news digital
Disgraced Biden-nominated US attorney spent ‘lavishly’ on fancy meals on taxpayer’s dime, investigation finds
Rachael Rollins, the former Biden-nominated US Attorney of Massachusetts who resigned in disgrace over ethics violations may have also violated guidelines on spending with a taxpayer-funded credit card as district attorney, a new investigative claims.
Last year, Rollins stepped down from her US Attorney post after a lengthy DOJ ethics probe into her appearance at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser featuring first lady Jill Biden. Before being nominated to the role by President Biden, Rollins was district attorney for Suffolk County, which includes Boston, from 2019 to 2022.
In a new report, The Boston Herald used public records requests to look into the former top Democratic official’s spending on her taxpayer-funded credit card while she was DA for the Boston-area.
Their investigation found she spent “lavishly” on meals at “fancy restaurants” on the government-issued card during her tenure in “what appears to be a blatant violation of state guidelines.”
BLISTERING DOJ WATCHDOG REPORT REVEALS WHY BIDEN-NOMINATED US ATTORNEY ROLLINS IS RESIGNING
Massachusetts US Attorney Rachael Rollins resigned last year after a lengthy DOJ Ethics probe. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
“In one week in June of 2021, she spent $115.23 at the Atlantic Fish Company in the Back Bay, $156.54 at Davio’s in the North End, and $195.82 at the Salty Dog in Faneuil Hall, where oysters were ‘shucked to order,'” the Herald reported.
Credit card receipts also allegedly show Rollins spent $128.79 at Sonsie on Newbury Street, and $93.58 at the Barcelona Wine Bar on Tremont Street.
Later that year, Rollins also reportedly used the taxpayer credit card to fund a trip to New York City. There she spent over $200 dining at the Merchants River House, which overlooks the Statue of Liberty. Her trip also included spending over $400 between a hotel bill and Uber rides, the report stated.
During
GOP AGs put a major US bank on notice for alleged ‘de-banking’ of conservatives
Over a dozen Republican attorneys general are warning a major US bank allegedly against practices of “de-banking” certain customers because of their religious or political views.
In a letter obtained exclusively by Fox News Digital, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, along with 14 of his Republican colleagues told Bank of America CEO Brian T. Moynihan that the company “appears to be conditioning access to its services on customers having the bank’s preferred religious or political views.”
“Your discriminatory behavior is a serious threat to free speech and religious freedom, is potentially illegal, and is causing political and regulatory backlash,” the letter sent Monday stated. “Your banking needs to be transparent with and assure us, its shareholders, and others that it will not continue to de-bank customers for their speech or religious exercise,” the AGs wrote.
Media relations representative, Bill Halldin, denied the claim in a statement saying, “Religious beliefs are not a factor in any account-closing decision.”
CHRISTIAN NONPROFIT CLAIMS IT WAS ‘DEBANKED’ BY BANK OF AMERICA OVER ITS RELIGIOUS VIEWS
“We are proud to provide banking services to non-profit organizations affiliated with diverse faith communities throughout the United States,” a Bank of America representative told Fox News Digital. (AP2013)
“We are proud to provide banking services to non-profit organizations affiliated with diverse faith communities throughout the United States,” he said.
The AGs claim that Bank of America has previously denied services to gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers, fossil-fuel producers, contractors for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and private prisons and related services.
NIGEL FARAGE ON HIS EFFORTS TO EXPOSE ‘DE-BANKING’
The letter cites recent news reports that the bank cooperated with the FBI and US Treasury to profile conservative and religious Americans as potential domestic terrorists.
“Bank of America’s practice of canceling the bank accounts of conservatives
Graham: US attorney in charge of Hunter probe was briefed on FBI form detailing Joe Biden’s bribery accusations
The US Attorney who led the federal investigation into Hunter Biden was “briefed” on the key FBI form that contained allegations that then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national were involved in a criminal bribery scheme that involved influence over US policy decisions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed Wednesday.
