Police officers who shot and killed a man who was wielding a chainsaw inside a
The post Illinois Police Cleared in Fatal Shooting of Chainsaw-Wielding Man at Seniors’ Assisted Living Facility appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
(Photo courtesy of E. Costianes)
In America today, people are being held in prisons for their political views. If you think that this could never happen today, you should look at the January 6th defendants who received a Presidential Pardon and are still being held hostage. The J6ers received a full and unconditional pardon on January 20th, 2025. However, exactly what the pardon covers, is being debated by several activist judges across the country.
We are witnessing the massive judicial overreach that is happening with President Trump and Skull & Bones Boasberg. Last week The Gateway Pundit informed its readers about one of the worst offenders of being an activist judge, Dabney Friedrich, and her ridiculous interpretation of the J6 Presidential Pardon in regard to J6er Dan Wilson. This kind of behavior is rampant throughout our judicial system and there are more stories every day.
If it isn’t the judges. one only needs to look to the Assistant US Attorneys (AUSA), who seem to be able to oversee themselves and not have any accountability to anyone. A great example of this is how The Justice Department continues to deny any misconduct in the Proud Boys trial.
Surprise surprise. https://t.co/lT8iaShAnq
— Enrique Tarrio (@NobleOne) March 21, 2025
These judges who feel they don’t have to be accountable to anyone, not even the President of the United States, are waking We the People up. However, until we can fix the system, we still have January 6ers being held hostage.
Elias Costianes is one of the three remaining J6 defendants still being held in prison. As a result of the FBI raid on Costianes’ home, for his participation on January 6th, a separate case was filed against him for gun charges.
Elias pleaded guilty to the charges and received one year and one day in prison, followed by 24 months of supervised release. Just like, Dan Wilson, Benjamin Martin, and Jeremy Brown, Elias’s case falls under the Presidential Pardon.
These charges would have never happened if it were not for their J6 case, and the FBI raids on their homes. Their J6 cases have been wiped clean so anything related to that J6 case should be also. “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” defense.
J6 defendant turning myself in to the US Marshals. I have been pardoned but my judge doesn’t care and wants me in prison. Please share, God Bless!! pic.twitter.com/qJ6SY9JLMy
— Elias Costianes (@MrCostianes) February 12, 2025
After his appeal for an extension was denied, Costianes reluctantly self-surrendered to the Northeast Ohio Corrections Center (NEOCC) on February 12th. Attorneys Carolyn Stewart and Roger Roots filed an Emergency Motion and waited for the DOJ’s response, which came a week later, on the 19th.
In the government’s reply to the motion, Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) David Bornstein said,
“After consulting with the Department of Justice’s leadership, the United States has concluded that the President pardoned Mr. Costianes of the offenses in the indictment,” Bornstein wrote. “This determination by the Executive is ‘conclusive and preclusive.’”
The next day, February 20th, Stewart and Roots filed their answer to the government’s reply.
She starts with support for and concurring with the government, ”The government agreed that Mr. Costianes’ case falls under the Presidential Pardon, and that he should immediately be released from incarceration.”
“He respectfully requests that this Court order that the U.S. Marshals and BOP immediately release Mr. Costianes from the Northeast Ohio Corrections Center (NEOCC) where he is presently incarcerated, vacate the judgment of the district court, moot the current appeal in this Court, and remand the case to the district court with instructions for dismissal.”
PLEASE HELP WITH ELIAS’ FREEDOM
It has been a month since this reply was sent to the court, and Maryland Fourth District Federal Judge James K. Bredar continues to hold Elias Costianes hostage. In fact, the government filed a second motion for Elias’ release.
This Obama appointee seems to be completely MIA, on vacation, lost, or just disappeared even after a joint motion was filed on March 13th. The AUSA says that the Marshals, who work for the Department of Justice, will not release Costianes without a court order.
The DOJ has twice written to the 4th Circuit that the President’s pardon applies to Elias Costianes. Joint Motion filed yesterday. His false imprisonment continues while the Court sits. The AUSA said the Marshals, who work for DOJ, won’t release w/o court order. WTF Bondi???
