in securing a conviction. 

Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia is under pressure to move the prosecution forward against Comey’s formidable defense team, which has multiple ways to challenge the charges.

Halligan, a Trump ally and former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, is up against the possibility that Comey's lawyers will file requests to toss the case out. If Comey is unsuccessful and the case goes to trial, Halligan will then face a new hurdle: persuading a jury. Critics say President Donald Trump, Halligan and any others involved in the case could also see external repercussions for rushing to bring what they view as a flimsy, retributive indictment.

In terms of pre-trial efforts, several lawyers have speculated that Comey will argue to the court that his two charges should be dismissed on numerous grounds.

COMEY INDICTMENT SPARKS FIERCE POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDE

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade of Michigan told Fox News Digital one possibility is that Comey could argue the prosecution was selective.

"To prevail on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show not only that the prosecution was motivated by an improper purpose, but also that other similarly situated individuals were treated differently," McQuade said.

She said it would be "remarkably easy to demonstrate the first factor," pointing to Trump’s extraordinary comments on social media openly saying he wanted Comey charged out of vengeance. Comey, one of Trump’s top political nemeses, led the FBI when it opened a controversial investigation into Trump over his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia.

McQuade said, however, that the second factor would be difficult to prove — that others have not been prosecuted for false statements to Congress — since that "essentially requires a defendant to prove a negative."

COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES 'I AM NOT AFRAID'

Jim Trusty, a former DOJ prosecutor who once worked on Trump’s defense team, told Fox News the indictment is still in an early stage, the specific allegations remain unclear and that a "wait and see" approach was best. Trusty said, though, that critics who claim Trump is weaponizing the DOJ against his enemies are misguided.

"Lawfare was certainly used as a weapon to go after Trump, but it also protected people, and so you can also look at this as four years of love from the Biden administration kept Comey out of the crosshairs," Trusty said.

Trusty said Comey’s indictment could be perceived as a "tit for tat," or it could simply be "overdue."

McQuade said that at this early stage, she viewed Comey's acquittal as the "more likely" way the DOJ would fail, pointing to what she said was "convoluted" language in the indictment.

She said it seemed to rely on congressional testimony Comey gave in 2020, when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, referenced a question asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2017 about whether Comey authorized a leak to the media. Cruz also slightly misquoted Grassley, she said.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO INDICT FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING TO CONGRESS

"Because the prosecution must show that Comey knowingly and willfully made a false statement, that messy record may be a fatal flaw," McQuade said.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of the Western District of Virginia told Fox News Digital that if the court permits Comey to access any records related to the DOJ’s "internal deliberations" about the case, those details could undermine the prosecution and bolster a defense that the case was tainted by political motivations.

"The biggest potential fallout for DOJ will be if the judge permits the Comey legal team to get under the hood of the internal deliberations of DOJ to prosecute or not prosecute Comey," Fishwick told Fox News Digital. "The Comey team wants to argue this prosecution is just about politics and revenge, but they will need as much evidence as possible to buttress this claim as DOJ will counter the grand jury indicted Comey, not DOJ."

Trump’s appointment of Halligan as U.S. attorney was a last-minute move, as the five-year statute of limitations on Comey’s testimony expired on Sept. 30. Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the Virginia office, and brought in Halligan, a willing participant in Trump’s mission to take down his political rivals.

While Trump has suggested other indictments are coming down the pike, critics have zeroed in on Comey's case, calling it weak enough that Trump also risks impeachment over it and that Halligan and any other prosecutors who decide to join the case risk career penalties. No DOJ prosecutors have joined Halligan on the case at this stage.

Former DOJ official Harry Litman, host of "Talking Feds" and vocal Trump critic, said "some accountability" would come if Democrats take the House next year, advocating they impeach Trump for what he says is an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

"If we can just get through the midterms and give the House of Representatives the power to subpoena all of these jokers on Capitol Hill, grill them and then impeach Trump again … all of the evidence of the crime that Donald Trump just committed will be laid out for public inspection," Litman said.