Mon. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent letters to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Trump-appointed Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, who led the federal investigation into Hunter Biden demanding answers amid allegations of whistleblowers suggesting the probe was slow-walked and influenced by politics.
GRASSLEY, GRAHAM DEMAND FBI TURN OVER KEY DOCUMENT LINKED TO BIDEN ALLEGATIONS
Graham wrote to Garland and Weiss separately, seeking information on the alleged politicization that influenced decisions throughout the Hunter Biden probe.
Mon. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., speaks during a press conference at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2022. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The document in question is an FBI-generated FD-1023 form. The form, dated June 30, 2020, reflects the FBI’s interview with a “highly credible” confidential source who detailed multiple meetings and conversations he or she had with a top executive of Burisma Holdings over the course of several years, starting in 2015. Hunter Biden sat on the board of Burisma.
In the letter to Weiss, Graham said that he has “been informed that you and your office were briefed on allegations in an FD-1023 form suggesting there may have been phone calls recorded between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden with a senior official at Burisma Holdings , a Ukrainian energy company.”
President Biden has snapped at reporters who have asked him about alleged corruption involving him and his son, Hunter Biden. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
“The FD-1023 in question alleges that the
US Marshals were told not to arrest protesters at Supreme Court justices’ homes ‘unless absolutely necessary’
The US Marshals Service, which was dispatched to protect the homes of Supreme Court justices last year, was advised to refrain from arresting protesters “unless absolutely necessary,” according to training documents obtained by the office of Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala.
“Avoid, unless absolutely necessary, criminal enforcement actions involving the protest or protesters, particularly in public space,” one portion of the training said.
A whistleblower “concerned about the attorney general‘s misleading testimony before the Judiciary Committee” provided Britt’s office with the documents, according to a spokesperson who spoke to Politico.
ARMED SUSPECT ARRESTED NEAR JUSTICE KAVANAUGH HOME IDENTIFIED
Crowds outside the Supreme Court reacted to the Dobbs ruling. (Joshua Comins/Fox News)
Attorney General Merrick Garland assigned the US Marshals Service to the homes of Supreme Court justices last summer following protests in the wake of the leak of the decision in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Conservatives have argued that the protests that broke out after the leak violated federal law prohibiting protests outside a judge’s home that intend to influence a verdict. Garland had earlier claimed that US Marshals “have full authority to arrest people under any federal statute, including that federal statute.”
US MARSHALS SERVICE ATTACKED BY RANSOMWARE TARGETING SENSITIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION
Police officers watch as pro-choice advocates demonstrating outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Chevy Chase, Maryland, on May 18, 2022. (Bonnie Cash/Getty Images)
According to the training materials, Department of Justice lawyers seem to have concluded that applying the statute to peaceful protests directed at the justices could potentially violate the First Amendment.
“The ‘intent of influencing any judge’ language thus logically goes to threats and intimidation, not 1st [Amendment] protected protest activities,” according to the training materials, which noted that arrests should be
Todd, Julie Chrisley’s attorney says sentencing was a ‘difficult day,’ shares plans to appeal: ‘Optimistic’
Todd and Julie Chrisley’s attorney is speaking out after the couple were sentenced to a combined 19 years in prison in their federal tax evasion case.
The couple’s attorney, Alex Little of Burr & Forman LLP, said the couple’s “trial was married by serious and repeated errors,” and based on these issues, they are remaining “optimistic” as they appeal the convictions.
“Yesterday was a difficult day for the Chrisley family. But Todd and Julie are people of faith, and that faith gives them strength as they appeal to their convictions,” Little told Fox News Digital. “Their trial was marred by serious and repeated errors, including the government lying to judges about what taxes the couple paid. Based on these issues, we are optimistic about the road ahead.”
In June, a rep for the couple told People magazine that they were “disappointed in the verdict” and said, “An appeal is planned.”
