DC, Maryland AGs subpoena Trump Org, Pentagon in lawsuit over DC hotel

The attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia filed subpoenas Tuesday seeking records from the Trump Organization and a dozen other entities linked to President Trump as part of a lawsuit accusing him of profiting from his presidency in violation of the Constitution. The subpoenas came one day after U.S. District Court Judge Peter J. … Continue reading “DC, Maryland AGs subpoena Trump Org, Pentagon in lawsuit over DC hotel”

The attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia filed subpoenas Tuesday seeking records from the Trump Organization and a dozen other entities linked to President Trump as part of a lawsuit accusing him of profiting from his presidency in violation of the Constitution.

The subpoenas came one day after U.S. District Court Judge Peter J. Messitte approved a brisk schedule for discovery in the case alleging that foreign and domestic government spending at Trump's Washington, D.C. hotel amounts to gifts to the president in violation of the emoluments clause. The Article I clause, also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, prohibits federal officeholders from receiving "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" without the consent of Congress.

The subpoenas target 37 entities, including the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, Department of the Treasury, Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture, all of which have spent taxpayer dollars at the hotel or have information on Trump's finances relevant to the case. The other Trump entities targeted include those related to the D.C. hotel and its management. The attorneys general also subpoenaed 18 entities that compete with the Trump Hotel in an apparent effort to determine how their business has been affected since Trump's election and inauguration.

The subpoenas focus on answering three questions: which foreign or domestic governments are paying the Trump International Hotel in Washington, where that money is going and how Trump's hotel is affecting the hospitality industry in the District of Columbia and Maryland.

To help answer those questions, the subpoenas are asking for records of payments to Trump from state government and federal agencies that patronized the hotel. They're also seeking information proving that hotel revenues are going to the president through his affiliated entities, including The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. Most of the records are being requested back to Jan. 1, 2015.

The Justice Department declined to comment. Neither the Trump Organization nor the White House immediately responded to a request for comment Tuesday.

Trump's Justice Department lawyers have previously argued that earnings from such business activity as hotel stays don't qualify as emoluments. And in court papers last week challenging the judge's decision to move the case forward, Justice lawyers objected to any discovery on a sitting president in order to avoid a "constitutional confrontation." They also argued that any discovery would "be a distraction to the President's performance of his constitutional duties."

Trump's Justice Department lawyers filed a notice to the court Friday indicating it plans to challenge the Maryland judge's decision to allow the case to move forward in a Richmond, Va. court. The president's notice that he may seek a writ of mandamus — to have the appeal heard by a higher court — is considered an "extraordinary remedy" that's hard to prove and partly rests on showing Messitte's decisions to be clearly wrong.

Because Trump was also the first president in modern history to not release his tax returns, any responsive records would likely provide the first clear picture of the finances of Trump's business empire as well as his Washington, D.C., hotel.

There is no indication yet that Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl A. Racine, both Democrats, would push for the president's tax returns, at least in this initial round of legal discovery, given the sensitive nature of such a request and likely additional delays it would cause. But tax returns for some of Trump's business entities, including the state and federal tax returns for the Trump Organization, are also being requested.

There is a separate federal lawsuit involving the General Services Administration, which oversees the lease for the hotel with the Trump Organization. Democratic lawmakers last year sued demanding disclosures of records to determine how Trump was approved by the General Services Administration to maintain the lease of the Trump International Hotel in Washington after he became president.

The hotel is housed in the historic Old Post Office, which is owned by the federal government, and its lease has a clause barring any "elected official of the government of the United States" from deriving "any benefit." Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, a senior White House adviser, both retained their stakes in the property.

The plaintiffs' prior preservation subpoena filing requested documents that concern "marketing to foreign or domestic governments, including members of the diplomatic community" for 23 Trump-linked entities, be saved. Other noted categories for preservation include documents that would identify guests of the hotel and those who have rented event space, details on all finances and "operating leases, permits, licenses, tax payments or credits to or from foreign or domestic governments."

The state of Maine is also targeted for a subpoena, likely because its governor, Republican Paul LePage, stayed at Trump's hotel in Washington when he had official business to conduct, including discussions with the president. Representatives for LePage's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

On one of those trips last year, Trump and LePage appeared together at a news conference at which Trump signed an executive order to review orders of the prior administration that established national monuments within the National Park Service. President Barack Obama had established a park and national monument in Maine over LePage's objections in 2016.