He also cited a report that career prosecutors advised Halligan against charging Comey, suggesting she faces the "possibility of serious professional sanctions" because of it.

Pritzker swiftly fact-checked after claiming he never derided GOP with dictatorship comparison: ‘Pathological’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker was swiftly fact-checked by conservatives on social media for claiming he "never called Republicans ‘Nazis’" as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle traded barbs on heightened political rhetoric following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. 

"That is completely false. I have never called Republicans ‘Nazis,’" Pritzker said Monday while fielding questions from the media during a press conference where the Democratic state leader accused President Donald Trump of "actively fanning the flames of division" following Kirk's Wednesday murder. 

Pritzker, who has condemned Kirk's shocking assassination as "horrifying," came under fire earlier in September when he claimed the "president's rhetoric often foments" political violence. 

Now, the Democratic governor is facing impeachment efforts from state Republicans for rhetoric they claim has incited violence, and for his claims linking Nazi Germany to the GOP. 

MAHER SAYS COMPARING TRUMP TO HITLER MUST END, WARNS IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR KILLERS TO JUSTIFY ASSASSINATIONS

Conservatives on social media unleashed on Pritzker for claiming he has "never called Republicans ‘Nazis,’" pointing to his February State of the State address. 

Pritzker did not explicitly call Republicans "Nazis," but compared the newly minted Trump administration to the rise of Nazi Germany. 

"The authoritarian playbook is laid bare here: They point to a group of people who don’t look like you and tell you to blame them for your problems. If you think I’m overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this: It took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours, and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic," Pritzker said in February. 

"Tyranny requires your fear and your silence and your compliance," Pritzker added. "Democracy requires your courage. So gather your justice and humanity, Illinois, and do not let the ‘tragic spirit of despair’ overcome us when our country needs us the most." 

Republicans and conservatives in the state took to X to compare his previous comments on Republicans and Nazi Germany to his press conference remarks. 

FOLLOWING KIRK’S ASSASSINATION, LAWMAKERS REACT TO LETHAL POLITICAL CLIMATE: 'VIOLENT WORDS PRECEDE VIOLENT ACTIONS'

"Governor Pritzker claims he’s never called Republicans Nazis, but his own words suggest otherwise," the Illinois House Republicans posted to X Monday, accompanied by videos comparing the governor's remarks. 

"Pritzker Today: I've never called Republican's Nazi's Pritzker in February: ‘Pritzker Compares Trump Administration’s Approach to Nazi Germany During State Budget Address,’" the Illinois Republican Party similarly posted to X. 

Critics slammed the governor as "pathological" and a "liar," saying that his public remarks are forever achieved on the internet. 

Others on X pointed to Pritzker's remarks from April during a speech in New Hampshire promoting mass mobilization against Republicans while declaring they "cannot know a moment of peace."

DONALD TRUMP JR. WARNS POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS 'NOT GOING BOTH WAYS' AS HE MOURNS CHARLIE KIRK'S DEATH

"Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption — but I am now," he said, Fox News Digital reported at the time. 

"These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soapbox and then punish them at the ballot box. They must feel in their bones … that we will relegate their portraits to the museum halls reserved for tyrants and traitors."

Fox News Digital reached out to Pritzker's office Tuesday morning regarding the criticisms from Republicans over the comparison and the recent impeachment efforts in the state but did not immediately receive a reply. 

Pritzker is facing renewed impeachment efforts from state Republicans following the assassination of Kirk. Conservatives nationwide have argued that leftists deriding conservatives as "fascists," "Nazis" and serving as threats to democracy led to the violence that claimed Kirk's life.

Illinois Republican state Rep. Chris Miller filed articles of impeachment against Pritzker earlier in September, claiming the governor "has engaged in conduct which, under the totality of the circumstances, constitutes inciting violence which is incompatible with the duties of his office."