— Stewart Country Law PA (@end_lawfare) March 13, 2025
The Gateway Pundit continues to report on American Political Hostages, such as Jeremy Brown, Benjamin Martin, Tina Peters, Jon Woods, and more. It becomes glaringly obvious when you know their stories, that these Patriots’ lives are in the hands of their corrupt and biased activist judge.
Please help Elias continue to fight for his release
The post J6er Elias Costianes Still Held Hostage by Obama Judge- Government Agrees with Release appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Keir Starmer promised UK ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine. Political theater?
As the US and Russia are engaged in a historic peace process with the somewhat reluctant participation of the Ukrainian regime, the European Liberal-Globalists are flaying about trying to claim some relevance while maintaining the anti-Russian furor on top of everyone’s minds.
Out of this European effort has arisen the plan by leftist UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to send peacekeepers to maintain the peace in Ukraine once a ceasefire is signed.
To begin with, the plan is a non-starter because Russians have repeatedly warned that they will not accept troops from NATO countries as ‘peacekeepers’, having mentioned that Chinese or Brazilian troops may do the trick.
Asked about Starmer’s plans of a ‘coalition of the willing’ providing military security guarantees for a post-war Ukraine, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said in his Tucker Carlson interview: “I think it’s a combination of a posture and a pose and a combination of also being simplistic. There is this sort of notion that we have all got to be like [British wartime prime minister] Winston Churchill. Russians are going to march across Europe. That is preposterous by the way. We have something called Nato that we did not have in World War Two.”
Special Envoy Witkoff: “I think it’s a combination of a posture and a pose and a combination of also being simplistic.”
Witkoff was heavily criticized in the UK press, except that now, UK Senior military sources are saying pretty much the same thing, with perhaps even harsher language dismissing his ‘coalition of the willing’ as ‘political theatre’.
The Telegraph reported:
“On Sunday, senior military sources dismissed the plans, telling The Telegraph that Sir Keir had ‘got ahead of himself’. […] One senior Army source said it was not “remotely possible” for a plan of support for Ukraine to be drawn up in that time.
He said: ‘There is no defined military end-state or military-strategic planning assumptions. It’s all political theatre. Starmer got ahead of himself with talk of boots on the ground before he knew what he was talking about, which is why we hear less about it now and more about jets and vessels which are easier to do and don’t need basing in Ukraine’.”
British ‘boots on the ground’?
RAF fighter jets have been reported to police the skies above Ukraine under proposals discussed by the 30 nations that met at Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) in Northwood, west London.
British Typhoons could provide air cover to troops on the ground – although it’s unclear that any troops will even be sent in.
“One defense source described the talks as being in their ‘early stages’, adding that they were as much about the 30 nations involved ‘getting to know each other’. ‘It’s politics’, one military source said. ‘There’s no military sense in it’.”
British PM Keir Starmer ‘got ahead of himself’.
Not the Russians nor the Americans support the UK-led ‘coalition’, and, worse, ‘no one knows what the mission is.’
“’There are about 700,000 Russians in and around Ukraine and over a million Ukrainians under arms’, he said. ‘What is a 10,000-international force based in the west of the country over 400km from the front line meant to do?’
‘It cannot even protect itself. What is the mission? What is its legitimacy? What are the rules of engagement? How is it commanded, supplied and housed? How long is it there for and why? No one knows’.”
Read more:
The post Senior UK Military Disregard Starmer’s Plan for ‘Boots on the Ground’ in Ukraine as ‘Political Theater’ – 10K Peacekeepers ‘Can’t Even Defend Themselves Against 700K Russian Troops’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Judge James Boasberg / screen image
Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg on Monday rejected the Trump Administration’s request to vacate the temporary restraining order (TRO), but offered to convert it to a preliminary injunction.
Since TROs are typically unappealable, the Trump Administration will be able to appeal if the TRO is converted to an injunction.
The Trump Administration has until March 26 to inform the court.
Boasberg said the deported aliens are entitled to individual hearings!
