During a Cabinet meeting, Trump appeared to struggle with alertness and coherence while disparaging Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D).
“I think the man’s a grossly incompetent man,” a drowsy Trump said, referring to Walz.
Trump then appeared to take a swipe at both Walz and Vance.
“I thought that from the day I watched JD destroy him in a debate. I was saying, ‘Who was more incompetent? That man or my man?’ I had a man, and he had a man—they were both incompetent," said Trump.
Trump's confused rant left Edith Olmstead of The New Republic taken aback.
"Based solely on the structure of Trump’s statement, the president appeared to assert that 'that man' and 'his man' were both incompetent.' But surely Trump would go on to clarify what he meant, right? Wrong," she wrote.
Trump instead added, "I had a man and a woman, I thought she was very incompetent too. But now she’s leading the field and I think she’s leading the field in the nomination."
Olmstead noted Trump appeared to "glower" as Vance spoke, whereas he "merely kept his eyes shut" for most Cabinet members.
President Donald Trump finished a press conference on Tuesday with an angry rant against Somali-American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), as well as the Somali community in general.
The tirade began as a complaint against Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN), who was on the opposing presidential ticket as former Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in last year's election. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area, which Omar represents, has one of America's largest Somali diasporas.
"There's something wrong with him," said Trump. "And you look at what he's done with Somalia, where Somalia, which is barely a country — they have no anything, they just run around killing each other. There's no structure. And when I see somebody like Ilhan Omar, who I don't know at all, but I always watch her, for years I've watched her complain about our Constitution, how she's been treated badly, the Constitution, the United States of America is a bad place, hates everybody, hates Jewish people, hates everybody. I think she's an incompetent person. She's a real terrible person."
"But when I watch what is happening in Minnesota, the Land of a Thousand Lakes, or however many lakes they have — they got a lot of lakes," Trump continued. "But this beautiful place, and I see these people ripping it off, and now I'm understanding, and you're going to look into this, I hear they ripped off, Somalians ripped off that state for billions of dollars. Billions. Every year. Billions of dollars, and they contribute nothing."
Trump is likely referring to a newly emerging federal case alleging a handful of individuals in Minnesota, including some in the Somali community, set up fake companies that embezzled billions in pandemic relief money.
During his Tuesday tirade, Trump issued a grim warning that America is at a "tipping point" — and could go "one way or the other."
"We're going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country," he warned. "Ilhan Omar is garbage. She's garbage. Her friends are garbage. These aren't people that work. These aren't people that say, 'Come on, let's make this place great.' These are people who do nothing but complain. They complain. And from where they came from, they got nothing."
He concluded: "When they come from hell, and they complain and do nothing but b----b----. We don't want them in our country. Let them go back to where they came from and fix it."
In recent months, Trump has repeatedly clashed with Omar, one of the first Muslim women ever elected to Congress. Last month, he accused her of not understanding the Constitution, to which she replied, "Unlike you, I can read." He has also said he is working on deporting Omar back to Somalia, from which she fled as a child refugee decades ago. She responded by calling him a "lying buffoon."
President Donald Trump has been slapped with a $310 million lawsuit alleging that the president engaged in a “trafficking venture” that was “identical in every material respect” to the sex-trafficking operation allegedly spearheaded by Jeffrey Epstein.
Filed on Nov. 24 in Palm Beach County, the lawsuit names Trump in both his individual and official capacity as president, alongside Tesla founder and Trump ally Elon Musk and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, both of whom have spent time inside Epstein’s home, according to reports and, in Musk’s case, his own admission.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, whose names have been redacted, accuse Trump and others of operating an “eight-year trafficking and exploitation venture that began in 2018 [that] has continued and escalated under the current Trump administration,” according to an uncertified copy of the lawsuit, published and reported on Tuesday by the hyper-local news outlet BOCA News Now.
Specifically, the plaintiffs accuse Trump of “grooming” the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit – an unnamed minor on whose behalf the lawsuit was filed – starting in 1998, “the exact year [the] plaintiff was born.” They accuse Trump of using Gates’ Gates Foundation as the primary “cover and silencing mechanism” to continue the operation, as well as facilitating “coordinated sexual assaults.”
