Monday, February 23, 2026
jack smith

Jack Smith’s Appeal of Dismissal of Trump Documents Case Won’t Be Settled Until October.

Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith‘s appeal of a ruling dismissing his prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents will likely not be settled until October at the earliest. On July 15, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case, ruling that Smith’s appointment as special counsel violated the  Appropriations and Appointments clauses of the Constitution.

In an order issued by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith has been given until August 27 to file his brief arguing why Judge Cannon‘s decision should be reversed. He will have an additional seven days to submit an appendix. Meanwhile, former President Trump‘s attorneys will have 30 days to submit their own brief after Smith’s is filed with the court. An additional 21 days is then granted to the Biden-Harris DOJ special counsel to file a response.

The timeline laid out by the Eleventh Circuit means that unless Smith can secure an expedited process, his appeal will not be ruled on by the appellate court until just before the November presidential election. Should Smith prove successful in reversing Judge Cannon‘s ruling, his prosecution would not be able to move forward before the election was already over.

Smith’s Florida-based prosecution of Trump was thrown out by Judge Cannon following a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on presidential immunity. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion in Trump v. United States, posited that Smith‘s appointment was unconstitutional as he has not—in his entire career—received Senate confirmation. In addition, Thomas noted that Congress has not authorized the establishment of “the office that the Special Counsel occupies.”

show less
Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith's appeal of a ruling dismissing his prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents will likely not be settled until October at the earliest. On July 15, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case, ruling that Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the  Appropriations and Appointments clauses of the Constitution. show more
gaetz mccarthy

Rep. Gaetz Moves to Protect Jan. 6 Defendants from Retaliation for Resentencing Requests.

Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has introduced legislation protecting January 6 defendants from retaliation from federal prosecutors as they seek to resentence after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States. In a recent interview, Gaetz explained his legislation “will provide significant relief for January 6th defendants and ensure federal prosecutors stop aggressively pursuing charges if defendants petition for resentencing.”

On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of January 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer, determining that Joe Biden‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) had overreached in applying enhanced charges under the Sarbanes-Oxley financial crimes law. Prior to the ruling, federal prosecutions had used an obstruction provision in the law to secure lengthy prison sentences against January 6 defendants.

Gaetz’s legislation would require that courts apply the current time served by the defendants to any new charges brought by the Biden-Harris DOJ. The Republican Congressman’s move comes in response to the Biden-Harris DOJ exploring avenues to add charges to some January 6 cases, as many defendants will likely see their current sentences reduced due to the Fischer decision.

The Fischer ruling has impacted upwards of 300 January 6 federal prosecutions. In early July, the Biden-Harris DOJ announced they were backing down from several January 6 prosecutions where the Fischer ruling impacted their cases.

The handful of defendants in these cases were likely aided by the fact that their trials were being presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols. It was with Judge Nichols that the Fischer case originated.

show less
Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has introduced legislation protecting January 6 defendants from retaliation from federal prosecutors as they seek to resentence after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fischer v. United States. In a recent interview, Gaetz explained his legislation "will provide significant relief for January 6th defendants and ensure federal prosecutors stop aggressively pursuing charges if defendants petition for resentencing." show more
Purchased by The National Pulse

FBI Has FINALLY Gained Access to Would-Be Assassin’s Phone.

Nearly three days after the attempted assassination of former President Donald J. Trump, Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have finally gained access to the would-be assassin’s cell phone. “FBI technical specialists successfully gained access to Thomas Matthew Crooks’ phone, and they continue to analyze his electronic devices,” the FBI said in a statement, noting that they have also completed searches of the deceased shooter’s home and vehicle.

Despite having had access to the phone since Monday evening, the FBI has yet to release any details regarding the shooter‘s motivations. While a delay in accessing a seized electronic device isn’t unusual, the lack of information regarding the would-be assassin’s life and movements in the day leading up to the attack is raising concerns.

