Acting DNI Bill Pulte has fired more "Deep State" intel officials, according to MS NOW.
The post Happy Freedom 250! Acting DNI Bill Pulte Fires More “Deep State” Intel Officials appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Donald Trump's controversial new intelligence chief is clearing house, and career officers warn the man swinging the axe doesn't know what he's cutting.Bill Pulte, Trump's loyal acting director of national intelligence, began notifying dozens of intelligence officials of their terminations Thursday, part of a downsizing Trump ordered when he installed Pulte at the office two weeks ago, MS NOW reported Friday. An intelligence official, who spoke anonymously citing fear of reprisal, told the outlet that leadership is targeting workers it believes are "deep state" and accused them of failing to hand up a complete picture of available intelligence.But former officials aren't buying his rationale. Several told MS NOW they had never heard of intelligence officers withholding information from their superiors. "The premise is absurd," one said. Another questioned how Pulte, who ran the federal housing agency and has no intelligence background, could reach such a conclusion within days of arriving.“I have a real question of how he would know this. This isn’t a guy who is familiar with intelligence,” a former official told the outlet. “How is he going to get to the bottom of this and rely on any information with a matter of fidelity? It would be like me taking over a hospital and firing dozens of surgeons in a matter of days.”The cuts follow Pulte's earlier removal of six political appointees who served under his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard. His arrival has drawn alarm across party lines: he took the post without ever holding a security clearance, and he can stay in the acting role past November's midterms under federal vacancy rules. Critics note his office doesn't collect intelligence of its own, relying instead on the CIA, the NSA and more than a dozen other agencies to supply it.Democrats and some Republicans fear the purge is less about efficiency than about clearing out analysts who might resist Trump's election claims. The ODNI says it is providing "elite, apolitical intelligence that keeps America safe."
Not only is the city of Alexandria, Virginia, apparently not celebrating America’s 250th anniversary on the Fourth of July, but the DC suburb is also encouraging residents […]
The Trump administration is asking a federal judge to quickly lift her recent ruling against major provisions of a presidential executive order on elections, arguing in an appeal that the court’s action will effectively prevent the government from putting new voting restrictions in place before the November election.This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani halted President Donald Trump’s efforts to create centralized lists of adult citizens and give the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented authority over who can vote by mail. Her 37-page ruling concluded that the president did not have the constitutional authority to regulate state elections, as his March executive order tried to do.The executive order directed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to create a nationwide list of verified U.S. citizens over 18, and thus presumably eligible to vote in federal elections. It also called on the U.S. Postal Service to create a system to handle and accept mail-in ballots only from voters on preapproved lists.Talwani’s order prevents the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) whose attorneys general and governors brought the lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts. The list includes most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.This week, the Trump administration appealed Talwani’s ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and said it is still proceeding with its efforts to set up the new system for the rest of the states. But it warned that the judge’s order will make it impossible for the U.S. Postal Service to create a bifurcated system for the November election, even if the administration ultimately prevails on appeal. Government attorneys asked Talwani to lift her ban by Monday.The request for a quick decision suggests that the Trump administration may be trying to speed things up so the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible.“Operationally, it would not be possible for us to put a two-tiered system in place where one set of rules apply to the ballot mail of the Plaintiff States, and another applies to the remaining states,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer and executive vice president, said in a court filing. “Doing so would cause operational confusion and significantly increase the complexity and efficiency of implementing any final rule.”But the Trump administration’s nationwide efforts to use the Postal Service to regulate who gets ballots also hit a separate legal roadblock this week when another federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the executive order violates a years-old agreement requiring the federal government to ensure voters who request mail-in ballots get them in time to ensure they can be counted.U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan concluded that the Trump administration’s plans to send ballots only to voters on preapproved lists breached a 2021 agreement between the Postal Service and the NAACP meant to ensure that the agency prioritized ballot delivery. In contrast to Talwani’s ruling, Sullivan’s decision applies nationwide.“These proposed rules directly undermine commitments that the Postal Service made to ensure mail-in ballots are delivered and counted,” said Anthony Ashton, senior associate general counsel for the NAACP, in a statement.The U.S. Postal Service and Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org. Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.
In just the past two weeks, four insurgent left-wing candidates - including three socialists - have won Democratic congressional primaries. The latest victor, 29-year-old Melat Kiros, defeated 15-term incumbent Diana DeGette Tuesday night.
Lena Dunham and Jack Antonoff are risking an awkward run-in as they’re both attending Taylor Swift’s star-studded wedding festivities. The exes, who dated from 2012 to 2017, were both spotted arriving to Madison Square Garden Thursday evening for the pop star’s rehearsal dinner ahead of her wedding to Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce....
Former Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, gives a speech outlining the mechanics of the Deep State and how they people within it operate. At around 3:30 of the presentation, Gabbard gives a specific example of the attitude of the employees on assignment to the ODNI. Obviously, I am not certain, but Tulsi seems to […]
The post Former DNI Tulsi Gabbard Outlines the Mechanics of the Deep State appeared first on The Last Refuge.
Ever since a jury found President Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023, the Republican has vowed vengeance against the woman the court declared he forced himself upon in 1996. The Supreme Court has rejected Trump’s attempt to get the $5 million he owes Carroll overturned, and Carroll is now demanding that Trump pay her without further delay.In a new twist, a conservative legal group is attempting to punish the lawyer who successfully defended Carroll.“[National Legal and Policy Center] today filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) of the New York State Supreme Court against Roberta Ann Kaplan for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding the outside funding of E. Jean Carroll’s two defamation lawsuits against President Trump,” the NLPC announced on Thursday. “The lawsuits were funded by left-wing billionaire Reid Hoffman through a nonprofit called American Future Republic.”In their complaint, the NLPC claims that Carroll knowingly provided false information when she was asked during a deposition if her legal fees were bankrolled by outside sources. She said she did not, although she later said she made a mistake and her lawyers corrected the mistake as soon as possible. The NLPC also accused Kaplan of a having a “contingency fee she charged Carroll plus the legal fees she was getting from Hoffman” as being “‘excessive fees’ and thus violated New York ethics rules.”The NLPC described Hoffman as having “a near-pathological obsession with Trump and had a close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.” It omitted to mention that Trump was close friends with Epstein, a child sex trafficker, for decades and was accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in an encounter that Epstein facilitated. He is confirmed to have partied with Epstein privately, while young women were present, on several occasions.“As the complaint noted, it’s not clear Ms. Kaplan informed her client of Hoffman’s association with a sexual convict and his efforts to rehabilitate Epstein’s reputation to get Carroll’s informed consent to use Hoffman’s group to fund her lawsuits,” the NLPC added.Ironically, Trump himself has been accused of committing perjury during the case."That was his defense to sexual abuse. She's not my type," legal expert Adam Klasfeld explained in May. "And in this deposition, he was shown a picture that he was not aware included E. Jean Carroll, pointed to that picture, and confused her with Marla Maples. So clearly, she was his type. He confused her with his second wife."Another legal expert, Katie Phang, pointed out that it’s revealing that Trump and his supporters are not accusing Carroll of perjury regarding the substance of her claim — namely, that Trump sexually forced himself on her in a dressing room in 1996."But here's the thing: you notice how they're not going after her about the substantive testimony she provided about the sexual assault that she was victimized by Trump, right?" Phang observed. "They're not going after that. They're not going after the underlying facts of what she has alleged happened to her at the hands of Donald Trump. That is the tell."