The Chrisleys were first indicted on tax evasion charges in August 2019 and denied the allegations. They were found guilty on all charges earlier this year, and during a Monday hearing, Todd was sentenced to 12 years while Julie received seven years. They were also each given 16 months of probation.
TODD, JULIE CHRISLEY’S ‘CHRISLEY KNOWS BEST’ SHOW WILL AIR FINAL EPISODES NEXT YEAR AFTER PRISON SENTENCING
Members of the Chrisley family: Todd Chrisley, Julie Chrisley, Chase Chrisley, Grayson Chrisley, Chloe Chrisley, Savannah Chrisley and Faye Chrisley.
(Dennis Leupold via Getty Images)
Todd’s son, Kyle Chrisley, took to his Instagram Story on Tuesday to share a message following the news: “Don’t judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judges, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you,” he wrote, quoting the Bible.
“Why do you
Shannon Brandt’s bond ‘woefully inadequate’ for alleged killing of teen: former assistant US attorney
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A former assistant United States attorney says that Shannon Brandt’s bond is “very low” and “woefully inadequate” for his alleged killing of 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson with an SUV.
Brandt, 41, used an SUV to hit Ellingson during the early morning hours of Sept. 18 and told a 911 operator that he hit the teenager because he was part of a “Republican extremist group” and was adding that he had a “political argument” with Ellingson, court documents show. Brandt also alleged that Ellingson was calling others to come “get him,” according to the documents.
Ellingson was severely injured and was taken to a local hospital, but later died.
Brandt was charged with criminal vehicular homicide, as well as leaving the scene of a crash involving a death after the incident. He was released from jail on Sept. 20 after posting a $50,000 bond, and wasn’t placed under house arrest or given a curfew.
CAYLER ELLINGSON’S ALLEGED KILLER NOT UNDER HOUSE ARREST, NO CURFEW AFTER POSTING ‘VERY LOW’ BOND: COURT DOCS
North Dakota man who ran down ‘Republican’ teen says he doesn’t want his own life, job jeopardized
(Foster County Sheriff, Facebook)
North Dakota Highway Patrol Captain Bryan Niewind told Fox News Digital that there is “no evidence” suggesting that Ellingson was part of a “Republican extremist group” or that the incident involved politics.
Under the terms of the bail order, Brandt cannot leave North Dakota, cannot drink alcohol and must participate in a 24/7 sobriety program with constant testing.
Brandt also cannot possess “a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon,” and cannot go within 300 feet of the Ellingson family.
Former Assistant US Attorney Neama Rahman told Fox News Digital that the bond handed down to Brandt is
Border Patrol chief says memo clearing migrant release into US after Title 42 end is unprecedented
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
EXCLUSIVE: The head of the Border Patrol stated that an internal US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) guidance memo from May clearing border agents to release illegal migrants into the interior of the US — in anticipation of a surge at the border if Title 42 is officially terminated — is unprecedented in the 31 years he’s been with the agency.
Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz made the comments under oath during a recorded July 28 deposition, first obtained by Fox News Digital, as part of discovery in a lawsuit by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody against the Department of Homeland Security and other border agencies.
Ortiz is seen on video responding to a series of questions on “Exhibit 3,” an internal Border Patrol emergency memo that the chief signed on May 19, 2022, titled “Noncitizen releases from US Border Patrol Custody.” The emergency memo predicts that border agents would not be able to process and transport large numbers of illegal aliens who would cross the southern border into the US if the Title 42 public health order, which is currently stuck in limbo in court, is repealed.
“This guidance is for situations where US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)/Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) are unable to accept custody of noncitizens due to lack of bed space, such that noncitizens must be released directly from USBP custody to avoid overcrowding and excessive time in custody,” the May 19 memo states.
Counselors for the office of the Florida attorney general asked Ortiz to describe the memo, to which he replied: “It’s a memorandum that I signed on May 19th, 2022, and it discusses the non-citizen releases from our custody.”
BORDER PATROL CHIEF SAYS BORDER CRISIS A RESULT OF BIDEN’S ‘NO CONSEQUENCES’