The plaintiffs also allege that the minor plaintiff's “infant daughter” was taken from her “as punishment for filing lawsuits,” which they argue was “identical to Epstein’s use of custody threats against mothers who sued.”
Additionally, the plaintiffs accuse Trump and the other named defendants of having "attempted to murder" the lead plaintiff "no fewer than [on] five separate occasions" between 2023 and November of this year, including by way of "poisoning, vehicular assaults and orchestrated physical attacks designed to appear accidental."
Trump is not facing any active criminal charges, and has and continues to deny any wrong-doing as it relates to Epstein, who died in 2019 awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. The plaintiffs in the case are seeking at least $310 million in compensatory damages, more than $134 million in attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief that would include the “immediate return of full legal and physical custody” of the lead plaintiff’s daughter. They also asked the court that the trial be expedited so that a trial by jury is held by Dec. 20.
A Republican senator's proposal to overhaul U.S. citizenship could force President Donald Trump's wife and youngest son into a tight spot.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) intends to introduce legislation that would end dual citizenship by requiring American citizens to declare their “exclusive allegiance” to the U.S. and renounce their foreign citizenship, as the Trump-endorsed senator did for his own Colombian citizenship, reported The Daily Beast.
“One of the greatest honors of my life was when I became an American citizen at 18, the first opportunity I could do so,” the Colombian-born Moreno told Fox News Digital.
“It was an honor to pledge an Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America and only to the United States of America,” Moreno added. “Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege — and if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing. It’s time to end dual citizenship for good.”
Moreno's proposal could create a headache for the first lady and Barron Trump, who remain dual citizens of the U.S. and Slovenia after Melania filed paperwork at some point ensuring her son would also have citizenship in her birth country.
“She did that to give her son options,” said Washington Post reporter Mary Jordan, who published a book on Melania Trump last year titled "The Art of Her Deal." “If you have a Slovenian citizenship, which Barron is entitled to, the passport makes a lot of things easier."
“I think she also likes that he speaks Slovenian, he has a Slovenian passport," Jordan added. "By getting him the citizenship and the passport it’s easier for him to get a job, it’s easier for him to set up a business, it’s easier for him to inherit land. It’s mama bear just giving options to her son.”
Born in 1970 in Slovenia, Melania Trump is only the second first lady born outside the United States, after President John Quincy Adams's wife Louisa Adams, who was born in London in 1775.
She is the only first lady to become a naturalized U.S. citizen and obtained her citizenship in July 2006 on an EB-1 visa, which is reserved for immigrants with “extraordinary ability” and “sustained national and international acclaim.”
The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 proposed by Moreno would be enforced by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security and would set up a system to track dual citizens, who would then have a year to renounce their foreign citizenship, or forfeit their U.S. citizenship.
Anyone who failed to comply within that year would automatically lose their U.S. citizenship, and anyone who gave up their U.S. citizenship would be considered foreigners and recorded as non-citizens.
Any hope Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth might have that Navy Admiral Frank Bradley will absorb all the blame for what is being called a “war crime” was disabused by an MS NOW panel on Tuesday morning.
Reacting to both Hegseth and the White House singling out the admiral for having the final say on the attack that killed two alleged "narcoterrorists" who were hanging onto a burning vessel in the Caribbean in September, the “Morning Joe” co-hosts claimed the embattled Pentagon chief is facing a reckoning.
With host Joe Scarborough claiming Hegseth does not have a lot of fans among Republican lawmakers, he noted that normally stoic Fox News personality Brit Hume yesterday came down hard on the Pentagon head — which is a sign that the tide is turning.
“It's very interesting, Brit Hume proving once again that the administration, like in the Epstein files, finds themselves in a position where they're not fighting lefties, right? They're not going up against the most progressive voices in America, people they can call communists or Marxists,” Scarborough pointed out. “It is Fox News contributors. It is [National Review’s] Andy McCarthy saying, ‘No, no, no, no, no.’ This new excuse of pointing, you know, at somebody else.”