If there are no delays, legal discovery would conclude in early August.

Fox News’ John Roberts The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Laura Ingraham: Four reasons why we need a strong, smart, permanent attorney general. Now

Justice delayed, justice denied. That's the focus of Tuesday's Angle.

Remember when President Trump said this about Attorney General Jeff Sessions? “By putting [an] attorney general that never took control of the Justice Department — Jeff Sessions — never took control of the Justice Department and it's sort of an incredible thing. I'm disappointed in the attorney general for many reasons and you understand that.”

Well, it happens in relationships. The president and Jeff Sessions started off strong. They were tight. But then they basically ended up hating each other.

Well, it's been three weeks since Trump canned Sessions and we haven't heard much about him filling the critical position of the attorney general since then.

Here’s what he said recently on the subject:

“Well, I have some very, very good people, but I think there's no rush. You know, it has to go through a Senate process which takes a long time, but we'll pick somebody that's great. We're going to pick somebody that's very good.”

Well, the fact that we still have no A.G. nominee has Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley up in arms. He said, "I think it would be wise for the president to get somebody appointed like yesterday. How long does it take for to you make up your mind for who you want to be the attorney general?"

Grassley makes a good point here. This is no time for the administration or the United States to be without an attorney general.

We need a permanent, top law enforcement officer in place particularly at a time when our border is under assault.

Now, for its own part, Democrats and their media sponsors have had a field day since the president selected former Sessions’ chief of staff Matthew Whitaker to be acting attorney general.

Lawsuits have been filed by Senate Democrats Blumenthal and Hirono to remove Whitaker. They’re claiming the president’s pick is unconstitutional since Whitaker hasn't been confirmed by the Senate. Here’s how Blumenthal put it:

“He very simply cannot install a person like Matt Whitaker who is his lackey and lapdog when the office really requires qualification. And Matt Whitaker lacks the key qualification which is approval by the Senate.”

The state of Maryland has also filed an absurd lawsuit to block Whitaker for his involvement in an existing ObamaCare lawsuit that they say would protect people with pre-existing health conditions. My friends, this is all an unnecessary distraction.

Trump's DOJ should be devoting its manpower and resources to defending his policies against the relentless attacks by groups such as the ACLU.

There is no point in fighting unnecessary battles launched by vicious opponents nor by delaying the nomination of a new A.G. Does the president need the appearance of seeming to be worried about the pending Mueller report?

Now, notwithstanding the bad blood between the president and Jeff Sessions after his recusal in that Russia probe, Sessions was tough and he was in sync with Trump on border enforcement. And now more than ever, we need a strong, smart, well-respected A.G. — who is liked by the president — to immediately do the following:

1. Lead the fight against the nationwide injunctions enacted by activist district court judges and issues from illegal immigration to health care — these injunctions issued by these activists on the bench are thwarting the rule of law, the will of the American people and the president.

2. The new A.G. needs to launch an investigation of open borders groups such Pueblo Sin Fronteras that have organized and choreographed this migrant crisis at the border. These organizations are criminal conspirators. They are masquerading though as non-profits helping the migrants.

Right now, there are laws on the books that a smart leader at DOJ could utilize to stop this caravan madness. What are these laws? One, there is Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any person who knowingly brings or just attempts to bring an alien into the United States illegally has ommitted a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Moreover, anyone who encourages or induces an alien to come, to enter or reside in the United States legally can be jailed up to five years. And someone who aids or abets people committing either of the above acts can also be jailed for five years.

And by the way, it gets better, 18 USC section 1324 even invokes the possibility of the death penalty for those whose actions result in the death of any person while violating the governing immigration laws. Jeff Sessions dropped the ball on this issue. A new A.G. must not.

3. Before Pelosi takes the gavel and a deluge of Democrat-led Congressional investigations hit the Trump White House, a whip-smart, strong, experienced A.G. is needed to coordinate legal strategy and defend the president's policies and decisions. That means he or she needs to coordinate with the White House. This requires that he or she be confident and competent enough to appear on fair media outlets to advance the White House's position.  We need to see the attorney general.