Illinois Republican state Rep. Adam Niemerg filed an impeachment resolution against the governor Monday while invoking the assassination of Kirk. 

JB PRITZKER CONDEMNS POLITICAL VIOLENCE AFTER CHARLIE KIRK'S DEATH, SAYS TRUMP'S RHETORIC 'OFTEN FOMENTS IT'

"Pritzker’s remarks are providing legitimacy to radicals who are committing these heinous crimes against people like Charlie Kirk," Niemerg said in a statement, Capitol News Illinois reported. "If it were one isolated incident — it would be one thing but there is a pattern here."

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is the only governor in the state's history to be impeached and removed from office in 2009, following federal corruption charges. Impeachment efforts in the state require involvement from both the General Assembly and state Senate to move forward — making the effort unlikely as both chambers are controlled by Democrats in the deep blue state. 

Pritzker continued in his Monday press conference remarks that Trump has encouraged American division, while calling for political rhetoric across the board to be toned down. 

"This should come from the top, but with each crisis in the last few years, we can’t rely on President Trump to tamp down the anger and the passion in the aftermath of political violence," he said Monday. "Instead, he actively fans the flames of division as he did on Friday, regularly advocates violence for political retribution, and in more than one case, declares that we are at war, not with a foreign adversary, but with each other. I don’t believe any of that."   

Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated while attending an event at Utah Valley University Wednesday. A single shot rang out and struck Kirk in the neck while he sat under a tent on campus and spoke with students. 

Kirk was a conservative movement powerhouse, championing faith and family policies to young adults, most notably on college campuses. 

He leaves behind his wife, Erika, and their two children, ages one and three. Kirk's funeral is planned for Sunday in Arizona, with Trump and other administration leaders expected to attend. 

Trump foes melt down that SCOTUS is unleashing ‘racial terror’ on US with ICE raid ruling

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A handful of California Democrats, who are also longtime political foes of President Donald Trump, slammed a Supreme Court ruling that lifts restrictions on the Trump administration’s immigration raids in Los Angeles as "un-American" and opening the door to a "parade of racial terror."

"@realDonaldTrump's hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA. His administration is targeting Latinos — and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like @StephenM's idea of an American — to deliberately harm our families and economy," California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted to X on Monday evening. 

Newsom, who has sparred with Trump stretching back to the president's first administration, was reacting to a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the Trump administration can continue deploying immigration raids in California, which blocked a lower court's ruling that halted such raids in the state. 

The case was punted to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in July blocked ICE from conducting raids in Los Angeles County, citing that they were likely unconstitutional as federal agents were detaining individuals for "apparent race or ethnicity," or speaking Spanish. Immigration activists had accused the federal government of targeting Latinos based on criteria such as speaking Spanish. The Ninth Circuit upheld the July order before the Supreme Court weighed in. 

TRUMP ADMIN SEEKS TO OVERTURN FEDERAL RESTRAINING ORDER LIMITING ICE OPERATIONS IN LOS ANGELES

Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff each issued a rebuke of the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, calling the Trump administration's immigration raids "blatantly illegal." 

"This Administration rounded up and arrested California residents, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, based on the color of their skin or the language they speak. This is blatantly illegal, yet the Supreme Court is allowing it to happen while the case proceeds. When the history of this country’s rapid descent into dictatorship is written, Republicans in Congress and the Roberts Court will have been its primary enabler," Schiff posted to X on Monday. 

Schiff has a long documented contentious relationship with Trump, including over the Jan. 6, 2021 investigation, Trump's first impeachment trial and the Russia investigation. The California Democrat is currently under a Department of Justice investigation for alleged mortgage fraud uncovered under the second Trump administration. 

"I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of LA, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country. Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S." Bass added in her own message on X. 