Family, neighbors, and law enforcement officials have offered little public comment on how or why the 20-year-old Pennsylvanian was able to gain access to a roof just 400 feet away from Trump and successfully fire off several shots. One bullet struck Trump in the ear, while another struck and killed Corey Comperatore—a Trump supporter and volunteer fireman who shielded his family from the gunfire with his body. Two other rallygoers were also seriously injured.

According to the FBI, the phone and its data are being analyzed by its laboratory in Quantico, Virginia. Additionally, technicians are pouring through other electronic devices owned by the would-be assassin.

Accessing encrypted electronic devices can be difficult, even for law enforcement. In the instance of Apple products—such as the iPhone—the company has been resistant to allowing backdoor access to law enforcement. They claim doing so would enable governments to access all Apple customers’ phones easily.

show less
Nearly three days after the attempted assassination of former President Donald J. Trump, Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have finally gained access to the would-be assassin's cell phone. "FBI technical specialists successfully gained access to Thomas Matthew Crooks’ phone, and they continue to analyze his electronic devices," the FBI said in a statement, noting that they have also completed searches of the deceased shooter's home and vehicle. show more

BREAKING: Judge Cannon Dismisses Docs Case, Says Jack Smith’s Appointment Unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed Jack Smith‘s prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. Cannon ruled that Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional.

In Cannon’s ruling, she determines that the naming of Smith violates the Appropriations and Appointments clauses.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued in his concurring opinion in Trump v. United States that the appointment likely violated the Constitution.

“In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States,” Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. He continued: “But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”

“By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” the justice wrote, adding: ” If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

READ: 

show less
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed Jack Smith's prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. Cannon ruled that Smith's appointment as special counsel by Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional. show more
espionage

Biden’s DOJ Backs Down From J6 Charges.

Joe Biden‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) has dropped the obstruction of an official proceeding charge against the first January 6 defendant following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States. Last month, the high court ruled against the Biden DOJ, determining the department unlawfully used an obstruction statute from a 2002 financial crimes bill to prosecute over 350 of the January 6 defendants.

Late Thursday, federal prosecutors submitted a motion to drop the obstruction charge in their case against January 6 defendant Mark Sahady.

In their filing, federal prosecutors contend that the court’s rejection of a continuance to assess the impact of the Fischer decision made dropping the obstruction charge the most expedient option to move Sahady’s trial forward. The defendant, a resident of Massachusetts, will still face charges of unlawful entry, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

The Biden DOJ attorneys likely understood that any attempts to revive the obstruction charge through other avenues would not sit well with U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols.

The Fischer case originated with Judge Nichols. In March 2022, Nichols ruled in January 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer’s favor, dismissing the obstruction charge against three of the January 6 defendants. The federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Nichols’s ruling in a 2-1 decision in April 2023—setting up the Supreme Court showdown.

The National Pulse reported in March that the judge granted early release to January 6 defendant Kevin Seefried after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Fischer.

READ:

show less
Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) has dropped the obstruction of an official proceeding charge against the first January 6 defendant following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fischer v. United States. Last month, the high court ruled against the Biden DOJ, determining the department unlawfully used an obstruction statute from a 2002 financial crimes bill to prosecute over 350 of the January 6 defendants. show more

House Republicans FAIL to Hold Biden AG Merrick Garland in Inherent Contempt.

The House of Representatives narrowly defeated Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL)’s resolution holding Joe Biden‘s Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress along a largely party-line vote. Rep. Luna’s resolution came in response to Garland’s ongoing refusal to surrender audio recordings of Biden’s two interviews with Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Rober Hur during his investigation into the 81-year-old Democrat’s mishandling of classified information.

House Republican leaders attempted to derail the inherent contempt resolution several times over the past week. A handful of Republican lawmakers withheld support during the final floor vote, effectively defeating the measure.

