Monday, February 23, 2026

BREAKING – Supreme Court Says Trump CANNOT Be Prosecuted For Official Acts.

The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald J. Trump cannot be prosecuted for official acts he ordered while in office. “The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is  entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in a six to three decision.

According to the majority opinion, the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit’s prior ruling that Trump is not protected by presidential immunity is vacated. Chief Justice Roberts ordered the case remanded back to the lower court for additional proceedings instructed by the ruling.

“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” Roberts wrote. He continued: “Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.”

The Chief Justice added further instruction for the appeals court: “Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”

The ruling now places the burden on Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith to prove that former President Trump‘s challenge to the 2020 presidential election results was outside his official capacity as the nation’s chief executive. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s alleged personal motivations do not determine whether he acted in an official capacity or not.

show less
The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald J. Trump cannot be prosecuted for official acts he ordered while in office. "The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is  entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in a six to three decision. show more

Supreme Court Throws Out Biden DOJ’s Obstruction Charges Against Jan. 6 Defendants.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) unlawfully used an obstruction statute from a 2002 financial crimes bill to prosecute over 350 of the January 6 Capitol riot defendants. According to the high court, the DOJ failed to demonstrate a sensible legal theory for applying 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) to the hundreds of January 6 cases.

“[T]he Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority in Fisher v. United StatesThe National Pulse reported earlier this month that the Supreme Court appeared poised to rule in favor of Joseph W. Fisher, one of the Capitol riot defendants who challenged the obstruction charge.

In addition to impacting the January 6 prosecutions, the Supreme Court‘s ruling in Fischer also guts the core of Biden DOJ special prosecutor Jack Smith‘s Washington, D.C.-based prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Smith’s two core charges are predicated on the obstruction provision in 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2).

During oral arguments in April, Fischer’s attorneys argued the obstruction felony — a provision enacted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal — represents an abusive application of what was supposed to be a statute addressing document destruction in the course of committing a financial crime. U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols ruled in Fisher’s favor in March 2022, dismissing the obstruction charge against three of the January 6 defendants. But the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Nichols’s ruling in a 2-1 decision in April 2023 — setting up the showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

show less
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) unlawfully used an obstruction statute from a 2002 financial crimes bill to prosecute over 350 of the January 6 Capitol riot defendants. According to the high court, the DOJ failed to demonstrate a sensible legal theory for applying 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) to the hundreds of January 6 cases. show more
trump mar a lago

‘I Want You To Show Them’ — New Report Reveals Trump Told Lawyers to be Fully Transparent in Mar-a-Lago ‘Documents’ Case

Notes and audio recordings belonging to an attorney representing former President Donald J. Trump regarding the retention of potentially classified documents show the former President wanted full transparency and cooperation with the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ). Despite Trump’s efforts to comply with the department’s requests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided the former President’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022—just months after the recordings were made.

According to notes from a May 2022 meeting, Trump told his attorney, Evan Corcoran, “I’ve got nothing to hide. If they ask, I want you to show them.”  Trump also directed Corcoran to review the documents in his possession and hand over any classified materials to the DOJ. Additionally, the former President insisted his attorneys grant the DOJ access to any additional documents they wished to review.

‘IF YOU NEED ANYTHING, JUST ASK.’

Following Corcoran’s review of the boxes of White House materials that Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago, a half-inch stack of documents determined to be still classified were placed in an envelope and bound with tape. Trump’s attorneys then contacted the DOJ to notify and arrange the return of the materials.

The Biden government dispatched Jay Bratt, the then deputy chief of the DOJ‘s National Security Division, to retrieve the documents. Upon his arrival at Trump‘s Palm Beach, Florida, residence, the former President surrendered the materials to Bratt. The former President was cordial, telling the DOJ officials, “I’m glad you’re here. I appreciate what you’re doing. If you need anything at all, just ask Evan.”

According to Corcoran’s notes, the former President—against his attorney’s advice—even went so far as to show Bratt and FBI agents present the storage vault where the documents had been kept.

FBI TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE.

Rather than acknowledging Trump‘s cooperation, however, DOJ special prosecutor Jack Smith alleges the notes show that the former President intended to deceive the Biden government. Smith contends that the additional documents found during the FBI raid—which occurred two months after Trump met with Bratt—were also classified, suggesting the former President intended to obstruct justice.