Bass and Trump have also sparred in the past, most recently over the summer when federal immigration officials first converged on the city, and back in January when wildfires ripped across Southern California and devastated the Los Angeles area. 

"Let me be clear: we will not allow the White House, nor the Supreme Court, to divide us. And to all Angelenos, I will never stop fighting for your rights, your dignity, and your safety, despite this administration’s efforts to threaten them. We will stand united," Bass continued in a press release. 

LOS ANGELES JUDGE WEIGHS SEVERE LIMITS ON TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN CALIFORNIA

The Supreme Court's majority did not include an explanation for the ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, authored a concurring opinion arguing that a combination of factors — such as race — could provide authorities with reasonable suspicion to stop a person and inquire about their immigration status. 

"To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors," Kavanaugh wrote.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON TRUMP'S THIRD-COUNTRY DEPORTATIONS, IN MAJOR TEST FOR PRESIDENT

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued the dissent and argued the emergency order approving such raids was "troubling" and pointed to the majority's lack of explanation for the move.  

"We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job," Sotomayor wrote.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SUES LOS ANGELES OVER SANCTUARY POLICIES THAT 'IMPEDE' ICE OPERATIONS

The Trump administration celebrated the Supreme Court's decision on Monday. 

"This is a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law," Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said, according to Politico. "DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members, and other criminal illegal aliens… ."

The Supreme Court order follows the Trump administration ordering immigration officials to carry out raids back in June to remove individuals illegally residing in Los Angeles, which dubbed itself a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants in November before Trump was sworn back into the Oval Office. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Riots and protests subsequently broke out in the city as local leaders, such as Newsom and Bass, slammed the Trump administration's illegal immigrant crackdown and offered words of support to illegal immigrants. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's, Bass' and Schiff's respective offices on Monday afternoon. 

Fox News Digital's Ashley Oliver contributed to this report. 

Federal judge releases woman accused of threatening to kill Trump

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A woman arrested last month for allegedly making death threats against President Donald Trump has been released by a federal judge who has clashed with the Trump administration several times this year, including by attempting to block the deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.

Chief Judge James Boasberg ordered Nathalie Rose Jones, 50, released no later than Aug. 27 under electronic monitoring and instructed her to visit a psychiatrist in New York City once she retrieves her belongings from a local police station.

Boasberg’s order came after US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya ordered Jones to be held without bond and undergo a competency evaluation. She cited her "very troubling conduct" of social media posts aimed at the president, combined with the fact that she had then traveled to the District of Columbia, per WUSA9.

INDIANA WOMAN FACES FEDERAL CHARGES FOR SOCIAL MEDIA THREATS TO DISEMBOWEL TRUMP

Jones took part in a "dignified arrest ceremony" for Trump at a protest in Washington, D.C., which circumnavigated the White House complex and was arrested following an investigation into her series of concerning Instagram and Facebook posts. 

In early August, Jones labeled Trump a terrorist, referred to his administration as a dictatorship, and stated that Trump had caused extreme and unnecessary loss of life in relation to the coronavirus. 

"I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present," an Aug. 6 post directed at the FBI states.

In an Aug. 14 post directed to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Jones allegedly wrote, "Please arrange the arrest and removal ceremony of POTUS Trump as a terrorist on the American People from 10-2pm at the White House on Saturday, August 16th, 2025."

The next day, Jones voluntarily agreed to an interview with the Secret Service, during which she called Trump a "terrorist" and a "nazi," authorities said. 

She said that if she had the opportunity, she would kill Trump at "the compound" if she had to and that she had a "bladed object," which she said was the weapon she would use to "carry out her mission of killing" the president.

Following the protest in Washington, D.C on Aug. 16, Jones was interviewed again by the Secret Service, during which she admitted that she had made threats towards Trump during her interview the previous day. 

She was charged with threatening to kill, kidnap, or seriously hurt the president and sending messages across state lines that contained threats to kidnap or harm someone.

