Democrats scored a major win Wednesday evening after a Manhattan judge ruled Republican New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis’ district is unconstitutional and must be redrawn ahead of November’s midterm elections. Democratic firm Elias Law Group, led by high-profile election lawyer Marc Elias, argued that Malliotakis’ district covering all of Staten Island and parts of southern […]

a stress test

First Amendment freedoms are sacrosanct—especially the right to gather together and worship God.  But over Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend, Minneapolis/St. Paul anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters and their supporters perversely invoked the First Amendment to justify desecrating a house of worship and interfering with others’ First Amendment rights. While congregants of Cities Church—a Southern Baptist congregation—conducted their weekly worship service, protesters poured into the sanctuary with the express purpose of disrupting and disbanding it because one of the church’s pastors also works for ICE.  The church’s primary pastor called the disruptive actions shameful. And they are. More than that, though, such actions are illegal under both state and federal law. Potential Minnesota State Law Violations While it’s doubtful that St. Paul’s district attorney or Minnesota’s attorney general will pursue state charges, they should. A quick look through Minnesota’s statutes shows that at least three could potentially be applied: Minnesota Statute § 609.28, Interfering with Religious Observance, makes it a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a $3,000 fine, if someone uses threats, violence, or physically obstructs or disrupts religious services. Minnesota Statute § 609.605, Criminal Trespass, makes it a misdemeanor punishable up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine if someone enters or remains on private property without consent. This offense can be escalated to a gross misdemeanor in certain circumstances. Finally, Minnesota Statute § 609.72, Disorderly Conduct, makes it a misdemeanor to disturb “an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character” or to engage in “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.”  All of these would seem to apply to this situation. But despite the straightforward nature of these charges, none have yet been brought by state or local officials. And sadly, no charges likely will be brought against the protestors. Potential Federal FACE Act Violation Instead, Minnesota’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, has been making the media rounds, suggesting that the disruptors—including disgraced former CNN host Don Lemon (who claims he was simply there as a journalist)—did not violate the federal FACE Act. For those unfamiliar, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was originally proposed to protect those entering abortion clinics.  But Congress also included and made it clear that whoever “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship” has violated the law. The same is true if someone “intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship.” The disruptors’ conduct certainly seems to meet this definition. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating.  Attorney General Pam Bondi has said that “any violations of federal law will be prosecuted” and that if “state leaders refuse to act responsibly to prevent lawlessness, this Department of Justice will remain mobilized to prosecute federal crimes and ensure that the rule of law prevails.” KKK Act Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, has made clear that the Justice Department is also investigating whether those involved violated the Ku Klux Klan Act. Congress originally passed this act in the wake of the Civil War to allow the federal government to make sure all Americans’ civil rights are enforced and respected. The overwhelming majority of Americans should agree that those who seek to worship God should not be intimidated or harassed while they do so.  And the First Amendment right to assemble and protest, or even a weaponized reading of the freedom of the press, does not provide protection for violating others’ First Amendment rights to freely worship. Those who disrupted the church service this past weekend must be held accountable and quickly prosecuted. The post Minneapolis ‘Protesters’ Must Be Prosecuted appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Wednesday’s CNN This Morning, the network attempted to downplay possible criminal charges against protestors involved in storming a Saint Paul, Minnesota church in the recent anti-ICE unrest. CNN guest Sarah Krissoff, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, minimized the threat of arrests while complaining about so-called political persecutions of Minnesota Democrats. Guest host Erica Hill introduced the segment with news of subpoenas being issued to Democratic Minnesota leaders, including Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and Attorney General Keith Ellison.      “I was speaking with another former federal prosecutor yesterday who said this is highly unusual. This is not the way the DOJ does business. You don't issue a subpoena if you're potentially investigating someone,” Hill said. Krissoff agreed and rambled through an answer worrying of a pending clash between state and federal officials: Yeah, I mean, if they want to be overt about it, they certainly can, you know, issue a subpoena to someone. The really sort of unprecedented issue here is the nature of this investigation. (…) It just really sets up this showdown between the federal and local and state officials here. Hill then asked Krissoff about possible criminal action taken against anti-ICE agitators, which included disgraced former CNN host Don Lemon, who stormed a Minnesota church during its Sunday service. Hill did mention how the church was a private space and how there was a right to religion in that place, but played dumb about alleged violations of the FACE Act: And when we look at potential charges, when it comes to the protesters who were at that church in Saint Paul on Sunday - you know, we're hearing from protesters right to free speech. This is a private space, though, and there is, of course, also right to, to, to religion in that space. How do you see that playing out? This is what's calling it, I believe it's called the FACE Act, which is a lot of, which is a lot of what we're hearing. What could those charges potentially be? In response to Hill’s mention of the FACE Act, which was used against pro-life protestors during the Biden Administration, Krissoff remained fully skeptical of charges being able to survive a jury trial.  