BREAKING: Judge James Boasberg rejects Trump administration bid to lift order blocking deportations of Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act, says deportees are entitled to individualized hearings. Doc: https://t.co/HhftKI2wwd Earlier: https://t.co/Cpg3Epnp4g
— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) March 24, 2025
On Friday, Judge Boasberg said Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport criminal aliens is “incredibly troublesome and problematic.”
Although Boasberg did not issue a ruling on Friday, he threatened the Trump Admin with consequences if they violate his order in the future.
Boasberg has been grilling DOJ lawyers about the Trump Administration’s move to deport dangerous Venezuelan aliens under the Alien Enemies Act.
A showdown between Boasberg and the Trump DOJ played out in court last week after the judge issued an order forcing planes en route to Central and South America carrying dangerous Venezuelan aliens to turn around and come back to the US.
On Sunday, the Trump DOJ provided an update to Boasberg’s order and said the criminal aliens were outside of US territory when the order came down.
The DOJ argued that the Judge has zero jurisdiction over international airspace.
The post NEW: Boasberg Rejects Trump Request to Vacate TRO in Alien Enemies Act Case – Says Criminal Aliens Are Entitled to Individual Hearings appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Screenshot: Fox News
In a fiery series of interviews, House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) confirmed that his committee will launch a sweeping series of hearings aimed at exposing the “deeply political and activist record” of federal judges who have repeatedly interfered with President Trump’s constitutional authority.
Jordan’s statements, made during interviews with Fox News hosts Bill Hemmer and Brian Kilmeade, highlight his intent to investigate judicial overreach, specifically targeting Boasberg’s recent rulings and past judicial record.
The hearing, scheduled to begin as early as next week, aims to address nationwide injunctions and the politically motivated decisions, particularly in the context of President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
In an interview with Bill Hemmer, Jordan’s criticism centers on Boasberg’s temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals accused of being part of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Boasberg’s order, issued on March 15, 2025, directed that deportation flights be halted and any planes in the air be turned around.
Jordan argues that this decision is “ridiculous” and politically driven, asserting that Trump’s actions are constitutionally sound under Article II, Section 1, which vests executive power in the President, and statutorily supported by the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the President to detain or remove enemy aliens during times of war or “predatory incursion.”
Jordan interprets the gang members’ illegal entry and criminal activities as fitting this criterion, framing Boasberg’s ruling as an unjustified interference with executive authority.
Additionally, Boasberg sat on the FISA court that approved illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign based on false and doctored evidence in the Trump-Russia hoax. That included the now-infamous case of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who altered an email to justify spying—and was let off with a slap on the wrist by Boasberg.
Jim Jordan:
Frankly, there’s the broader issue of all these judges’ injunctions, and then decisions like Judge Boasberg—what he’s trying to do and how that case is working. We’re going to have hearings on all of that, because particularly when you look at Judge Boasberg, it starts to look like this is getting totally political from this guy.
Particularly when you remember he’s also the judge who was part of the whole Trump-Russia FISA court—granting those warrants that allowed the Comey FBI to spy on President Trump’s campaign. So, we’re going to look at that issue as well. But hopefully, we can get that bill passed next week on the House floor, move it to the Senate, and hopefully get it to the President’s desk.
Bill Hemmer:
What do you think you’re going to find here? It seems to me like it’s pretty black and white. You know—you go, you find the judge that’s going to rule in your favor. And it’s been going on for 20-plus years.
Jim Jordan:
Yeah, that’s why we want to limit it to just add jurisdiction—just the parties of the case—so it doesn’t have nationwide implications. But yeah, this is the way the Left operates. They go to these judges, and they go after President Trump, as the Speaker indicated, disproportionately more there than elsewhere.
But with Judge Boasberg—think about this. I mean, I think the President, with his order on these gang members, sending them back—or sending them to El Salvador—I think constitutionally he’s on solid ground.
Article II, Section I, first sentence: “Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” Statutorily, the Alien Enemies Act—predatory incursion—that’s certainly what this was. Gang members coming here illegally, doing terrible things.