BONDI DOJ FILES COMPLAINT ALLEGING MISCONDUCT BY FEDERAL JUDGE JAMES BOASBERG

Upadhyaya expressed concern over the gravity of Jones’s threats and ruled they were serious enough to justify detention and scheduled a status conference and preliminary hearing for Sept. 2, with prosecutors required to secure an indictment by Sept. 15.

But Jones’s lawyers, who had argued their client was unarmed and had no real desire to follow through with the threats, appealed Upadhyaya’s detention decision, and Boasberg overturned Upadhyaya’s detention order.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. 

Boasberg, a President Barack Obama appointee, has found himself in the crosshairs of the Trump administration several times this year.

In March, he issued a temporary restraining order seeking to block Trump’s use of a 1798 wartime-era immigration law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador.

Boasberg ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen, and later, ordered a new investigation to determine whether the Trump administration had complied with his orders. 

In April, he ruled that the court had grounds to move on possible contempt proceedings, though that ruling was stayed by a higher appeals court, which has yet to consider the matter.

His March 15 order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of deportation-related court challenges across the country — though the one brought before Boasberg was the very first — and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants' due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Trump has publicly attacked him as a "Radical Left Lunatic" and called for his impeachment.

In July, Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg, accusing him of making improper comments about President Trump's administration, Chief Justice Roberts, and roughly two dozen other federal judges — remarks that she allegedly argued undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 

Boasberg allegedly warned the judges that he believed the Trump Administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts" and trigger "a constitutional crisis." 

"Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders," the complaint reads. "Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions."

Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch and Louis Casiano contributed to this report. 

‘Dr. Strangelove with a mustache’: Bolton blasted for ‘profiteering’ off US secrets by White House advisor

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro tore into John Bolton for "profiteering off America’s secrets" on Tuesday after the FBI raided his home last week in a reported classified document probe.

"I served with Bolton, and he was far too frequently a loose cannon, bent on bombings and coups — Doctor Strangelove with a mustache," Navarro, who also advised Trump on trade during his first term, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.

"He agitated for airstrikes, pushed regime-change fantasies, and obsessed over military solutions when diplomacy was working. Then, instead of honoring executive privilege and confidential debate, Bolton acknowledged that in writing his memoir he relied on the ‘copious notes’ he had conspicuously taken inside the White House." 

Bolton published a book in 2020, The Room Where it Happened, reportedly receiving a $2 million advance for a tell-all of his time in the Trump administration. He served as Trump’s national security advisor starting in 2018 but fell out with the president and left the position in 2019. 

BOLTON UNLEASHES ON TRUMP UKRAINE POLICY DAYS AFTER FBI RAID

Navarro accused Bolton of "sharing information about Oval Office conversations and national security that should have stayed secret — either by law or under executive privilege."

"That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets."

Navarro noted that Bolton had described confidential U.S. deliberations on how to fracture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s control and prompt military defections. 

"That kind of blueprint isn’t something you hand to the public — or to Maduro’s intelligence services."

He noted that disclosing national defense information without authorization could violate U.S. code. 

"If evidence is found and indictments made, Bolton may one day go to prison for shredding that Constitution, defying executive privilege, and trampling safeguards meant to protect America’s security," Navarro said. "If that happens, Bolton won’t be remembered for his book tour. He’ll be remembered for the sequel he writes in prison."

Fox News Digital has reached out to a spokesperson for Bolton for comment. 

DEMOCRATS OPPOSED JOHN BOLTON FOR YEARS — UNTIL THEY SOUGHT HIM AS AN ALLY AGAINST TRUMP

Navarro spent four months in prison last year after being convicted of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

The FBI executed a search warrant on Bolton’s home and office on Friday. 

Democrats have also fumed about Bolton’s book: when the former national security advisor refused to serve as their star witness during the first Trump impeachment related to Ukraine, they accused him of saving the juicy details for his memoir. 