Yesterday, former President Donald J. Trump endorsed the resolution of inherent contempt. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “I AGREE with Anna Paulina Luna and the many House Members who think Merrick Garland should be held in INHERENT CONTEMPT for refusing to release the Biden Tapes even though they were subpoenaed.”

Under the conditions set out in the resolution, Attorney General Garland would have been fined $10,000 for each day he refused to hand over the Biden interview recordings to the House of Representatives. The recordings have become a flash point in Congress following Joe Biden’s disastrous June 27 presidential debate performance, during which the Democrat incumbent appeared to be cognitively impaired—raising concerns he is unable to execute the duties of his office.

Despite being charged by the House with contempt of Congress in early June, the Biden DOJ declined to prosecute its own Attorney General, claiming Garland is protected by executive privilege.

show less
The House of Representatives narrowly defeated Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL)'s resolution holding Joe Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress along a largely party-line vote. Rep. Luna's resolution came in response to Garland's ongoing refusal to surrender audio recordings of Biden's two interviews with Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Rober Hur during his investigation into the 81-year-old Democrat's mishandling of classified information. show more

Trump Backs Inherent Contempt Charge Against Biden AG Merrick Garland.

Former President Donald J. Trump has endorsed Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL)’s resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt. Garland has rebuffed multiple requests from House Republicans to surrender audio recordings of Joe Biden‘s two interviews with the Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Robert Hur.

“I AGREE with Anna Paulina Luna and the many House Members who think Merrick Garland should be held in INHERENT CONTEMPT for refusing to release the Biden Tapes even though they were subpoenaed,” former President Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “The House Republicans should also subpoena Deranged Jack Smith and look into his ILLEGAL INVESTIGATION of me immediately. And they should pass the SAVE ACT immediately to stop illegals from voting in our elections. Republicans MUST GET TOUGH about stopping weaponization and cheating!”

Rep. Luna is pushing forward with her inherent contempt resolution this week. If passed, the measure would fine Garland $10,000 each day he does not hand the audio recordings over to Congress. The Florida Republican has amended the resolution language from her original draft, which would have directed the House Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Garland and hold him until he produced the recordings.

In early June, the Attorney General was held in contempt of Congress after refusing to hand over audio recordings of 81-year-old Joe Biden‘s interview sessions with DOJ special counsel Robert Hur. Before the vote, Garland acknowledged that the transcripts of the interviews had been edited for clarity, raising the question of whether evidence of Biden’s cognitive decline had been altered.

READ:

show less
Former President Donald J. Trump has endorsed Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL)'s resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt. Garland has rebuffed multiple requests from House Republicans to surrender audio recordings of Joe Biden's two interviews with the Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Robert Hur. show more

DOCUMENTS: Trump Prosecutor Listed DNC’s Perez, Biden Chief Zients as References in Job App to Letitia James.

Matthew Colangelo—one of the prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s lawfare case against former President Donald J. Trump—listed former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez and Joe Biden‘s chief-of-staff Jeff Zients as references on his application for a position with New York Attorney General Letitia James. The Manhattan prosecutor and former top attorney at Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) would eventually serve as Chief Counsel for Federal Initiatives in James’s office, overseeing the New York AG’s investigations into former President Trump.

The revelation that Colangelo listed two powerful Democrat figures as references in his application for Executive Deputy Attorney General in the New York AG’s office adds further credence to concerns that he served as the point man for the Democratic lawfare campaign against Trump. Colangelo featured prominently in the Bragg trial, even delivering opening arguments for the prosecution.

Additionally, Colangelo‘s departure from the DOJ on November 18, 2022, raises red flags, as he occupied one of the top roles in the department as Acting Associate Attorney General—which he gave up to take a lesser role and pay cut with Alvin Bragg.

While Bragg had hesitated to pursue falsifying business records charges against Trump over alleged hush money payments, after Colangelo joined his office, Bragg reversed course and began an aggressive investigation.

