Information released by Distributed Denial of Secrets is the third such government data disclosure in the last month
Data identifying more than 41,000 employees and contractors for the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was released on Wednesday in an unprecedented leak that reveals how the agency is organized. The records, which were made public by the transpaency nonprofit Distributed Denial of Secrets reference operation names, surveillance programs and information on undercover initiatives.
DHS did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Kushner threatens to sue, denying allegations that two slush funds were set up to influence his Middle East role
A new book containing incendiary claims about Jared Kushner’s financial dealings during Donald Trump’s first term has ignited a political and media firestorm.
The book by author Matthew Cole is called Princes and Thieves: Jared Kushner and Mohamed bin Zayed’s Secret Plot to Remake the Middle East and was released in the US this week. An excerpt was published by Vanity Fair last Thursday, and immediately drew a furious response from Kushner, who called its claims “completely insane”. The book contains numerous allegations about Kushner, whose father-in-law is Trump and who has served as one of his top diplomatic envoys in the Middle East – the most explosive of which are claims linking him to huge bank accounts allegedly funded by Gulf states.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to assuage Southeast Asian partners this week that the U.S. is dedicated to its allies in the Asia-Pacific region and pitched a defense framework to guide cooperation in the next few years during his trip to the Philippines. Hegseth said the Trump administration’s “strong, quiet and clear” approach to the…
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to assuage Southeast Asian partners this week that the U.S. is dedicated to its allies in the Asia-Pacific region and pitched a defense framework to guide cooperation in the next few years during his trip to the Philippines. Hegseth said the Trump administration’s “strong, quiet and clear” approach to the…
The parents of Alex Pretti, the Minneapolis nurse who was shot and killed by federal immigration agents earlier this year, accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of protecting those responsible for his death and refusing to provide answers about the ongoing investigation. “At every turn, they have ignored us, misled us and shielded Alex’s killers,”…
The parents of Alex Pretti, the Minneapolis nurse who was shot and killed by federal immigration agents earlier this year, accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of protecting those responsible for his death and refusing to provide answers about the ongoing investigation. “At every turn, they have ignored us, misled us and shielded Alex’s killers,”…
A plan to give people in the United States easier access to unproven peptide drugs favored by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was opposed by most Food and Drug Administration scientific staff members, who had limited input in drafting the policy, according to six people familiar with its development.
Keaton Denlay says agents handed him ‘poorly formatted Excel spreadsheet’ and threatened to criminally prosecute him
A California county elections official is speaking out about the Department of Justice’s campaign against purported “voter fraud”, saying federal officials provided him a disorganized list of names filled with inaccuracies – and threatened to criminally prosecute him if he didn’t take action.
Keaton Denlay, the county clerk-recorder for Butte county, a region north of Sacramento, said a federal agent on Friday hand-delivered what appeared to be a printout of a “poorly formatted Excel spreadsheet with missing and jumbled information”. The DoJ claimed the list was of 47 “likely” noncitizens who were unlawfully registered to vote and demanded the county set aside their ballots. But Denlay said the document was riddled with errors and lacking crucial details, and he declined to act on it.
President Trump on Wednesday said former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) should not be allowed to run for Senate against incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) following a report that her campaign sought to recruit other candidates, including Daniel J. Sullivan, in an effort to impact the election results. “In Alaska, I don’t think Mary Peltola, after perpetrating…
President Trump on Wednesday said former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) should not be allowed to run for Senate against incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) following a report that her campaign sought to recruit other candidates, including Daniel J. Sullivan, in an effort to impact the election results. “In Alaska, I don’t think Mary Peltola, after perpetrating…
Pete Hoekstra, controversial US ambassador to Canada, has also accused Canadian officials of interfering in US elections
The US ambassador has suggested Canada could be blamed if Republicans perform poorly in next week’s midterm elections, the latest intervention from a controversial figure who has been accused of inflaming a bitter dispute that has angered and baffled residents of both countries.
On Wednesday, CTV news reported that Pete Hoekstra told business leaders at a closed door meeting that if a number of swing races – including Maine and Michigan – go to the Democrats, it could make things harder for Canada because Donald Trump might try to blame the loss on it.
Trump ally, who is seeking to shutter the department, had said office relocation would save taxpayers $4.8m annually
The Trump administration has insisted its controversial education cuts are saving “millions of dollars” after it was reported that Linda McMahon, secretary of education, is planning to spend roughly $43,000 on new furniture for her office.