In June 2020, Judge Royce Lamberth found Bolton had "likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations." 

He’d submitted the 500-page manuscript for a national security review, but when the review wasn’t completed in four months, he "pulled the plug on the process and sent the still-under-review manuscript to the publisher for printing," according to the judge. 

Lamberth allowed the book to hit the shelves because "the horse is already out of the barn" – the book’s excerpts had already been leaked and 200,000 copies had been shipped.

‘Doctor Strangelove with a mustache’: Bolton blasted for ‘profiteering’ off US secrets by White House advisor

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro tore into John Bolton for "profiteering off America’s secrets" on Tuesday after the FBI raided his home last week in a reported classified document probe.

"I served with Bolton, and he was far too frequently a loose cannon, bent on bombings and coups — Doctor Strangelove with a mustache," Navarro, who also advised Trump on trade during his first term, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.

"He agitated for airstrikes, pushed regime-change fantasies, and obsessed over military solutions when diplomacy was working. Then, instead of honoring executive privilege and confidential debate, Bolton acknowledged that in writing his memoir he relied on the ‘copious notes’ he had conspicuously taken inside the White House." 

Bolton published a book in 2020, "The Room Where it Happened," reportedly receiving a $2 million advance for a tell-all of his time in the Trump administration. He served as Trump’s national security advisor starting in 2018 but fell out with the president and left the position in 2019. 

BOLTON UNLEASHES ON TRUMP UKRAINE POLICY DAYS AFTER FBI RAID

Navarro accused Bolton of "sharing information about Oval Office conversations and national security that should have stayed secret — either by law or under executive privilege."

"That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets."

Navarro noted that Bolton had described confidential U.S. deliberations on how to fracture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s control and prompt military defections. 

"That kind of blueprint isn’t something you hand to the public — or to Maduro’s intelligence services."

He noted that disclosing national defense information without authorization could violate U.S. code. 

"If evidence is found and indictments made, Bolton may one day go to prison for shredding that Constitution, defying executive privilege, and trampling safeguards meant to protect America’s security," Navarro said. "If that happens, Bolton won’t be remembered for his book tour. He’ll be remembered for the sequel he writes in prison."

Fox News Digital has reached out to a spokesperson for Bolton for comment. 

DEMOCRATS OPPOSED JOHN BOLTON FOR YEARS — UNTIL THEY SOUGHT HIM AS AN ALLY AGAINST TRUMP

Navarro spent four months in prison last year after being convicted of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

The FBI executed a search warrant on Bolton’s home and office on Friday. 

Democrats have also fumed about Bolton’s book: when the former national security advisor refused to serve as their star witness during the first Trump impeachment related to Ukraine, they accused him of saving the juicy details for his memoir. 

In June 2020, Judge Royce Lamberth found Bolton had "likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations." 

He’d submitted the 500-page manuscript for a national security review, but when the review wasn’t completed in four months, he "pulled the plug on the process and sent the still-under-review manuscript to the publisher for printing," according to the judge. 

Lamberth allowed the book to hit the shelves because "the horse is already out of the barn" – the book’s excerpts had already been leaked and 200,000 copies had been shipped.

Democrats opposed John Bolton for years — until they sought him as an ally against Trump

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

When federal agents raided the home and office of former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Friday as part of a classified documents investigation, some Democrats and liberal commentators framed the development as another example of what they claim is President Donald Trump’s political weaponization of the justice system.

The reaction marked a striking contrast with Democrats’ long history of opposing Bolton. For years, they denounced him as a hardline foreign policy hawk who manipulated intelligence and pushed the U.S. into war. But when Bolton broke with Trump, Democrats began citing him as a key witness and relying on his public comments to bolster their case against the former president.

Democrats first sought to block Bolton’s 2005 nomination to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush. Then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., accused him of being untruthful in a Senate questionnaire, noting that he had been interviewed as part of a joint State Department and CIA investigation into Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear materials from Niger.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., alleged that Bolton played a role in the disputed claim that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium — an accusation that appeared in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address but could not be confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies.