“You're right,” co-host Willie Geist later contributed. “The White House was caught in this moment right now where they're saying, ‘Well, yes, Defense Secretary Hegseth did order the second strike, but not to kill the people just to disable the boat. The decision to kill the people, allegedly, is that of Admiral Bradley, a decorated admiral in the Navy. So to push that admiral in front of the bus is not going to end well, probably for Defense Secretary Hegseth.”
“He's in a bind. The White House is in a bind,” he warned.
A Texas judge who announced his candidacy in a high-profile U.S. House race Tuesday isn’t likely to face repercussions despite attracting a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission , experts told Raw Story.
Tano Tijerina, a Democrat-turned-Republican judge in Webb County, Texas, has long been eyeing a campaign against Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX).
Cuellar has held the 28th congressional district seat since 2005, now a prime GOP target in recent redistricting attempts and in light of bribery charges against Cuellar.
On Nov. 21, Cecilia Martinez, an ethics professor from San Antonio, filed an FEC complaint, alleging Tijerina used an exploratory committee to circumvent state resign-to-run laws, which require officeholders to step down from an elected job upon deciding to campaign for another, if there’s more than a year and 30 days left in the term.
Tijerina’s term as a county judge ends Dec. 31, 2026. But, he launched an exploratory committee for a challenge to Cuellar in June, gaining national attention.
Martinez’s allegation that Tijerina violated federal law has also attracted coverage.
She alleges Tijerina made up his mind to run for Congress long before launching his exploratory committee, citing interviews with local TV and radio stations where the judge acknowledged needing to wait until after Dec. 1 to announce a potential candidacy, in order to keep his job.
The complaint also references a social media post, shared by Tijerina, from a Webb County employee who said she was excited to see her “boss” head to Congress.
The FEC says a candidate is considered to be campaigning rather than “testing the waters” if they advertise or make statements as candidates, inform the media of a planned date to announce their candidacy, or raise more money than “reasonably needed to test the waters.”
The complaint says: “Judge Tijerina’s congressional campaign remains under the guise of an exploratory committee not because he is legitimately testing the waters, but because he does not want to face the state-law consequences of declaring his candidacy.”
Tijerina’s exploratory committee called the complaint a “political sham.”
Below is the Tano Tijerina Exploratory Committee's response to the Laredo Morning Times sloppy hit piece:
The Laredo Morning Times has earned itself the Ambush Journalism Award after firing off a press request at 7:51 AM on a Saturday while the entire County government was busy… — Judge Tano Tijerina (@JudgeTano) November 23, 2025
“Judge Tano Tijerina is following every federal and state rule governing exploratory activity, and has not crossed a single legal line,” said the committee in an X post shared by Tijerina on Nov. 23.
“This is a coordinated smear campaign by far-left operatives terrified that even the possibility of Judge Tijerina exploring a run jeopardizes their grip on TX-28.
“Instead of finding an alternative for their own ethically compromised incumbent, they dug up an ‘online’ professor to rubber-stamp a flimsy accusation that falls apart the moment you read it.”
Bradley A. Smith, a professor at Capital University Law School who served on the FEC from 2000-05, including a year as chair, told Raw Story: “These are very hard cases to try to claim, ‘Oh, no, he's actually a candidate and needs to start filing reports as a candidate.
“You basically are asking the FEC, or eventually a court, to sort of mind read what the person was really planning to do.”
‘They game laws all the time’
Once an individual decides to become a candidate, they are required to register with the FEC within 15 days of raising or spending $5,000.
The Tijerina complaint points out that he is working with a political consultancy, Lilly and Company, and hosted a fundraiser in October, soliciting donations between $500 and $7,000.
But fundraising for an exploratory committee is allowed even if it exceeds $5,000, the FEC says. Only once the individual decides to be a candidate does the $5,000 threshold come into play.
Smith said: “The whole idea is to test the water. You’re telling people, ‘Yeah, I'm thinking about running for Congress. I'm thinking really seriously about it. I'm raising money for it,’ because, remember, you can raise this money, and then if you declare, then the money all has to be reported.”