4. We need a new A.G. to help restore public trust in the Department of Justice and the FBI.  After the reputational harm that Comey, McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and a gaggle of others have caused, it's time for the president to turn the page and nominate someone with experience and credibility to head the DOJ.

Weeks ago, I suggested former New Jersey governor Chris Christie as a possible A.G. pick. He would be fantastic and so would Andy McCarthy.

Adapted from Laura Ingraham’s monologue on “The Ingraham Angle” on November 27, 2018.

Laura Ingraham is the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Ingraham Angle (weeknights 10PM/ET). She joined the network in 2007 as a contributor.

DOJ asks Supreme Court to take up case of military transgender ban

The Supreme Court on Friday got a request from the Department of Justice, asking that it quickly hear cases regarding President Trump’s ban on certain transgender individuals joining the military.

The DOJ asked the nation’s highest court to take up three cases on the matter, The Associated Press reported – an unusual mov,e as the Supreme Court doesn’t normally hear cases ahead of federal appeals courts’ decisions on them.

Lower courts have stood in the way of Trump officials' ability to carry out the policy.

“Absent an immediate grant of certiorari, there is thus little chance of a prompt resolution of the validity of [Defense] Secretary Mattis’ proposed policy. And so long as this or any other injunction remains in place, the military will be forced nationwide to maintain the [former Defense Secretary Ash] Carter policy — a policy that the military has concluded poses a threat to ‘readiness, good order and discipline, sound leadership and unit cohesion,’ which ‘are essential to military effectiveness and lethality.’”

PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUES ORDER TO BAN TRANSGENDER TROOPS FROM SERVICE EXCEPT IN ‘LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES’

Trump moves to ban most transgender troops from serving

The White House issues new policies banning most transgender Americans from servicing in the U.S. military; Leland Vittert reports.

In March, the president officially authorized the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from enlisting in the military, with limited exceptions.

"Among other things, the policies set forth by the Secretary of Defense state that transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria — individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery — are disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances," a memo released by the White House earlier this year said.

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., had been scheduled to hear the issue next month.

COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS IN TRANSGENDER MILITARY SERVICE BAN

And arguments for one of the cases were presented in October to a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, although no ruling has been made yet.

That court, as of late, has drawn ire from Trump after Judge Jon S. Tigar issued a temporary restraining order late Monday against the president’s plan to refuse asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally if they do not arrive at a port of entry.

The DOJ previously said that if that court does not issue a ruling by Friday, it would make its “cert before judgment” request with the Supreme Court.

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Andrew O’Reilly and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Eager to slam Trump, Schumer contradicts himself in support of Chief Justice Roberts, critics say

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was quickly mocked Friday after praising Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court for rebuking President Trump’s recent “Obama judges” comment — while at the same time slamming Roberts’ “partisan decisions.”

“I don’t agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political on Citizens United, Janus, and Shelby,” the Democrat wrote in a Twitter message. “But I am thankful today that he — almost alone among Republicans — stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., drew swift criticism for seeming to praise and criticize Chief Justice John Roberts. (Reuters)

Critics on social media and elsewhere pointed out that in issuing a two-sided response to the Trump-Roberts exchange, Schumer was effectively agreeing with the president, who had criticized the courts for partisanship.

Some wondered whether Schumer had even recognized the mistake.

“I wonder if Chuck realizes how he's contradicting himself and proving Trump's point in this statement? I doubt it,” Twitter user Derek Hunter. wrote.

TRUMP SLAMS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, INSISTS THERE ARE ‘OBAMA JUDGES’

“So Schumer rips the Judiciary as being partisan in the same tweet that he praises Roberts for responding to Trump for criticizing the judiciary as being partisan… Stunning!” another user on social media commented.

Ross Douthat of the New York Times went on to lampoon the Democrat.

“Shorter Chuck Schumer: Trump is totally right about the courts, except when Republican appointees criticize him; then the judiciary is Independent and Good,” the conservative columnist wrote.

Schumer’s backhanded compliment came amid a war of words between Trump and Roberts, with the president criticizing the so-called “judicial activism” of federal judges who halt decisions made by the executive branch, a common occurrence under the Trump administration.

The criticism was prompted after U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order late Monday against Trump's plan to refuse asylum to immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally if they do not arrive at a port of entry.