However, the actual status of the documents the FBI seized during their raid on Mar-a-Lago is unclear, as Smith has now acknowledged that agents placed the classified cover sheets on the stacks of papers themselves prior to photographing them. Former President Trump‘s attorneys are now asking federal judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss the case due to FBI tampering with evidence and the withholding of the exculpatory notes from another federal judge who authorized the raid.

show less
Notes and audio recordings belonging to an attorney representing former President Donald J. Trump regarding the retention of potentially classified documents show the former President wanted full transparency and cooperation with the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ). Despite Trump's efforts to comply with the department's requests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided the former President's Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022—just months after the recordings were made. show more

The House Sergeant-at-Arms May Arrest Biden’s AG Merrick Garland

Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) says she’ll force a vote on directing the House Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Joe Biden‘s Attorney General Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress this week. According to the Florida Republican, she intends to introduce a privileged resolution invoking Congress’s constitutional power of inherent contempt after the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) said they would not pursue charges against Garland.

Two weeks ago, 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 regarding the mishandling of classified documents. Prior to 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.

“The only option to ensure compliance with our subpoena is to use our constitutional authority of inherent contempt,” Rep. Luna said. “In the next few days, I will call up my resolution holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress, and I look forward to each of you voting in favor of it.”

She added: “Our ability to legislate effectively and fulfill our constitutional duties is at stake. We must act now to protect the integrity and independence of the legislative branch.”

Meanwhile, Biden DOJ officials argued on June 14 that the contempt resolution does not preempt Joe Biden‘s assertion of executive privilege regarding the audio recordings. Additionally, at a hearing before the House contempt vote, Attorney General Garland argued: “Releasing the audio would chill cooperation with the department in future investigations and it could influence witnesses’ answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public.”

show less
Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) says she'll force a vote on directing the House Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Joe Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress this week. According to the Florida Republican, she intends to introduce a privileged resolution invoking Congress's constitutional power of inherent contempt after the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) said they would not pursue charges against Garland. show more

Bush Appointee Tried to Bully Judge Cannon Off the Trump Documents Case.

Two fellow federal District Court judges attempted to push Judge Aileen Cannon to hand off the classified documents prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump to another judge in Miami, Florida. One of the judges involved in the intimidation effort was the Southern District of Florida chief judge, Cecilia M. Altonaga, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush.

Judge Altonaga’s husband, attorney George Mencio, has made extensive contributions to the Bush family’s political operations—suggesting the couple have a more Republican establishment-aligned and anti-Trump mentality. The other judge mentioned in a report on the matter by The New York Times was not identified by name.

PRESSURING CANNON.

The campaign to encourage Judge Cannon to hand off the case began when the unidentified District Court judge called her regarding concerns about the security of the classified documents. At the time, Judge Cannon’s Fort Pierce courthouse lacked a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), which is required to review classified materials. However, the courthouse was subsequently outfitted with a secured space.

After the unidentified judge made the initial attempt, the effort to push out Judge Cannon escalated to the District Court’s chief judge. In an extraordinary move, Judge Altonaga called Cannon and is said to have informed her that overseeing the case would be bad optics for the court. She allegedly noted Judge Cannon’s intervention during the initial investigation and appointment of a special master to review the documents and determine if executive privilege applied to them was a problem from her view.

SMITH’S CANNON PROBLEM.

The nearly unprecedented attempt to intervene in the Biden DOJ special counsel Jack Smith‘s prosecution of the former President appears to add further credence to Trump‘s interference claims. Judge Cannon has been a harsh critic of Smith’s aggressive tactics, noting he has—on several occasions—engaged in ethically and legally dubious behavior.

On numerous occasions, the judge has taken Smith to task for his unprofessionalism and arrogance. Meanwhile, in May, Judge Cannon indefinitely suspended the trial date after Smith acknowledged that investigators may have tampered with and mishandled some classified materials by adding cover sheets, among other actions.

show less
Two fellow federal District Court judges attempted to push Judge Aileen Cannon to hand off the classified documents prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump to another judge in Miami, Florida. One of the judges involved in the intimidation effort was the Southern District of Florida chief judge, Cecilia M. Altonaga, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush. show more

This is the Day the Biden Lawfare Began.

Friday, November 18, 2022, is the day the Biden government began its lawfare campaign against former President Donald J. Trump—with three watershed events occurring that appear too connected to be coincidence. On that seemingly unremarkable Friday in November, Matthew Colangelo resigned from his position at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office; Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel; and Nathan Wade with the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office was in the midst of an eight-hour meeting with the Biden White House counsel in Washington, D.C.