Activities considered to be testing the waters include polling, traveling and making calls.
“By definition, you are doing campaign stuff, and you can very specifically do things like public polling, see how you might do, and that sort of thing,” Smith said.
“So, it's pretty easy for a candidate in this position, especially once the complaint is filed … to just say, ‘Well, yeah, I'm considering it, there's no doubt about that … that's why I set up an exploratory committee, but I haven't made a final decision.’”
While “all the money he's raising is in accordance with the rules,” Smith said Tijerina could be in “technical violation.”
“Is he gaming the Texas state law? Yeah, probably, but they game laws all the time in this kind of thing,” Smith said.
Randall Erben, an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said it’d be up to a court to determine if Tijerina was a candidate prior to 13 months before the end of his term.
Erben said Texas courts “like eligibility, and they like people staying in office. That’s the public policy of the state.”
However, the framers of the resign-to-run provisions wanted “public office holders to pay attention to what they were doing.
“They were elected to a full term on a county or district office or city office. They wanted them to focus 100 percent on the duties for which they were elected, and not be spending a lot of time seeking other office.
“It's pretty simple public policy, and especially in this day and age where campaigning is 24/7, 365, I think the public policy is probably even more valid now than it was when they added it in the 1950s.”
‘Cost of doing business’
The FEC would not confirm receipt of the Tijerina complaint, due to confidentiality requirements. Any complaint resolutions are published 30 days after a vote to close the matter, said spokesperson Myles Martin.
Smith said: “As a practical matter, I don't think the FEC has ever been very rigorous in trying to say, ‘You've gone too far.’”
With President Donald Trump firing one commissioner and others resigning, the agency has for months lacked a quorum, meaning it “can't act on anything” anyway, Smith said.
“If we think about this for the midterms … it's quite likely that if the fine were assessed [against Tijerina], it wouldn't be until, quite possibly, after the 2026 election.
“A lot of campaigns say, ‘Well, cost of doing business,’ at that point.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stunned observers Monday night with his decision to distance himself from a controversial military strike that reportedly killed people who survived the administration's initial strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.
The strike in question occurred on Sept. 2 and targeted suspected drug boats near Venezuela. Hegseth was reported to have been directly involved in the controversial operation. After the initial strike, survivors were found clinging to wreckage.
A source with direct knowledge claimed Hegseth gave an order to "kill everybody," which the military carried out. The strike led to significant political fallout, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) notably refusing to directly back Hegseth earlier Monday. Additionally, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused Hegseth of being a "known liar" on CNN, and retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner described it as a "tremendous failure in planning."
The White House has shifted its narrative, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt eventually confirming that Admiral Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley ordered the second strike, claiming it was "well within his authority."
And on Monday night, Hegseth himself appeared to point the finger at Bradley.
"Let’s make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us. When this @DeptofWar says we have the back of our warriors — we mean it," he wrote on X.
Observers were taken aback by the Defense secretary's post, with many social media critics likening it to Hegseth throwing Bradley under the bus.
CNN reporter Haley Britzky flagged Hegseth's specific phrasing.
CNN's Natasha Bertrand noted on X, "Hegseth again distancing himself from responsibility over the Sept 2 strike, emphasizing that it was a combat decision Adm. Bradley made— but that he supports."
"Well, there really is no preventative cardiac MRI," Reiner said. "This is not a standard test for, you know, an 80-year-old man to undergo advanced imaging. Of course, the whole note has kind of a weird, defensive, you know, evasive tone to it. First of all, this is not part of the president's comprehensive physical examination."
Following two physical exams, the White House revealed during the summer that the president was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency.
"He had that in April, and then he underwent some more testing in July," Reiner said. "If you look at his first administration, the president, like most presidents, only underwent one comprehensive physical exam every year. So this comes completely off-cycle. Second, it's filled with euphemisms. Again, Dr. Barbara Bell, the president's physician, states that he underwent advanced imaging. Well, what specific advanced imaging did the president have? Was it an MRI, as the president said? Was it a CT [scan]? Did he have both? Why not just spell it out?"