McMahon’s office told Congress that the secretary’s current furniture was worn out and “cannot be configurationally or aesthetically integrated into the agency’s new office space”, according to non-public records seen by the New York Times.
"I am very concerned about the weaponization of the Justice Department," Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) told reporters in August, explaining his reservations about voting to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general. Cassidy specifically cited the attempt to prosecute Cassidy Hutchinson, a White House aide during President Donald Trump's first term, based on her 2022 testimony before the House select committee that investigated the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. "I'm told there is a grand jury being empaneled to investigate her," Cassidy said. "Why? Tell me that. Shouldn't every American be afraid of the weaponization of the Justice Department?"
Grand jurors in Washington, D.C., who on Tuesday declined to approve an indictment of Hutchinson, apparently shared the senator's concerns about the case against her. That setback is part of a pattern: Grand juries, which historically have almost never rejected charges proposed by federal prosecutors, have done so repeatedly during the last two years, reflecting the Trump administration's tendency to pursue politically motivated cases based on inadequate evidence.
A grand jury hears only the government's side of a case, and the probable cause standard for approving an indictment, which requires reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and that the person identified by prosecutors committed the crime, is much less demanding than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a conviction. But the Justice Department's manual for prosecutors says they should not pursue criminal charges unless "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient" to meet the latter test. It is a pretty striking indication that prosecutors are disregarding that injunction when a grand jury determines that they have failed to meet the minimal burden of establishing probable cause.
Hutchinson, who at the time of the Capitol riot was White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' principal assistant, delivered the testimony at the center of the failed indictment on June 28, 2022. She described Trump as unconcerned about weapons carried by some of the people who attended the speech he delivered the day of the riot, during which he reiterated his false claim that Joe Biden had stolen the 2020 presidential election and urged his supporters to "fight like hell" against congressional ratification of his victory.
Hutchinson said Trump wanted the Secret Service to stop screening rally participants with magnetometers because he was worried it would reduce the size of the crowd. "I don't effing care that they have weapons," Trump said, according to Hutchinson's approximate recollection. "They're not here to hurt me. Take [the] effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in."
Hutchinson also said Trump was irate when the Secret Service told him he could not join the protesters at the Capitol. That much was consistent with the testimony of other witnesses. But Hutchinson added disputed details, saying Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato had told her Trump was so angry that he "lunge[d] towards Bobby Engel," the head of his protective detail, and "reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel." The Secret Service agent who was Trump's driver that day contradicted Hutchinson's account, and Ornato said he had no recollection of any such incident.
Last March, Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R–Ga.) and Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) urged the Justice Department to prosecute Hutchinson for lying to Congress. "Hutchinson's potential prosecution became a point of controversy between lawmakers and employees of the Justice Department," CNN reports. "Some inside the department believed there was not enough evidence to bring a viable criminal case."
You would expect such a case to be handled by Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. But the investigation of Hutchinson was instead conducted by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which is run by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, another Trump loyalist.
You might wonder what scrutinizing Hutchinson's testimony had to do with "protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans," which is how Dhillon's division describes its mission. Dhillon's involvement is all the more puzzling given that Pirro previously had not hesitated to pursue dubious charges against the president's enemies.
Last February, Pirro sought an indictment of six Democratic members of Congress who appeared in a November 2025 video that reminded U.S. military personnel of their duty to "refuse illegal orders." Trump condemned that message as "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL," saying the lawmakers "should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL." But as a federal judge later noted, the allegedly criminal video was "unquestionably protected" by the First Amendment.
That did not deter Pirro from trying to deliver on her boss's threat. But as in Hutchinson's case, the grand jury apparently was not willing to participate in Trump's vendetta. After it unanimously refused to approve the indictment, Pirro gave up.
That embarrassing experience may have deterred Pirro from getting involved in Hutchinson's case, especially if she thought there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction. She would have had good reasons for reaching that conclusion.
It is not clear exactly what charges the grand jury rejected this week. But the most obviously relevant statutes are 18 USC 1001, which covers false statements "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch," and 18 USC 1621, which covers false testimony under oath. Both are felonies punishable by up to five years in prison. But a conviction under Section 1001 requires proving that the defendant "knowingly and willfully" made a "materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement," and the perjury statute applies only when a sworn witness "willfully and contrary to such oath" makes a "material" statement that "he does not believe to be true."