Just nine days prior, on November 9, Joe Biden signaled he would use the federal government in a lawfare campaign against former President Trump should he seek to retake the White House in the 2024 election. “We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power,” Biden said at a press conference when asked about the prospects of another Trump presidency. He continued: “If he does run, by making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next president again.”

There are no coincidences in politics. Biden’s remarks and the fury of activity at the DOJ and White House just nine days later suggest that Democratic partisans had received their orders to spin up the legal attacks on Trump, which would unfold throughout 2023.

COLANGELO MOVES TO MANHATTAN.

Matthew 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. Yet, Colangelo abruptly resigned his post—but instead of taking a position with a high-profile white shoe law firm, the federal attorney took a pay cut and a far less prestigious position as an assistant prosecutor with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. While the latter had hesitated to pursue falsifying business records charges against former President Trump over alleged hush money payments, after Colangelo joined his office, Bragg reversed course and began an aggressive investigation.

GARLAND TAPS SMITH. 

Smith’s appointment as special counsel meant Garland was taking the January 6 riot and classified document investigations outside the normal DOJ channels. While special counsels are usually elevated from among the ranks of Senate-confirmed federal prosecutors, Smith had been previously in Europe investigating war crimes in Kosovo at The Hague. The choice of Smith was likely due to his reputation as an aggressive and partisan prosecutor.

WADE AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

On the same day as Smith’s appointment, just a few blocks away, Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Nathan Wade met with attorneys in the White House counsel’s office. Wade had been hired by his romantic partner—Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis—to assist with her RICO investigation and subsequent prosecution of former President Trump. A month after Wade’s White House meeting, on December 15, a special purpose grand jury in Fulton County handed down a sealed recommendation for indictments against former President Trump and others for allegedly interfering in the 2020 presidential election.

show less
Friday, November 18, 2022, is the day the Biden government began its lawfare campaign against former President Donald J. Trump—with three watershed events occurring that appear too connected to be coincidence. On that seemingly unremarkable Friday in November, Matthew Colangelo resigned from his position at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to join the Manhattan District Attorney's office; Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel; and Nathan Wade with the Fulton County District Attorney's Office was in the midst of an eight-hour meeting with the Biden White House counsel in Washington, D.C. show more

DATA: Near Half of Independents Say Biden Uses DOJ To Target Political Enemies.

New polling data suggests a significant portion of the electorate believes the Biden government “…has actively used the Justice Department to investigate political enemies with little or no evidence of actual wrongdoing.” The data is troubling for Joe Biden as it shows a sizeable portion of independent voters—41 percent—agree that the Biden government has purposefully targeted its political enemies. Additionally, even one in ten Democrats agree.

The Ipsos poll comes on the heels of former President Donald J. Trump‘s conviction by a New York City jury in the hush money case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. While Democrats expected the conviction to weaken Trump—the 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee—polling data, for the most part, has shown that not to be the case.

A large number of independent voters in the Ipsos poll also signaled they believe major figures in the Democratic Party played a part in pushing Bragg to prosecute Trump. Nearly 40 percent of independent respondents said they believe New York Attorney General Letitia James was involved in pushing Bragg to prosecute.

Meanwhile, over one in three independents said they think Democratic Party national leaders were involved in pursuing the prosecution. Additionally, over one in three independents say the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) was directly involved in Bragg’s prosecution of Trump—while just 27 percent said it was not. Nearly 50 percent of independents said they believed Bragg‘s prosecution was intended to give the 81-year-old Democrat incumbent Joe Biden an advantage over Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

show less
New polling data suggests a significant portion of the electorate believes the Biden government "...has actively used the Justice Department to investigate political enemies with little or no evidence of actual wrongdoing." The data is troubling for Joe Biden as it shows a sizeable portion of independent voters—41 percent—agree that the Biden government has purposefully targeted its political enemies. Additionally, even one in ten Democrats agree. show more

BREAKING: Biden DOJ Refuses to Prosecute AG Merrick Garland After Contempt of Congress.

The Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) will not prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson released late on Friday, the DOJ, overseen by the Attorney General, argued that the House Republican‘s contempt resolution does not preempt Joe Biden‘s assertion of executive privilege regarding audio records of two interviews he sat for with special counsel Robert Hur. Garland was held in contempt for refusing to furnish the recordings to Congress.

“The longstanding position of the Department is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide subpoenaed information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” the letter, authored by Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte reads. He adds: “Across administrations of both political parties, we have consistently adhered to the position that ‘the contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an Executive Branch official who asserts the President’s claim of executive privilege.'”

WHAT ABOUT BANNON & NAVARRO?