Reiner explained how the administration could have his doctor or health official describe what happened.
"It's as if a patient came in for a chest x-ray, and then I only told people that the patient underwent simple radiologic imaging. Just, you know, just spell it out," he added. "This is, again, not part of a comprehensive screening, particularly, you know, abdominal imaging. Why would someone undergo a preventive, quote, preventative MRI imaging or CT imaging of the abdomen? This obviously was performed in response to some clinical concern, which is fine."
The MRI could have been out of a health concern — and the American people deserve to know that, Reiner explained.
"Things happen to people as, you know, as we all get older. And the president is almost 80. So instead of this kind of evasive, almost laughable kind of note. Just spell out what happened. I hope the imaging is normal and great. That would be excellent news. But this kind of piece-by-piece, drip-by-drip release of information is disconcerting," Reiner said.
President Donald Trump presented Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro with an ultimatum during their recent phone call, according to sources, but he instead responded with demands of his own.
The U.S. president confirmed the call had taken place but declined to offer specifics – “I wouldn’t say it went well or badly, it was a phone call," is all Trump would say about it — but sources told the Miami Herald that he sent a "blunt message" to Maduro as part of a months-long pressure campaign.
"You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now," Trump said, according to the sources.
Trump offered safe passage to Maduro, his wife and his son “only if he agreed to resign right away," but he was met instead with counter demands, three of which Trump rejected.
“First, Maduro asked for global amnesty for any crimes he and his group had committed, and that was rejected,” said a source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Second, they asked to retain control of the armed forces — similar to what happened in Nicaragua in ’91 with Violeta Chamorro. In return, they would allow free elections.”
The call was initially brokered by Brazil, Qatar and Turkey, and the Maduro government tried unsuccessfully to make another call after Trump announced Saturday the South American country's airspace should be considered “closed in its entirety."
“To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY," Trump posted on Truth Social. "Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
The State Department last week formally designated the Cartel de los Soles, which the Trump administration says operates out of Venezuela, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, which places Maduro, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López in the same legal category as leaders of al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The designation is viewed as a tool to give the administration broader authority to take military action without additional congressional approval and could allow the administration to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
Recent comments by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) about what she characterized as the GOP’s hypocrisy around pro-life beliefs sent the hosts at the far-right outlet Newsmax into a spiral Monday, with the entire three-person panel lashing out at the Texas Democrat one after the other.
Appearing on MS NOW recently, Crockett condemned the Republican Party’s purported dedication to pro-life ideology, which she argued to be distorted due the GOP’s support for things like President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is poised to boot as many as 22.3 million Americans off of food assistance over ten years, which included millions of children.
“This is the party that says that they care so much about life until life actually shows up at their front door,” Crockett said in a recent appearance on MS Now.
“This is also the party that is supposedly about Christianity, and I just imagine what they would have done to a little baby Jesus, but that's a whole other issue. It is really so heartbreaking, we know that under the prior Trump administration it was the children in cages.”
Newsmax aired a clip of Crockett’s comments, which in turn sent the conservative panel into a frenzy.
“Okay, a million things here, number one, who built the cages, Jasmine? It wasn't Trump!” said Newsmax host Alex Kraemer. “I'm sorry, I'm disgusted, how dare you say what Republicans would do to Jesus! What in the world is she talking about?”
Newsmax host Alison Maloni jumped in on the dog pile, using her attack on the Texas Democrat to also promote Trump’s mass deportations.
“I don't think she knows what she's talking about, but the fact that she says Christians don't care about life; you know what they care about?” Maloni posed. “They care about the children and the women who have been raped, murdered [and] beaten by people who are here illegally, they care about the safety of people on our streets, they care about American citizens.”
Newsmax host Marc Lotter joined in on the attack as well, calling Crockett a “joke” and condemning the entirety of the Democratic party.
“The Democrat Party is an anti-faith party of all things, and the only thing they like are illegal immigrants, handouts,” Lotter said, who previously served in Trump’s 2020 campaign.
