IRAN 'CHOKING LIKE A STUFFED PIG' AS BLOCKADE CONTINUES
WASHINGTON, D.C. — April 30, 2026
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated Wednesday that President Donald Trump did not direct him to pursue an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, and emphasized that the decision was not made to audition for a permanent role leading the Department of Justice.
In an interview on “CBS Mornings,” Blanche rejected claims that the case against Comey was politically motivated. He stressed that the charges resulted from a lengthy investigation and a grand jury’s independent decision, not any instructions from the White House.
“Of course not. Absolutely, positively not,” Blanche said when asked whether Trump had any involvement in the indictment.
The case centers on a social media post by Comey that featured seashells arranged to spell “86 47.” Prosecutors argue the phrase could reasonably be interpreted as a threat against Trump, the 47th president. The term “86” is commonly understood as slang for eliminating or removing something.
Blanche described the indictment as the outcome of nearly a yearlong investigation involving the FBI and Secret Service. He highlighted the seriousness of threats against a sitting president and pushed back against efforts to minimize the case.
“If anybody in this country thinks, especially what happened over the past couple years with respect to President Trump, that it is OK for anybody to threaten the president of the United States ... and then have the media or others say, ‘Well that’s not serious,’ then we have a bigger problem than I even imagined in this country,” Blanche said.
Comey has denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the post carried no political or violent intent. He has since deleted the image and expressed confidence in the judicial process.
The indictment has sparked debate, with some critics questioning whether similar rhetoric from other political figures has been treated differently in the past. Blanche dismissed those comparisons, stating that each case is evaluated based on its own evidence and investigative findings.
“That’s not how a grand jury does its work,” he said, noting that decisions are based on evidence gathered over time, not isolated incidents.
Blanche also addressed speculation that handling the high-profile case could improve his chances of being nominated as permanent attorney general. He rejected the idea outright.
“I don’t even know what that means,” he said. “We work hard every single day. The Department of Justice returns over a hundred indictments across this country every single day making this country safe. And so this narrative, this idea out there that somehow I’m auditioning, I’ve worked for, with President Trump for many, many years. I don’t audition for this job. I’ve been the deputy attorney general for over a year, OK. This is not an audition.”
The case is moving forward, with Comey expected to face trial on two counts related to making threats against the president. Supporters of the administration argue the prosecution reflects a commitment to holding public figures accountable for rhetoric targeting elected officials. They contend that failing to act would set a dangerous precedent at a time when threats against political leaders are rising.
The developments come amid broader discussions about political discourse and accountability. No further details on the timing of Comey’s trial have been released.
6-3 RULING - Supreme Court Deals Brutal Blow to Hakeem Jeffries
Washington, D.C. - June 5, 2026
Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Proceed with New Congressional Map for 2026 Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned 6-3 order on Tuesday permitting Alabama to use a newly enacted congressional district map in the 2026 midterm elections. The decision lifts a lower court injunction and is expected to result in a congressional delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat.
The ruling came after Alabama had already held its congressional primary elections in May. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation authorizing special elections in August for affected districts, contingent on final court approval of the map.
The order relied in part on the Purcell principle, which generally discourages federal courts from altering election rules close to an election. The majority stated that the district court had improperly intervened in Alabama’s efforts to conduct its elections under maps selected by the state’s elected representatives. The court noted that while federal courts should avoid last-minute changes, states retain authority to determine whether such adjustments serve their interests.
Connection to Voting Rights Act Precedent
The decision follows a 6-3 ruling issued by the Supreme Court on April 29 regarding the Voting Rights Act. That earlier decision established that claims alleging racial discrimination in districting generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong inference of intentional discrimination before proceeding with litigation.
The current order addresses ongoing redistricting litigation in Alabama. The new map is anticipated to alter the composition of the state’s seven-member congressional delegation. Democratic Representatives Shomari Figures of the 2nd District and Terri Sewell of the 7th District are currently the only Black members of Alabama’s House delegation. The new configuration could affect representation in one of those districts.
Dissenting Opinion
The three liberal justices dissented from the unsigned order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority’s approach had created turmoil and harm. She argued that the court was doubling down on prior decisions that she viewed as undermining protections under the Voting Rights Act.
Broader Redistricting Context
The Alabama case is one of several redistricting disputes before the Supreme Court involving states such as Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and California. With control of the U.S. House expected to be closely contested, these cases have taken on added significance for both parties ahead of the November elections.
The Supreme Court’s recent interventions have already influenced district boundaries in multiple states. Additional litigation remains pending, and further developments could continue to shape the partisan balance of the House in the upcoming midterm cycle.
The Alabama order permits the state to move forward with its chosen map while legal proceedings on related matters continue. The full impact on the composition of Alabama’s congressional delegation will depend on the outcome of the August special elections and any subsequent legal challenges.
GHOST VOTERS' REVEALED — California Elections Rocked After Stunning Discovery
Sacramento, California - June 5, 2026
Lawsuit Filed Against California Secretary of State Alleging Failure to Remove Inactive Voter Registrations
A federal lawsuit has been filed against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber alleging that the state has failed to remove hundreds of thousands of inactive voter registrations from its rolls in violation of federal law. The complaint was brought by Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State, and the American Independent Party of California, with assistance from Judicial Watch.
The lawsuit claims that California has not removed approximately 873,092 inactive voter registrations as required under the National Voter Registration Act. Federal law mandates that states remove certain registrations after voters fail to participate in multiple consecutive federal election cycles and do not respond to address verification notices.
Court filings state that more than 873,000 registrations remained on the rolls despite being inactive through at least three consecutive federal elections. The complaint further alleges that over 151,000 registrations remained active after four consecutive election cycles without voter participation.
California maintains more than 23 million registered voters, the largest voter registration system in the United States. Plaintiffs argue that the state’s practices violate requirements under the National Voter Registration Act for maintaining accurate voter lists.
Previous Actions and Current Allegations
In 2019, Judicial Watch reached a settlement with California and Los Angeles County that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million inactive voter registrations. The current lawsuit contends that similar issues persist across much of the state despite those prior efforts.
The complaint notes that 20 California counties removed 50 or fewer inactive registrations over a recent period, even as census data showed substantial population shifts and migration out of the state.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring California to implement a more aggressive program for removing registrations that no longer meet federal eligibility requirements. It also asks the court to prevent future violations of federal election law.
State Response and Context
California officials have maintained that the state’s election system includes multiple safeguards, including signature matching, voter identification checks where required, and criminal penalties for fraud. State representatives have stated that the system is secure and employs verification procedures designed to prevent illegal voting.
The lawsuit was filed amid ongoing scrutiny of California’s election processes. Recent incidents include damage to a mail ballot drop box that was vandalized and set on fire, as well as a report of an unsecured ballot center in the Bay Area discovered by a voter outside normal operating hours.
The case will proceed in federal court, where judges will evaluate whether California’s voter registration maintenance practices comply with federal requirements. The outcome could affect procedures ahead of future elections, including the November general election.