Instead of talking about the actual merits of criminal charges, Krissoff complained about the DOJ using too much force. “Yeah, a lot of these sort of circumstances, in addition, sort of the circumstances regarding the church, they seem like, you know, there are threats of charges. There are, there is, you know - the DOJ is very clearly trying to bring the full force of itself down upon people,” Krissoff responded. The segment concluded with Krissoff decrying perceived political persecutions, again basically scoffing at the premise of Hill’s question about the FACE Act: “But at the end of the day, it is very hard to imagine these types of charges stick and that they go forward and - ultimately criminal charges in our country have to be decided by a jury, right? The DOJ doesn't get to decide whether someone is guilty or not.” No mention of criminal campaigns taken against Trump by the likes of New York Attorney General Letitia James or New York City District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who got elected running on the political persecution of Trump. CNN squeezed the mention of the Minnesota church incident in a segment dominated by outrage over Trump DOJ actions in Minnesota, spawned by the state’s rampant fraud crisis. Of course, it is not unexpected, but CNN and their guest decided to not give the trending story any credence.  The transcript is below. Expand to read: CNN This Morning January 21, 2026 6:30:00 a.m. Eastern ERICA HILL: The Justice Department, meantime, is hitting at least five Minnesota officials with subpoenas, including Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, as well as the state's attorney general, Keith Ellison, the Mayor of Saint Paul, and a local county attorney. It's all part of a federal investigation, we’re told, into alleged obstruction of immigration enforcement efforts. And it comes as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem warns of arrests coming in connection to anti-ICE protests at a Minnesota church in Saint Paul over the weekend. [Cuts to video] KRISTI NOEM (DHS Secretary): And that pastor really did a remarkable thing there, trying to protect his parishioners. [Transition] And there's going to be arrests in the next several hours. [Transition] There will be arrests tied to that, and people will be brought to justice for how they violated the law in that situation. [Cuts back to live] HILL: Joining me now to discuss is Sarah Kristof. She's a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. Sarah, it's good to have you with us. I want to start. If we could, on these subpoenas, which are reportedly being issued. We're talking about officials here. I was speaking with another former federal prosecutor yesterday who said this is highly unusual. This is not the way the DOJ does business. You don't issue a subpoena if you're potentially investigating someone. SARAH KRISSOFF: Yeah, I mean, if they want to be overt about it, they certainly can, you know, issue a subpoena to someone. The really sort of unprecedented issue here is the nature of this investigation. I mean, the - these officials have spoken out against ICE’s Operations. There's been a lawsuit filed that's pending in federal court in - in Minnesota. And so - to - in that context, to then issue a subpoena and say ‘oh, actually, there's a criminal investigation going on here by DOJ, we are now seeking documents from you in connection with that’. It just really sets up this showdown between the federal and local and state officials here. HILL: And that's something I think people are trying to wrap their head around. Part of what we heard from, uh, from Gregory Bovino yesterday is he was saying that some of the local leaders, in his words, and I'm quoting him here, “relied on heated rhetoric and allegations that distract from the facts.” Um, are words enough to lead to criminal charges? KRISSOFF: I mean, listen, the DOJ has very broad discretion to open an investigation, right? They open it on the slimmest of, of innuendo or belief. But to bring charges is an entirely different thing, which is what we've seen, frankly, in connection with these other politically motivated prosecutions of, of, of politicians that have been unsuccessful in other jurisdictions. So, I mean, I think it is, it is one thing to issue a subpoena and sort of, you know, try to make a show of force here. I think it will be an entirely different thing to try to proceed with some sort of charges or any type of charges, frankly.  [DISCUSSION ON CHURCH] HILL: And when we look at potential charges, when it comes to the protesters who were at that church in Saint Paul on Sunday - you know, we're hearing from protesters right to free speech. This is a private space, though, and there is, of course, also right to, to, to religion in that space. How do you see that playing out? This is what's calling it, I believe it's called the FACE Act, which is a lot of, which is a lot of what we're hearing. What could those charges potentially be? KRISSOFF: Yeah, a lot of these sort of circumstances, in addition, sort of the circumstances regarding the church, they seem like, you know, there are threats of charges. There are people are arrested. There are, there is, you know - the DOJ is very clearly trying to bring the full force of itself down upon people. But at the end of the day, it is very hard to imagine these types of charges stick and that they go forward and - ultimately criminal charges in our country have to be decided by a jury, right? The DOJ doesn't get to decide whether someone is guilty or not.” HILL: It is an excellent point. You talk about - but you talk about the government bringing the full force. We also have, of course, The Washington Post reporting DOJ is bringing in additional prosecutors to help when it comes to cases related to anti-ICE protests amid a staffing shortage. This comes on the heels of, I believe it was six prosecutors in Minnesota who resigned last week, although Pam Bondi then went on to say she was going to fire them. What does all this do in terms of pressure on prosecutors in this moment? KRISSOFF: It is very difficult to be a prosecutor in the Department of Justice at the moment. So there is a shortage of prosecutors across the DOJ, and there is also a shortage of career prosecutors, many folks who have been there for many years have that expertise and knowledge, how to bring these cases, how to proceed with them judiciously, have left the Department of Justice. There was a real flight from the Department of Justice. And so they are - the the DOJ is understaffed generally at the moment, and they are really scrambling to sort of do the work and then to be pulled in all of these different directions, right. To be told on Monday they're doing one thing and Tuesday they're doing another, and Wednesday they're investigating yet another, you know, political enemy really hinders the work that they are doing. It makes it very hard for them to do the work and, frankly, unlikely that any of these politically prosecuted, politically motivated prosecutions will go anywhere. HILL: Sara, really appreciate your insight on this. Thank you. KRISSOFF: Thank you.