“You go to Ninth Circuit and it's a disgrace, and I'm going to put in a major complaint. Because you cannot win, if you're us, a case in the Ninth Circuit,” Trump said. “Every case gets filed in the Ninth Circuit. … We get beaten, and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court — like the travel ban and we won. We're gonna have to look at that.”

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

— Chief Justice Roberts

In response, Roberts issued a rare criticism of the president.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a Wednesday statement provided to Fox News. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

Roberts added: “That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

But the statement from the chief justice only prompted Trump to double-down on his criticism of the judiciary, saying the courts aren’t as independent as Roberts makes them out to be.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump tweeted.

“It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is why are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned,” Trump continued. “Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security – these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.

Ex-Pennsylvania AG loses appeal of perjury conviction, faces jail time

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Pennsylvania’s former top state prosecutor is likely to soon find herself behind bars, more than two years after being convicted and sentenced for leaking grand jury information and lying about it.

The state Supreme Court announced Monday it will not review former state Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s conviction, and the Montgomery County district attorney’s office said it will ask a judge Tuesday morning to revoke her bail.

The justices will not reconsider Kane’s claims she was not properly convicted of two counts of felony perjury and seven misdemeanor charges, including obstruction and conspiracy.

Kane, 52, a Democrat, has been out on $75,000 bail since her October 2016 sentencing to 10 to 23 months in jail.

A spokeswoman for the prosecutors’ office in suburban Philadelphia said the defense and prosecution could agree on when she should report to the county lockup, or the judge could set a date or order her to report immediately.

Kane’s defense lawyer, Joshua Lock, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

A three-judge Superior Court panel previously upheld her conviction, ruling in part that her defense was not entitled to use evidence of a pornographic email scandal or the Jerry Sandusky child molestation case that her former office prosecuted.

While running for the office, Kane was critical of how the office handled the Sandusky investigation at Penn State, creating resentment among some of the lawyers who had worked on it. After secret grand jury information about another investigation was leaked to a newspaper, two of the attorney general’s office’s former prosecutors alerted a Montgomery County judge, and he appointed the special prosecutor who investigated Kane.

Superior Court had said Kane cited baseless reasons in asking to use evidence of the pornographic emails, a scandal that rocked the state’s judicial community and the attorney general’s office in particular and led to the resignation of two Supreme Court justices.

The lawyers who contacted the judge about grand jury leaks, former state prosecutors Frank Fina and Marc Costanzo, were also implicated in the pornographic email scandal and played key roles in Sandusky’s prosecution.

Superior Court said earlier this year the trial judge was correct to decide “the probative value of evidence of pornographic materials discovered in Attorney Fina’s and Attorney Costanzo’s OAG email accounts was speculative and inadmissible” and that evidence of the Sandusky investigation was irrelevant.

Superior Court also ruled against her claims that all Montgomery County judges should have been prevented from handling her case, that evidence against her was illegally obtained and that she was the victim of selective and vindictive prosecution.

Kane was the first woman and first Democrat elected as the state attorney general. She resigned in 2016 after her conviction.

Gutfeld on Chuck Schumer’s idiotic tweet

It’s fun watching Trump-haters do his work for him.

Take Chuck Schumer, suddenly the president’s mouthpiece!

Remember when Supreme Court Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump for saying there were "Obama judges?"

Trump fired back, basically saying – oh come on, John, everybody knows we have judges with political leanings.

That’s when Chuck stepped in.

As the media drooled over Roberts – Chuck angled for some spotlight with this tweet: "I don't agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions … But I am thankful today that he – almost alone among Republicans – stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary."

So in one breath, Chuck made Trump’s point, perfectly!  A chief justice makes "partisan decisions!"

Then notes Roberts' political party – revealing he labels judges, too.

Now, that’s not just comical – it’s progress!

It used to take days between people mocking Trump over what he says, to then admitting he was right.

Now it’s collapsed into mere seconds.

Or, as dummy-Chuck says, "Trump’s wrong, and here's why I agree with him!"

Which reveals something key:  it’s not that Trump’s critics have a problem with the truth. They have a problem with Trump saying it.

Which is why in his own criticism of Trump’s truth, Schumer accidentally, for once, spoke it too!

Maybe he didn't mean to.

But when the only thing left to say is what Trump's been saying, you have no choice.

So, well done Chuck! It's like you sat in Trump's lap while he moved your mouth.