Despite Uriarte’s claim, this precedent was not extended to Dr. Peter Navarro or Stephen K. Bannon, both sentenced to jail time due to a congressional contempt charge made by the hyper-partisan January 6th committee, which fabricated information and mass-deleted evidence. Meanwhile, Garland has publicly and dubiously argued that “Releasing the audio would chill cooperation with the department in future investigations, and it could influence witnesses’ answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public.”

The DOJ letter concludes: “…the Department has determined that the responses by Attorney General Garland to the subpoenas issued by the Committees did not constitute a crime, and accordingly… will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General.”

show less
The Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) will not prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson released late on Friday, the DOJ, overseen by the Attorney General, argued that the House Republican's contempt resolution does not preempt Joe Biden's assertion of executive privilege regarding audio records of two interviews he sat for with special counsel Robert Hur. Garland was held in contempt for refusing to furnish the recordings to Congress. show more

Editor’s Notes

Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.

RAHEEM J. KASSAM Editor-in-Chief
An interesting decision, given that they have been crowing, “No one is above the law!” for the past several months
An interesting decision, given that they have been crowing, “No one is above the law!” for the past several months show more
for exclusive members-only insights

Alvin Bragg Will Testify Before Congress AFTER Trump’s Sentencing.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in mid-July. The testimony will follow the sentencing of former President Donald J. Trump in the hush money case brought against him by Bragg. According to sources familiar with the situation, Bragg and former Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, who was also involved in the Trump case, are scheduled to appear on July 12.

A spokesperson for Bragg confirmed the plans, stating, “The Manhattan DA’s Office plays a critical role in maintaining and enforcing the rule of law in New York.” The spokesperson added that spreading misinformation and unsubstantiated claims undermines the legal system but emphasized respect for governmental institutions and the decision to testify voluntarily post-sentencing. Initially, Bragg refused to testify before the committee before the sentencing, citing concerns that doing so could impede the fair administration of justice in the ongoing trial.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to probe Bragg and Colangelo on their communications with the Biden DOJ and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Additionally, the two will likely be questioned on whether they communicated with DOJ special counsel Jack Smith regarding their prosecution of former President Trump.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan had requested Bragg and Colangelo to appear earlier, proposing a hearing on June 13. In response, Bragg‘s general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, stated in a letter to Jordan that the office is dedicated to voluntary cooperation. Dubeck mentioned that Bragg would be made available for testimony at a mutually agreed date, considering the office’s scheduling constraints and the ongoing nature of the trial proceedings.

show less
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in mid-July. The testimony will follow the sentencing of former President Donald J. Trump in the hush money case brought against him by Bragg. According to sources familiar with the situation, Bragg and former Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, who was also involved in the Trump case, are scheduled to appear on July 12. show more

Biden Targets Whistleblower For Exposing Sex-Change Operations On Minors.

A doctor who blew the whistle on a Texas hospital’s clandestine program that included administering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and other sex-change operations on minors is now being prosecuted for his actions by the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ). Surgeon Eithan Haim faces at least four felony counts of violating HIPAA in a case being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tina Ansari.

In 2023 Haim had alerted several media outlets, including City Journal, that the Texas Children’s Hospital transgender medicine program included minor children among its patients, despite the hospital publicly stating otherwise. The ensuing controversy led the Texas state legislature to ban transgender medical procedures from being conducted on minors altogether.

Haim’s actions not only exposed his employer’s dangerous and ethically dubious transgender medical practices but have now drawn unwanted attention from the federal attorneys in the Biden government. Last June, federal agents showed up outside of Haim’s home—perhaps not coincidentally on the same day the doctor was to graduate from his hospital’s residency program. At the time, the agents informed him he was being investigated as a suspect in the leaks regarding transgender medicine practice at Texas Children’s Hospital.

Nearly a year later, the Biden government decided to proceed with its prosecution, which Assistant U.S. Attorney Ansari still oversees. U.S. marshals arrived outside Haim’s home earlier this week with a court summons. The doctor faces four felony charges, all stemming from HIPAA violations. Haim’s attorney insists the doctor went to great lengths to comply with HIPAA standards even in his leaks to the media, redacting any patient identifying information from the documents he provided reporters.

The case appears to be less about HIPAA and more about silencing medical whistleblowers who would expose child sex-change practices at hospitals across the U.S.

show less
A doctor who blew the whistle on a Texas hospital's clandestine program that included administering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and other sex-change operations on minors is now being prosecuted for his actions by the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ). Surgeon Eithan Haim faces at least four felony counts of violating HIPAA in a case being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tina Ansari. show more