Liberals are incredibly excited about a recent study that accuses American-born U.S. citizens of committing more crimes than illegal immigrants — but BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales thinks they’re getting a little ahead of themselves.“First of all, actually, 100% of them, if they’re here illegally, 100% of them are criminals already. But I digress,” Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”“This is a talking point that they keep putting out there intentionally,” she adds, before playing clips of several prominent liberals, like Sunny Hostin from “The View,” making this claim.In one clip, Hostin happily repeats the line, saying, “Undocumented immigrants are much less likely to have committed crimes than American citizens. American citizens commit more crimes than anyone who is undocumented.”As she finishes her sentence, the crowd erupts in applause.“Use your brains,” Gonzales scoffs.The study these liberals are citing is from Northwestern and reads, “Using incarceration rates as a proxy for crime, a team of economists analyzed 150 years of U.S. Census data and found immigrants were consistently less likely to be incarcerated than people born in the U.S. They also found beginning in 1960, the incarceration gap widened such that immigrants today are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than the U.S.-born.”“Let’s say it’s 1% of these people committing more crime than they already committed when they entered here illegally. Who cares if it’s 1%? It’s crime that we don’t need to have. But, like, when you start looking at their argument, it completely falls apart. We’re not under an obligation to take in any criminals,” Gonzales comments.“Just let them flood in en masse because a Northwestern study said that they commit less crime,” she mocks.“It’s so stupid,” she continues. “But this is the kind of thing that the mainstream media and all of these leftist hacks keep pushing. ‘Well, but like, only some of them are criminals.’”Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's Anti-Trump Rant at Davos Was Canceled at the Last Minute

Lunatic Texas Teacher Coaches Kids on Evading ICE: Demonizing Law Enforcement with Your Tax Dollars

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the State Department was to blame after his scheduled Wednesday talk with Fortune magazine at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was canceled at the last minute.

[View Article at Source]The Counter Momentum of Spin, with Dr. Franco Musio – The Maduro regime was indicted by the US Department of Justice in 2020 (and again recently) as a significant hub of illegal…