Greg Gutfeld currently serves as host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Greg Gutfeld Show (Saturdays 10-11PM/ET) and co-host of The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET). He joined the network in 2007 as a contributor. Click here for more information on Greg Gutfeld.

DOJ asks Supreme Court to take up case of military transgender ban

The Supreme Court on Friday got a request from the Department of Justice, asking that it quickly hear cases regarding President Trump’s ban on certain transgender individuals joining the military.

The DOJ asked the nation’s highest court to take up three cases on the matter, The Associated Press reported – an unusual mov,e as the Supreme Court doesn’t normally hear cases ahead of federal appeals courts’ decisions on them.

Lower courts have stood in the way of Trump officials' ability to carry out the policy.

“Absent an immediate grant of certiorari, there is thus little chance of a prompt resolution of the validity of [Defense] Secretary Mattis’ proposed policy. And so long as this or any other injunction remains in place, the military will be forced nationwide to maintain the [former Defense Secretary Ash] Carter policy — a policy that the military has concluded poses a threat to ‘readiness, good order and discipline, sound leadership and unit cohesion,’ which ‘are essential to military effectiveness and lethality.’”

PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUES ORDER TO BAN TRANSGENDER TROOPS FROM SERVICE EXCEPT IN ‘LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES’

Trump moves to ban most transgender troops from serving

The White House issues new policies banning most transgender Americans from servicing in the U.S. military; Leland Vittert reports.

In March, the president officially authorized the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from enlisting in the military, with limited exceptions.

"Among other things, the policies set forth by the Secretary of Defense state that transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria — individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery — are disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances," a memo released by the White House earlier this year said.

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., had been scheduled to hear the issue next month.

COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS IN TRANSGENDER MILITARY SERVICE BAN

And arguments for one of the cases were presented in October to a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, although no ruling has been made yet.

That court, as of late, has drawn ire from Trump after Judge Jon S. Tigar issued a temporary restraining order late Monday against the president’s plan to refuse asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally if they do not arrive at a port of entry.

The DOJ previously said that if that court does not issue a ruling by Friday, it would make its “cert before judgment” request with the Supreme Court.

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Andrew O’Reilly and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Eager to slam Trump, Schumer contradicts himself in support of Chief Justice Roberts, critics say

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was quickly mocked Friday after praising Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court for rebuking President Trump’s recent “Obama judges” comment — while at the same time slamming Roberts’ “partisan decisions.”

“I don’t agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political on Citizens United, Janus, and Shelby,” the Democrat wrote in a Twitter message. “But I am thankful today that he — almost alone among Republicans — stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., drew swift criticism for seeming to praise and criticize Chief Justice John Roberts. (Reuters)

Critics on social media and elsewhere pointed out that in issuing a two-sided response to the Trump-Roberts exchange, Schumer was effectively agreeing with the president, who had criticized the courts for partisanship.

Some wondered whether Schumer had even recognized the mistake.

“I wonder if Chuck realizes how he's contradicting himself and proving Trump's point in this statement? I doubt it,” Twitter user Derek Hunter. wrote.

TRUMP SLAMS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, INSISTS THERE ARE ‘OBAMA JUDGES’

“So Schumer rips the Judiciary as being partisan in the same tweet that he praises Roberts for responding to Trump for criticizing the judiciary as being partisan… Stunning!” another user on social media commented.

Ross Douthat of the New York Times went on to lampoon the Democrat.

“Shorter Chuck Schumer: Trump is totally right about the courts, except when Republican appointees criticize him; then the judiciary is Independent and Good,” the conservative columnist wrote.

Schumer’s backhanded compliment came amid a war of words between Trump and Roberts, with the president criticizing the so-called “judicial activism” of federal judges who halt decisions made by the executive branch, a common occurrence under the Trump administration.

The criticism was prompted after U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order late Monday against Trump's plan to refuse asylum to immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally if they do not arrive at a port of entry.

“You go to Ninth Circuit and it's a disgrace, and I'm going to put in a major complaint. Because you cannot win, if you're us, a case in the Ninth Circuit,” Trump said. “Every case gets filed in the Ninth Circuit. … We get beaten, and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court — like the travel ban and we won. We're gonna have to look at that.”