Those elements would have been hard to satisfy in Hutchinson's case. Her testimony about Trump's insouciant attitude toward weapons carried by his supporters was based on what she said she heard him say, an account that pits her word against that of a habitually dishonest politician whose speech that same day was full of misrepresentations. And even if her recollection of Trump's comments was not fully accurate, that does not necessarily mean she intentionally gave false testimony. The same goes for the alleged lunging-and-grabbing incident, an account Hutchinson said was based on a conversation with Ornato that he says he does not recall.
Maybe Hutchinson, who had a lawyer and was surely aware of the potential penalties for lying to Congress, nevertheless fabricated both of those claims. But assuming her testimony was inaccurate, it seems more likely that she misremembered or misconstrued what Trump and Ornato said. In any event, the task of proving the first proposition beyond a reasonable doubt would give pause to any reasonably cautious prosecutor. And the grand jurors, even without the benefit of hearing a rebuttal to the government's case, thought the evidence of deliberate deception was so weak that it fell short of probable cause.
That determination is just the latest in a series of similar rebukes. In addition to the rejection of Pirro's charges against the "Seditious Six," they include the attempt to prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud, which two separate grand juries in two different Virginia cities blocked last December.
Grand jurors also have stood athwart felony prosecutions of protesters in Washington, D.C., including Sean Dunn, the guy who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer, and Sydney Reid, who allegedly interfered with immigration arrests while using her phone to record them. In the latter case, Reason's Joe Lancaster noted, prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a felony assault indictment "not once, not twice, but a staggering three times." Reid was ultimately acquitted of a misdemeanor charge.
In the summer of 2025, federal grand juries approved just seven of 38 proposed felony indictments against protesters in Los Angeles, an amazingly bad track record. A few months later, federal prosecutors dropped assault charges against two Chicago protesters after a grand jury declined to indict them.
"For decades, federal grand juries have almost never said no," Ballard Spahr attorneys Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. and Brad Gershel noted last year. In 2016, for example, grand juries declined to approve federal indictments just 0.004 percent of the time. "That dynamic is now being tested," Hockeimer and Gershel added. "As the DOJ has adopted a more assertive charging posture in politically sensitive cases, grand juries appear to be reasserting their independence."
The answer would matter in any federal prosecution. It matters even more here because the case revealed Monday cannot be separated from President Donald Trump’s lengthy public campaign against Comey.
Since firing Comey as FBI director in 2017, Trump has repeatedly called him corrupt and demanded that he be prosecuted. This was no private frustration. Trump put his wishes in writing online. He pressed then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue Comey and other perceived enemies last September. “They’re all guilty as hell,” he wrote, adding that “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Days later, Comey was indicted.
That first prosecution, involving Comey’s congressional testimony, was dismissed because the prosecutor who obtained the indictment had been unlawfully appointed. A second case, based on Comey’s “86 47” seashell photograph, remains pending.
The latest case dates to October 2016. Prosecutors allege that Comey directed someone to provide a reporter with national defense information about a secret court order requiring Yahoo to scan emails for messages potentially connected to a foreign terrorist organization. Comey denies wrongdoing, and his lawyers say the matter was previously investigated twice without charges being brought.
On Oct. 5, exactly a decade after the alleged conduct, Justice Department lawyers filed a criminal information under seal. A “criminal information” is a formal accusation signed by a prosecutor. An indictment contains similar allegations but with one crucial addition: A grand jury has heard the government’s presentation and agreed that probable cause exists to bring the charge.
Informations are legitimate in the right circumstances. They are commonly used when defendants intend to plead guilty and formally waive their right to an indictment. Comey has not waived that right, and the Justice Department does not appear to claim that it could take him to trial on the information alone. The government’s narrower position is that filing the information kept the case alive, leaving prosecutors free to obtain an indictment later.
The ordinary five-year statute cannot save this case.
Under the ordinary federal statute of limitations, that argument is not especially strange. The general rule gives prosecutors five years to bring most federal charges. It says the government acts in time if an “indictment is found” or an “information is instituted.” Applying that language, courts have allowed prosecutors to file an information before the deadline and obtain an indictment afterward, even without a defendant’s waiver.