JOHN BOLTON BLASTED BY TRUMP ALLY ROGER STONE, WHO FACED BIDEN FBI RAID: 'KARMA IS A B----'

That same year, Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of intelligence at the State Department, described Bolton as a "serial abuser" of power who pressured analysts to alter assessments. One analyst, Christian Westermann, reportedly resisted including claims of Cuban biological weapons in a 2002 speech Bolton wanted to deliver.

Senate Democrats delayed Bolton’s nomination for months, citing concerns that he sought to shape intelligence findings to fit administration policy goals.

When Trump appointed Bolton as national security adviser in 2018, Democrats again criticized him, citing his past support for the Iraq War and his calls for a hardline approach towards Iran and North Korea.

"Bolton is a dangerous radical," said Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., accused him of politicizing intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq conflict. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., argued Bolton had been consistently "wrong on security" throughout his career.

Trump himself later grew frustrated with Bolton’s hawkish approach, including his opposition to peace talks with the Taliban and advocacy for military action in Iran. The two split in 2019, with Trump announcing Bolton’s departure on social media and Bolton insisting he had already offered to resign.

TRUMP–BOLTON FEUD BACK IN FOCUS AFTER FBI RAID: 'NEVER HAD A CLUE … WHAT A DOPE!'

Following Bolton’s break with Trump, Democrats began highlighting him during Trump’s first impeachment trial over Ukraine.

"There’s no denying the central relevance of John Bolton’s testimony," then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said as House impeachment managers pressed for him to appear.

Bolton’s memoir later claimed Trump sought to withhold military aid from Ukraine, a move Bolton privately described as a "drug deal." At the time, MSNBC commentators suggested his testimony could have been decisive in the outcome of the trial.

Ultimately, Bolton declined to testify, angering some Democrats who accused him of reserving details for his book rather than presenting them under oath.

Since leaving the Trump administration, Bolton has become a regular guest on networks such as CNN and MSNBC, where he continues to weigh in on foreign policy and national security.

Although many Democrats once opposed his nomination and criticized his record, they have at times pointed to his comments when they align with their critiques of Trump and other Republicans.

The latest raid underscores how Bolton remains a polarizing figure — one Democrats long opposed but have also leaned on in moments when his testimony or commentary could be used against Trump.

Democrats opposed John Bolton for years — until they sought him as an ally against Trump

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

When federal agents raided the home and office of former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Friday as part of a classified documents investigation, some Democrats and liberal commentators framed the development as another example of what they claim is President Donald Trump’s political weaponization of the justice system.

The reaction marked a striking contrast with Democrats’ long history of opposing Bolton. For years, they denounced him as a hardline foreign policy hawk who manipulated intelligence and pushed the U.S. into war. But when Bolton broke with Trump, Democrats began citing him as a key witness and relying on his public comments to bolster their case against the former president.

Democrats first sought to block Bolton’s 2005 nomination to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush. Then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., accused him of being untruthful in a Senate questionnaire, noting that he had been interviewed as part of a joint State Department and CIA investigation into Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear materials from Niger.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., alleged that Bolton played a role in the disputed claim that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium — an accusation that appeared in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address but could not be confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies.

JOHN BOLTON BLASTED BY TRUMP ALLY ROGER STONE, WHO FACED BIDEN FBI RAID: 'KARMA IS A B----'

That same year, Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of intelligence at the State Department, described Bolton as a "serial abuser" of power who pressured analysts to alter assessments. One analyst, Christian Westermann, reportedly resisted including claims of Cuban biological weapons in a 2002 speech Bolton wanted to deliver.

Senate Democrats delayed Bolton’s nomination for months, citing concerns that he sought to shape intelligence findings to fit administration policy goals.