“I'm not going to question Jasmine Crockett's faith because that's not my job to do that, but she's a joke on everything else, and so why wouldn't I not consider her take on Christianity to be nothing more than a joke?”
Federal prosecutors will argue that “adherence” to “violent and extremist Antifa ideology” shores up material-support-for-terrorists charges against protesters who shot fireworks, destroyed a surveillance camera, and vandalized vehicles and a guard shed at a Texas ICE facility on July 4.
Donald Trump’s Department of Justice also intends to cite previous cases involving jihadist and white supremacist defendants.
One leading expert told Raw Story “characterizing ‘Antifa ideology’ as necessarily violent,” like such established extremist threats, indicated the weakness of the government’s case.
The 12-count superseding indictment returned earlier this month in the Northern District of Texas is against nine defendants but alleges only one, Benjamin Song, opened fire on federal and local law enforcement.
Four defendants are charged with aiding and abetting Song, named as the “principal,” in the attempted murder of two federal officers and a local police officer.
Song is alleged to have shot an Alvarado police officer in the neck area.
All but one of the defendants are charged with providing material support to terrorists.
Prosecutors telegraphed in a recent filing that they intend to lean into arguments about the defendants’ alleged antifascist beliefs to establish intent and motive.
The government accuses Autumn Hill of being part of an “Antifa Cell” that shot fireworks at the Prairieland ICE facility in Alvarado, and accuses Zachary Evetts and another defendant of destroying a surveillance camera and vandalizing vehicles and a guard shed.
As a “militant enterprise” prosecution, the government’s case holds many defendants responsible for Song’s alleged actions.
“The daytime reconnaissance of security measures at the facility, the use of black bloc, the presence of assault rifles, body armor, and combat-style first aid kits, as well as the flight from the scene after the shooting are inconsistent with a peaceful protest and instead support that the defendants were aware that they were involved in an attack in which the use of deadly force was reasonably foreseeable,” prosecutors wrote.
Alluding to a detention hearing in September, prosecutors signaled the government’s intent to cite defendants’ alleged antifascist beliefs, writing that “intent and motive can be inferred from each individual’s adherence to an extremist ideology that holds that violent force is justified to resist and overthrow the United States government.”
The filing contests an argument by Evetts that the government hasn’t explained how it will prove he “intended or knew that his conduct would support terrorists.”
Beyond the facts of the attack, including Evetts’ attendance at a “gear check,” and his involvement in a reconnaissance mission, prosecutors said they will “rely on Evetts’ adherence to a violent and extremist Antifa ideology for purposes of motive and intent.
“This is common and proper in material-support-for-terrorism cases, regardless of whether ideology is that of Antifa, white supremacy, or Islamic jihad,” the filing continues.
Attorneys for Evetts and Hill could not be reached for comment.
‘Weakness in the argument’
The filing cites appellate rulings in cases concerning Islamic jihadists and white supremacists.
The jihadist cases concerned Ahmed Abu Khattallah, a Libyan extremist said to have directed the 2012 attack on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, and Betim Kaziu, convicted of terrorism-related charges after allegedly traveling to Kosovo with the intention of killing fellow Americans.
In the other case cited by the government, an appellate court ruled that a defendant’s white supremacist beliefs and associations, including a photo of her giving a Nazi salute and an article she wrote about “white power,” were “highly relevant” to charges related to a bomb-making plot targeting “a Holocaust or Black history” event.
Thomas Brzozowski, a former Department of Justice counsel for domestic terrorism, told Raw Story “the government can use ideology to prove specific intent,” and that the cases cited do support its position in the Texas antifa case.
“But the weakness in the government’s argument concerns their characterization of ‘Antifa ideology’ as necessarily violent,” Brzozowski said.
Brzozowski said the government will likely turn to a box of photocopied booklets described as “insurrection planning, anti-law enforcement, anti-government, and anti-immigration enforcement documents and propaganda” and seized by law enforcement.
One publication, War in the Streets, describes a “series of situated and intelligent reflections on black blocs, street clashes and related tactics of confrontation,” intended as a practical guide for refining tactics relating “to the larger insurrectional process.”