The National Pulse has reported that Colangelo and DA Alvin Bragg agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee later this year. Initially slated for July 12, the hearing was delayed after Judge Juan Merchan agreed to push back Trump’s sentencing to September 18. The House Judiciary hearing will now occur at some date thereafter.

READ:

show less
Matthew Colangelo—one of the prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's lawfare case against former President Donald J. Trump—listed former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez and Joe Biden's chief-of-staff Jeff Zients as references on his application for a position with New York Attorney General Letitia James. The Manhattan prosecutor and former top attorney at Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) would eventually serve as Chief Counsel for Federal Initiatives in James's office, overseeing the New York AG's investigations into former President Trump. show more

Boeing Gifted Sweetheart Deal Over 737 Max Deaths, Families Outraged.

Boeing is accepting a sweetheart settlement agreement with Joe Biden‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) in which the company will plead guilty to a fraud charge but avoid a criminal trial related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes. The crashes, which occurred in Indonesia and Ethiopia within a five-month span across 2018 and 2019, claimed 346 lives. According to a late Sunday court filing by the DOJ, the company will pay a fine of $243.6 million as part of the settlement.

The settlement, pending approval by a judge, has received sharp criticism from the families of the victims, who described it as a lenient reprimand. Federal prosecutors had given Boeing a choice last week: plead guilty and pay a fine or face a trial on the felony charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. The charges stem from accusations that Boeing misled regulators regarding the aircraft and its pilot training requirements.

Attorney Erin Applebaum, representing some victims’ families, referred to the agreement as a mere “slap on the wrist.” These families are urging Judge Reed O’Connor, overseeing the case, to reject the settlement. In a February 2023 ruling, Judge O’Connor described Boeing’s actions as potentially the “deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history.”

As part of the settlement, Boeing commits to spending at least $455 million over three years to enhance safety and compliance programs. The company’s board will also be required to meet with the relatives of the victims. Additionally, an independent monitor will supervise Boeing’s compliance and provide annual public progress reports during a three-year probation period.

Last month, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun told U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill that he was proud of his company’s safety record—despite several recent instances of equipment failure that nearly resulted in mid-air disasters.

show less
Boeing is accepting a sweetheart settlement agreement with Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) in which the company will plead guilty to a fraud charge but avoid a criminal trial related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes. The crashes, which occurred in Indonesia and Ethiopia within a five-month span across 2018 and 2019, claimed 346 lives. According to a late Sunday court filing by the DOJ, the company will pay a fine of $243.6 million as part of the settlement. show more
jack smith

Trump Asks Judge Cannon to Rule on Constitutionality of Smith Appointment as Special Counsel.

Former President Donald J. Trump‘s legal team is asking U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon to rule on whether Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith‘s appointment is constitutional. The attorneys cite concerns U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised in his concurring opinion on presidential immunity.

“Highlighting grave separation-of-powers concerns, Justice Thomas suggested that 28 U.S.C. §§ 515 and 533 do not establish ‘by Law’ Jack Smith’s position under the Appointments Clause,” the filing submitted on Friday reads. Trump‘s attorneys continue: “By extension, these statutes are not “other law” under the relevant appropriation, and these ‘essential questions’ should be addressed ‘before proceeding.'”

The National Pulse reported Monday, following the high court’s ruling that Trump is protected from prosecution for official acts, that Justice Thomas also raised whether Jack Smith‘s appointment by Joe Biden’s DOJ was lawful.

THOMAS QUESTIONS SMITH. 

“In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States,” Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. He continued: “But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”

“By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” the justice noted, adding: “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has raised concerns similar to Thomas’s in the past while also noting that the appointment of a private citizen to the Office of Special Counsel without Senate confirmation likely violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Jack Smith did not hold a Senate-confirmed position prior to his appointment by Garland.

show less
Former President Donald J. Trump's legal team is asking U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon to rule on whether Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith's appointment is constitutional. The attorneys cite concerns U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised in his concurring opinion on presidential immunity. show more