And then finally, you’ve got this judge making this crazy decision: turn the plane around, bring the bad guys back to America. That makes no sense. So when you look at all that—coupled with this judge’s history with the FISA court, with the sentence he gave to Kevin Clinesmith, the lawyer who altered the document in front of the FISA court—it really starts to look like Judge Boasberg is operating purely politically against the President.
And that’s why we want to have hearings on this broad issue, and some of what Judge Boasberg is doing. So we’re going to start those next week, and we think Senator Grassley is going to do the same.
WATCH:
Jordan emphasized that the House GOP is pursuing multiple remedies to rein in judicial overreach during interview with Brian Kilmeade.
Brian Kilmeade:
Joining us now to discuss this is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Jim Jordan. Mr. Chairman, great to see you. What’s the approach here? Because you got brushback from—not you, but there was a brushback from the Supreme Court—saying don’t talk about impeachment and judges. Does that push you back?
Jim Jordan:
No, no, no. Look, everything’s on the table with us, particularly with Judge Boasberg, because what it looks like he did was so political. I mean, think about how dumb his decision was. He said, “Oh, you got hardened criminals who’ve done all kinds of bad things, members of a group here illegally—turn that plane around and bring those bad guys back to the country.” I mean, it’s a ridiculous decision.
And I think the President was on solid constitutional ground. Certainly, he also followed the statute. The Alien Enemies Act says if there’s a predatory incursion, you can take this kind of action as Commander in Chief. So I think the President’s on solid constitutional ground as the head of the executive branch, statutory ground using that act, and then there’s, of course, just the common sense of it all.
So we will look at Judge Boasberg because when you look at this decision, it looks so political. And then you couple it with his history. This is also the judge who was part of the FISA court that allowed the warrants when they spied on President Trump’s campaign back in 2016. He was also the judge who gave Kevin Clinesmith—the guy who altered a document in front of that FISA court—a little slap on the wrist, even though he lied to the FISA court in order to help get that warrant which spied on President Trump’s campaign.
Jim Jordan (continued):
So I think when you have that history, this judge is in a somewhat unique position compared to all the others that are doing some of these injunctions as well.
Well, there are two remedies. One is legislation. What we passed two weeks ago will help with this situation. We passed a bill out of the Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago—Representative Issa’s bill—which said a federal district judge who issues one of these injunctions, the injunction only applies to the party in the case and to that respective jurisdiction. It shouldn’t have nationwide implications.
So we think that’s a good bill. Senator Hawley is introducing a bill just like that in the Senate. We think we need to get that through the Congress, get that to President Trump, have him sign it. That will help.
And then we’re going to again look at this whole situation. We plan on having hearings as early as next week to look at the power of these judges. And then finally, when it comes to the money, I think we do have to do what’s called a rescissions package, which says the money that’s been appropriated and these agencies use it on stupid things—we should rescind that money so it can go back to the Treasury for deficit reduction, or it can be put to some other better use, like towards our military or something else.
I do think we, the Congress, have to do that rescissions package. We’re going to put that together as we work through this whole bigger, broader reconciliation policy. But I think that’s something that needs to happen as well.
WATCH:
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) March 24, 2025
The post Rep. Jim Jordan Announces House Judiciary Hearing to Grill Radical Judges Over Partisan Rulings and Activist Records appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
In a ruling that should outrage every parent, taxpayer, and conservative voter in Texas, a federal judge has stomped all over the authority of the Texas A&M University Board of Regents—greenlighting a sexually charged, ideologically driven drag show to proceed on campus despite a commonsense ban.
Senior U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, appointed by George H. W. Bush, issued a sweeping preliminary injunction Monday that forces Texas A&M to allow the so-called “Draggieland” event—a campus drag show hosted by the “Queer Empowerment Council” (QEC)—to proceed in the Rudder Theatre.
WATCH:
This, despite the fact that the Board of Regents passed a resolution explicitly banning such shows in taxpayer-funded venues.