But the ordinary five-year statute cannot save this case.
To prosecute Comey over conduct alleged to have occurred in 2016, the Justice Department is relying on a special provision giving the government 10 years to charge certain national defense offenses.
That provision is worded differently. It says that an “indictment” has to be brought within 10 years. It does not mention an information.
That is where the Justice Department’s theory becomes difficult to defend. The law allowing prosecutors to stop the clock with an information gives them only five years. Essentially, the DOJ is trying to take the 10 years from the first law and the easier filing method from the second — but Congress never combined the two.
Congress clearly understood the difference between an indictment and an information, because both words are used in the general statute. Yet when lawmakers granted prosecutors twice as long to bring this particular category of cases, the statute used only one. If Congress intended both charging documents to have the same effect under the special provision, it wouldn’t have omitted one.
The government says filing an information to preserve a prosecution is widely recognized federal practice. Some appellate decisions permit exactly that. But those cases generally interpret the ordinary limitations statute, the one that expressly includes both charging documents. They do not settle whether prosecutors can use an information under a different provision in which Congress referred only to an indictment.
A statute of limitations is part of the law governing prosecution, not administrative clutter around the edges.
The Justice Department is likely to argue that the special law merely changes the number of years available, leaving the rest of the general limitations framework intact. Comey’s position in his motion to dismiss is that the special provision supplies its own instruction: An indictment must come within 10 years. The statute does not say that prosecutors may file whatever charging paper they have ready at the deadline and obtain the indictment later.
This may sound like legal hair-splitting, but it’s important. A statute of limitations is Congress’ judgment about how long the government should have to place someone in criminal jeopardy. It is part of the law governing prosecution, not administrative clutter around the edges.
These limits exist because evidence grows stale, witnesses disappear, and memories become less reliable. They also reflect a basic principle: The federal government, with its enormous investigative resources, eventually must decide whether it has a case. Congress gave prosecutors a generous period of 10 years for these offenses.
It’s also noteworthy that this allegation did not suddenly appear at the last minute. According to Comey’s lawyers, the disclosure was examined in 2017 and again in 2019 without a criminal case being filed. The Justice Department had years to review the evidence and, if it wished, present the matter to a grand jury.
Federal grand juries traditionally favor prosecutors: No defense is present, the government controls the evidence, and the standard is only probable cause. But that advantage depends partly on trust, and Trump’s Justice Department has squandered a lot by repeatedly pursuing people the president has publicly demanded be charged.
That makes the missing indictment here more significant. An information bypasses even this modest outside check, allowing prosecutors to file an accusation when the president has announced the outcome he wants.
The government had 10 years and missed its deadline. When a president demands a prosecution, the rules should be enforced more strictly, not less.
Effort to loosen rules on unproven peptide drugs, favored by RFK Jr, faced fierce pushback from agency scientists
A plan to give people in the United States easier access to unproven peptide drugs favored by the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, was opposed by most Food and Drug Administration scientific staff members, who had limited input in drafting the policy, according to six people familiar with its development.
The document posted online on Wednesday by Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) covers a handful of injectable peptides promoted within the wellness industry for building muscle, healing injuries and boosting energy.
A record low percentage of U.S. voters support the reelection of their own representative or of most sitting members of Congress, according to a poll released Wednesday, less than a week before the midterm elections. In the latest Gallup poll, 43 percent of voters said they think their own representative deserves reelection. In polls going…
A record low percentage of U.S. voters support the reelection of their own representative or of most sitting members of Congress, according to a poll released Wednesday, less than a week before the midterm elections. In the latest Gallup poll, 43 percent of voters said they think their own representative deserves reelection. In polls going…
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will allow compounding pharmacies to manufacture and sell peptides that have not yet been added to the list of approved substances, advancing access to those championed by the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda. The HHS stated in a notice that it would be practicing enforcement discretion…
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will allow compounding pharmacies to manufacture and sell peptides that have not yet been added to the list of approved substances, advancing access to those championed by the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda. The HHS stated in a notice that it would be practicing enforcement discretion…
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh will speak to reporters Wednesday after the central bank voted to hold interest rates steady at 3.75 percent to 4 percent, despite persistent inflation and mounting economic pressures ahead of the midterm elections. The decision comes six weeks after the Fed raised rates by a quarter point, its first hike…
Login