When Trump appointed Bolton as national security adviser in 2018, Democrats again criticized him, citing his past support for the Iraq War and his calls for a hardline approach towards Iran and North Korea.

"Bolton is a dangerous radical," said Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., accused him of politicizing intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq conflict. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., argued Bolton had been consistently "wrong on security" throughout his career.

Trump himself later grew frustrated with Bolton’s hawkish approach, including his opposition to peace talks with the Taliban and advocacy for military action in Iran. The two split in 2019, with Trump announcing Bolton’s departure on social media and Bolton insisting he had already offered to resign.

TRUMP–BOLTON FEUD BACK IN FOCUS AFTER FBI RAID: 'NEVER HAD A CLUE … WHAT A DOPE!'

Following Bolton’s break with Trump, Democrats began highlighting him during Trump’s first impeachment trial over Ukraine.

"There’s no denying the central relevance of John Bolton’s testimony," then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said as House impeachment managers pressed for him to appear.

Bolton’s memoir later claimed Trump sought to withhold military aid from Ukraine, a move Bolton privately described as a "drug deal." At the time, MSNBC commentators suggested his testimony could have been decisive in the outcome of the trial.

Ultimately, Bolton declined to testify, angering some Democrats who accused him of reserving details for his book rather than presenting them under oath.

Since leaving the Trump administration, Bolton has become a regular guest on networks such as CNN and MSNBC, where he continues to weigh in on foreign policy and national security.

Although many Democrats once opposed his nomination and criticized his record, they have at times pointed to his comments when they align with their critiques of Trump and other Republicans.

The latest raid underscores how Bolton remains a polarizing figure — one Democrats long opposed but have also leaned on in moments when his testimony or commentary could be used against Trump.

John Bolton blasted by Trump ally Roger Stone, who faced Biden FBI raid: ‘Karma is a b—-‘

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Longtime Republican consultant Roger Stone lambasted Trump adviser-turned-staunch-critic John Bolton following the FBI raid on his Bethesda, Maryland residence on Friday.

"Good morning. John Bolton. How does it feel to have your home raided at 6 o'clock in the morning?" Stone riffed on X, six years after the Biden FBI raided his own Fort Lauderdale home in an operation to which CNN was reportedly tipped off to.

"Wait! Where was CNN?" added Stone, who has often criticized Republicans who become disloyal to President Donald Trump.

"What goes around comes around- and Roger Stone still ‘did nothing wrong,’" he said, quoting the catchphrase and shirts that were circulated after his 2019 raid.

JOHN BOLTON'S HOME AND OFFICE RAIDED BY FEDERAL AGENTS

Stone, who began his political career volunteering for 1964 presidential nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., before moving on to advising President Richard Nixon, also posted a photo of himself from his arrest wearing a "Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong" shirt.

Stone continued his critique of Bolton later Friday morning with another X post that included a split photo of the two men:

"The man on the left had his home rated at 6 am because he did something wrong. The man on the right had his home raided at 6 am because he didn't. Karma is b----."

BIDEN DOJ DROPS LAWSUIT AGAINST JOHN BOLTON OVER 2020 BOOK RELEASE

He later released a mock statement claiming Bolton admitted his signature mustache was "appropriated from a member of the Village People."

Bolton, who held diplomatic posts under Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush before joining President Donald Trump’s first administration, later broke with Trump over his handling of COVID-19, his approach to diplomacy, and the impeachment saga.

Trump often returned fire at Bolton after their messy breakup, and Stone occasionally chimed in to defend his longtime friend from New York.

After Bolton attacked Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, calling her a "serious threat to national security" – Stone returned fire.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Watching war pig John Bolton attack the appointment of Tulsi Gabbard as DNI makes me all the more certain that she is precisely the right person for the job," Stone said in November.

After the raid on Bolton’s home, FBI agents were also seen in DuPont Circle, D.C., removing boxes from the Baltimore native’s personal office.