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

— Chief Justice Roberts

In response, Roberts issued a rare criticism of the president.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a Wednesday statement provided to Fox News. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

Roberts added: “That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

But the statement from the chief justice only prompted Trump to double-down on his criticism of the judiciary, saying the courts aren’t as independent as Roberts makes them out to be.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump tweeted.

“It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is why are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned,” Trump continued. “Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security – these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.

Ex-Pennsylvania AG loses appeal of perjury conviction, faces jail time

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Pennsylvania’s former top state prosecutor is likely to soon find herself behind bars, more than two years after being convicted and sentenced for leaking grand jury information and lying about it.

The state Supreme Court announced Monday it will not review former state Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s conviction, and the Montgomery County district attorney’s office said it will ask a judge Tuesday morning to revoke her bail.

The justices will not reconsider Kane’s claims she was not properly convicted of two counts of felony perjury and seven misdemeanor charges, including obstruction and conspiracy.

Kane, 52, a Democrat, has been out on $75,000 bail since her October 2016 sentencing to 10 to 23 months in jail.

A spokeswoman for the prosecutors’ office in suburban Philadelphia said the defense and prosecution could agree on when she should report to the county lockup, or the judge could set a date or order her to report immediately.

Kane’s defense lawyer, Joshua Lock, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

A three-judge Superior Court panel previously upheld her conviction, ruling in part that her defense was not entitled to use evidence of a pornographic email scandal or the Jerry Sandusky child molestation case that her former office prosecuted.

While running for the office, Kane was critical of how the office handled the Sandusky investigation at Penn State, creating resentment among some of the lawyers who had worked on it. After secret grand jury information about another investigation was leaked to a newspaper, two of the attorney general’s office’s former prosecutors alerted a Montgomery County judge, and he appointed the special prosecutor who investigated Kane.

Superior Court had said Kane cited baseless reasons in asking to use evidence of the pornographic emails, a scandal that rocked the state’s judicial community and the attorney general’s office in particular and led to the resignation of two Supreme Court justices.

The lawyers who contacted the judge about grand jury leaks, former state prosecutors Frank Fina and Marc Costanzo, were also implicated in the pornographic email scandal and played key roles in Sandusky’s prosecution.

Superior Court said earlier this year the trial judge was correct to decide “the probative value of evidence of pornographic materials discovered in Attorney Fina’s and Attorney Costanzo’s OAG email accounts was speculative and inadmissible” and that evidence of the Sandusky investigation was irrelevant.

Superior Court also ruled against her claims that all Montgomery County judges should have been prevented from handling her case, that evidence against her was illegally obtained and that she was the victim of selective and vindictive prosecution.

Kane was the first woman and first Democrat elected as the state attorney general. She resigned in 2016 after her conviction.

Gutfeld on Chuck Schumer’s idiotic tweet

It’s fun watching Trump-haters do his work for him.

Take Chuck Schumer, suddenly the president’s mouthpiece!

Remember when Supreme Court Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump for saying there were "Obama judges?"

Trump fired back, basically saying – oh come on, John, everybody knows we have judges with political leanings.

That’s when Chuck stepped in.

As the media drooled over Roberts – Chuck angled for some spotlight with this tweet: "I don't agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions … But I am thankful today that he – almost alone among Republicans – stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary."

So in one breath, Chuck made Trump’s point, perfectly!  A chief justice makes "partisan decisions!"

Then notes Roberts' political party – revealing he labels judges, too.

Now, that’s not just comical – it’s progress!

It used to take days between people mocking Trump over what he says, to then admitting he was right.

Now it’s collapsed into mere seconds.

Or, as dummy-Chuck says, "Trump’s wrong, and here's why I agree with him!"

Which reveals something key:  it’s not that Trump’s critics have a problem with the truth. They have a problem with Trump saying it.

Which is why in his own criticism of Trump’s truth, Schumer accidentally, for once, spoke it too!

Maybe he didn't mean to.

But when the only thing left to say is what Trump's been saying, you have no choice.

So, well done Chuck! It's like you sat in Trump's lap while he moved your mouth.

Greg Gutfeld currently serves as host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Greg Gutfeld Show (Saturdays 10-11PM/ET) and co-host of The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET). He joined the network in 2007 as a contributor. Click here for more information on Greg Gutfeld.