The regents, supported by Governor Greg Abbott and President Donald Trump’s recent executive order defending biological reality in federal policy, acted responsibly to protect female students and uphold the mission of higher education.
Their resolution stated the obvious: drag shows involving men dressed in exaggerated female garb and prosthetics often mock women, promote vulgarity, and push fringe gender ideology on young minds.
But Judge Rosenthal threw all that out—arguing instead that drag performances are protected “expressive conduct” and that banning them is “viewpoint discrimination.”
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal
Here’s what the judge said, straight from the ruling reviewed by The Gateway Pundit: “Draggieland is a performance that ‘includes conversations between the performer and host about what drag means to the performers’… The theatrical performance and the explicit discussion of the intended message are both protected under the First Amendment.”
The court went further, asserting, “The performance is clearly intended to convey ‘political, social, and cultural messages,’” and dismissed the Board’s argument that drag shows aren’t inherently expressive, calling it contradictory to their claim that the shows promote an ideology.
“The court noted that “[d]rag shows express a litany of emotions and purposes, from humor and pure entertainment to social commentary on gender roles.”Considering the artistic value of drag shows, the court concluded that “[there is no doubt that at the bare minimum these performances are meant to be a form of art that is meant to entertain,” which alone “warranted] some level of First Amendment protection.” The court emphasized that “drag shows … are performances that express conduct with no need for extra explanation. … [They] express either pure entertainment, or, like most types of expressive art, an underlying deeper message. (Such as music, theater, and poetry).”
The court even had the gall to suggest that drag shows are akin to Shakespeare or Broadway theatre, ignoring the overtly sexual nature of modern drag and its growing presence in inappropriate venues like public libraries and now, college campuses.
“Performances by men dressed as women are nothing new. Men have been dressing as women in theater and film for centuries. It is well-established among scholars of Shakespeare’s literary works that, when his plays were written and performed, female characters were played by young men dressed in women’s attire,” Rosenthal wrote.
According to Rosenthal, President Trump’s Executive Order cannot supersede First Amendment protections.
“The Board points to the president’s executive order stating that “[f]ederal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.” The executive order defines gender ideology, in part, “as [the] ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.” This executive order cannot override First Amendment protections.”
Read the ruling here.
The post Federal Judge Blocks Texas A&M’s Drag Show Ban, Claims Trump’s Executive Order Can’t “Override” Drag Performances’ First Amendment Rights appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Biden-era US Attorney Jessica Aber
As previously reported, a Biden-era US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was found dead in her Alexandria, Virginia, home on Saturday morning.
The cause and manner of death is unknown.
Jessica Aber, 43, was found unresponsive on Saturday morning.
“This morning, at approximately 9:18 a.m., Alexandria Police responded to the 900 block of Beverley Drive for the report of an unresponsive woman. Officers located a deceased woman. Following notification of family members, the Alexandria Police Department can confirm the identity of the woman as Ms. Jessica Aber, age 43, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,” Police said.
As a matter of protocol, an investigation is underway surrounding the circumstances of her death. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia will determine the cause and manner of death,” the Alexandria Police Department said in a statement.
NBC News obtained dispatch audio of the 911 call after Jessica Aber was found dead in her home.
The identity of caller was not released. The 911 caller refused to perform CPR, according to NBC News.
A friend of the family also told NBC News that Aber’s death could have been a result of a longstanding medical issue.
Jessica Aber’s death is still under investigation.
NBC News reported:
Investigators are working to find out what led to her death after she was found unresponsive in her home on the 900 block of Beverly Drive in Alexandria around 9 a.m. Saturday, police said.
Dispatch audio obtained by 7News from Broadcastify.com detailed the call to first responders:
Any additional units… for the cardiac arrest. 916 Beverly Drive,” the dispatcher said. “That’ll be for a 46-year-old female found in bed unresponsive not breathing. The caller has refused CPR.
It’s unknown who that caller was. It’s also important to note Aber was 43, not 46 as referenced in the audio.
The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Richmond will determine the cause of Aber’s death.
The post New Update on Biden-Appointed US Attorney Found Dead in Her Virginia Home appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.