The 12-count superseding indictment separately charges Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada and Maricela Rueda with conspiracy to conceal documents related to an allegation that Sanchez moved the box from a residence in an effort to prevent the government from using it as evidence.
The significance of the literature to the government’s case is highlighted when the indictment names three defendants — Ines Soto, Elizabeth Soto and Savanna Batten — as “part of a group that created and distributed insurrectionary materials called ‘zines.’”
The indictment presents the group as being part of an “Antifa Cell” at the center of the government’s militant enterprise case.
‘4th of July Party!’
The indictment also includes references to planning chats that provide a mixed picture as to whether the defendants went to Alvarado expecting a firefight or a rowdy protest.
The government cites a “4th of July Party!” chat with six members. In one exchange, Rueda allegedly commented that “rifles might make the situation more hot.”
“Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off,” Song reportedly replied.
During the July 3 “gear check,” Hill allegedly asked Song if they would be bringing guns.
“Song replied that they would because he would not be going to jail,” the indictment reads.
“Song repeated words to this effect multiple times throughout the evening, putting everyone there on notice of his intent to shoot at police rather than be arrested.”
But the government’s depiction of a larger chat suggests participants expected a different kind of confrontation.
“Throughout the large chat, Ines Soto and Rueda attempted to downplay concerns about law enforcement, urging action and referring to noise demonstrations as ‘low risk,’” the indictment reads.
A photograph taken of President Donald Trump over the weekend has sparked an internet frenzy as critics note what they describe as the president’s aged and tired appearance.
“Is it just me, or does Trump seem to be aging by a year for every week that goes by?” asked X user “Dr. Dave,” a college professor and media commentator.
The photograph in question shows Trump, presumably at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida – where media has reported he’s been spending his Thanksgiving weekend at – mouth agape, leaning forward with his eyes closed while sitting at a table, and with a tired expression.
Other critics, like Chris Jackson, who chairs a local Democratic Party chapter in Tennessee, criticized the media for ignoring what he characterized as Trump’s declining health, as well as for their coverage of former President Joe Biden’s well-documented mental decline, which was largely ignored by mainstream media outlets until his disastrous debate performance with Trump last year.
“Jake Tapper and the media have spent the better part of the past year telling the country Joe Biden would be in a wheelchair by now while insisting Donald Trump was some sharp, vigorous eighty year old,” Jackson wrote in a social media post on X.
“They didn’t just get it wrong. They cashed in. Biden was old, competent, and boring, and that didn’t fit their business model. Chaos did. So they boosted Trump, fed the outrage machine, and sold out our democracy for clicks and access.”
At 79 years old, Trump is the single-oldest sitting U.S. president in history, and much has been made about his health. Apparent efforts by the White House have been made to hide Trump’s swollen ankles, dark bruises have been spotted on the president’s hands, and his recent MRI scan has raised further questions as to the state of his health.
“And Republicans keep talking about Trump 2028?” wrote X user “Kenny BooYah,” a U.S. Air Force veteran, in response to the new photo of Trump.
Q: Is it just me, or does Trump seem to be aging by a year for every week that goes by?
A: It’s not just you. The only people who don’t realize it are the 77M barefoot cavemen who elected him. They wear red hats so you don’t mistake them for trees. pic.twitter.com/WkS4Obsruf — Dr. Dave (@drdave1999) November 30, 2025
A news host on Sunday was shocked to see Donald Trump's polling dropping significantly when it comes to the "only number" the president actually cares about.
On MS NOW over the weekend, host Jonathan Capehart was stunned to see Trump drop substantially when it comes to his support among Republicans, as opposed to his overall approval numbers.
"Ifyou look at the latest Galluppoll... I say when you look atthose overall poll numbers,you've got to go and look at his Republican approval rating because that is the only number he cares about," he said. "In this poll, it's interesting, Donald Trump's approval ratinghas fallen among Republicansseven percentage points since like a month ago."
Capehart added, "He still has overwhelming support, but that kind of erosion we have never seen."
Another analyst jumped into say, "And it's going to keephappening."
