The Senate advanced the annual defense policy bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on Monday, teeing up final passage later in the week.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2026 is one of the must-pass legislative packages that Congress deals with on an annual basis, and it unlocked billions of dollars in funding for the Pentagon and several other defense-related items.

Lawmakers pushed the colossal authorization package through a key procedural hurdle on a 76-20 vote. Senators will get their chance to tweak the package with several amendment votes in the coming days.

The roughly $901 billion package, which is about $8 billion over what President Donald Trump requested earlier this year, typically acts as a bookend for Congress, capping off the year as one of the few must-pass items on the docket. And, given that there is no government funding deadline to contend with, the NDAA is getting primetime treatment in the Senate.

Still, there are myriad items that lawmakers hope to tackle before leaving until the new year, including a fix to expiring Obamacare subsidies, confirming nearly 100 of Trump’s nominees, and a potential five-bill funding package that, if passed, would go a long way toward warding off the specter of another government shutdown come Jan. 30.

Scattered throughout the colossal package’s roughly 3,000 pages are several provisions dealing with decades-old war authorities, strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, Ukraine, lifting sanctions, and Washington, D.C.’s, airspace.

This year’s NDAA would scrap the 1991 and 2002 authorizations of use of military force (AUMFs) for the Gulf War and Iraq War, respectively. Lawmakers have found rare bipartisan middle ground in their desire to nix the AUMFs, which have been used by previous administrations to engage in conflicts in the Middle East for decades.

Then there is a policy that includes several requirements to fulfill the Pentagon’s travel budget, one of which would force the agency to hand over all unedited footage from the Trump administration’s strikes against alleged drug boats.

It’s a pointed provision that underscores the bipartisan concern from Congress over the administration’s handling of the strikes, particularly in the wake of a double-tap strike on Sept. 2 that has seen several lawmakers demand more transparency and access to the footage.

There is also a provision that has stirred up controversy among Senate Republicans and Democrats alike that would roll back some safety standards in the Washington, D.C., airspace. It comes on the heels of the collision between a Black Hawk helicopter and passenger jet near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport earlier this year.

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chair Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the top ranking Democrat on the panel, are pushing to have the provision stripped with their own amendment, which would codify the safety tweaks made after the midair collision.

Cruz said alongside family members of the victims of the crash, which killed 67, that the provision didn’t go through the ordinary clearances.’ 

‘Normally, when you’re adding a provision to the NDAA that impacts aviation, you would request clearance from the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee,’ Cruz said. ‘No clearance was requested. We discovered this provision when the final version of the bill dropped out of the House and it was passed.’

There are also several provisions that deal with Ukraine, including an extension of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which would authorize $400 million each year to buy weapons from U.S. defense companies.

There’s a provision that would prevent the U.S. from quietly cutting off intelligence support to the country by requiring at least 48-hours notice detailing why, how long it would last and the impact on Ukraine.

There’s also a provision that would beef up reporting requirements for all foreign aid flowing to Ukraine from the U.S. and other allies supporting the country in its conflict with Russia.

The top congressional Republicans weighed in on the slayings of longtime Hollywood director Rob Reiner, 78, and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, 68, dubbing the incident a ‘tragedy.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., joined the wave of condolences flooding from the political world in the wake of the Reiners’ deaths, which police are currently investigating as a homicide. 

‘Well, that whole incident, episode, is a tragedy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to their family and their friends,’ Thune said. 

The Reiners were found in their Brentwood-area home in California on Sunday, where they reportedly had suffered multiple stab wounds. The couple were found by their daughter, according to People magazine. 

In the hours since, police arrested the Reiners’ son, Nick Reiner, 32, under suspicion of murder, according to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. He is being held without bail after it was previously set at $4 million. 

Johnson said, ‘The shocking news that apparently their son committed the murders is not only an unspeakable family tragedy, it’s another reminder of just the senseless violence and evil that is so rampant in our society.’

‘So our prayers go out to the Reiner family, the survivors, and everybody who’s affected by this,’ he told reporters.

Reiner was best known for his long, legendary list of films, including ‘The Princess Bride,’ ‘This Is Spinal Tap,’ ‘When Harry Met Sally…,’ and several others. He appeared in front of the camera for several projects, including as Michael ‘Meathead’ Stivic on the long-running sitcom, ‘All in the Family.’ 

Singer Reiner was a prolific photographer whose list of works included taking President Donald Trump’s photo for the cover of his book, ‘The Art of the Deal.’

The commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), whose area of operations includes the Caribbean waters where the strikes against the alleged drug boats have been conducted, retired Friday as scrutiny surrounding the attacks mounts. 

Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, who became the head of Southern Command in November 2024, announced suddenly in October that he would retire from the military as operations heated up in the region that the administration claims is part of President Donald Trump’s crusade against the influx of drugs into the U.S.  

The Trump administration designated drug cartel groups like Tren de Aragua, Sinaloa and others as foreign terrorist organizations in February, and bolstered its naval assets in the region in recent months under Holsey’s leadership — including signing off on the unprecedented step of sending the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to the region.

‘We have worked hard and tirelessly to build relationships and understand requirements across the region,’ Holsey said during the retirement ceremony, according to a news release. ‘To be a trusted partner, we must be credible, present and engaged.’

Holsey commissioned in 1988, and flew both SH-2F Seasprite and SH-60B Seahawk helicopters. Holsey’s previous assignments include serving as the deputy commander of Southern Command, as well as deputy chief of Naval personnel and the commander of the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson’s carrier strike group.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Evan Pettus also took over the reins from Holsey Friday, after previously serving as the command’s military deputy commander. His experience includes more than 2,700 hours as a pilot in the Air Force’s F-15E Strike Fighter jet and the A-10 ‘Warthog’ aircraft, has participated in combat missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Inherent Resolve, among others. 

Holsey’s retirement less than a year into his tenure leading the combatant command is highly unusual. In comparison, former SOUTHCOM commander, Army Gen. Laura Richardson, served in the role from 2021 to 2024.

Holsey did not give a reason for his departure in October, and didn’t share any additional details Friday. 

However, Holsey had raised ‘concerns’ about the strikes, attracting the ire of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, The New York Times reported. Hegseth already believed that Holsey wasn’t cracking down on the alleged drug traffickers more aggressively, and Holsey’s concerns prompted the relationship between the two leaders to unravel even further, the Times said. 

As a result, Hegseth pressured Holsey to step down, according to the Times. 

The Pentagon referred Fox News Digital to Hegseth’s original post on social media in October after news of Holsey’s retirement broke, where the secretary of war thanked Holsey for his service. 

‘The Department thanks Admiral Holsey for his decades of service to our country, and we wish him and his family continued success and fulfillment in the years ahead,’ Hegseth said in the post. 

Meanwhile, the strikes have attracted increased scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. While some lawmakers have always challenged the legality of the strikes — particularly after revelations in recent weeks that a second strike was conducted against a vessel after the first one left survivors in September — the Trump administration has routinely stated it has the authority to conduct those attacks. 

For example, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va.; Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a war powers resolution on Dec. 3 to bar Trump from using U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela.

In total, the Trump administration has conducted more than 20 strikes in Latin American waters since September targeting alleged drug smugglers in an effort to combat the flow of drugs into the U.S. Additionally, Trump has signaled for months that strikes on land could be next, and the U.S. seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela on Wednesday. 

‘We’re knocking out drug boats right now at a level that we haven’t seen,’ Trump said Dec. 3. ‘Very soon we’re going to start doing it on land too.’

Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino will make a decision about his future at the bureau within the next few weeks, two sources familiar with his considerations tell Fox News.

The sources deny recent reports that Bongino’s office at the FBI is empty, but they say that his departure is a possibility in the near future. 

A source familiar with the situation told Fox News Digital that Bongino has not made any decisions about his future.

Bongino’s tenure at the FBI has come under fire in recent weeks, alongside FBI director Kash Patel. Earlier this month, a blistering report from an alliance of active-duty and retired FBI personnel portrayed the bureau as directionless under its new leadership.

Bongino and Patel pushed back on the report, however, defending sweeping reforms they say have delivered major gains in accountability and public safety.

‘When the director and I moved forward with these reforms, we expected some noise from the small circle of disgruntled former agents still loyal to the old Comey–Wray model,’ Bongino told Fox News at the time.

‘That was never our audience. Our responsibility is to the American people. And under the new leadership team, the bureau is delivering results this country hasn’t seen in decades — tighter accountability, tougher performance standards, billions saved and a mission-first culture. That’s how you restore trust.’

New York Post columnist and Fox News contributor Miranda Devine said last week that an internal 115-page report from FBI active-duty and retired agents and analysts heavily criticized Patel and Bongino since they took on their respective jobs earlier this year.

The alliance criticized Patel as ‘in over his head’ and Bongino as ‘something of a clown,’ according to The New York Post.

The outlet said the 115-page assessment was written in the style of an FBI intelligence product and analyzed reports from 24 FBI sources and sub-sources who described their experiences inside the bureau.

Devine said Patel was described by multiple internal sources as inexperienced, with one source saying he ‘has neither the breadth of experience nor the bearing an FBI director needs to be successful.’

Patel told Fox News Digital the FBI is ‘operating exactly as the country expects.’

Fox News’ Ashely Carnahan contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump has directed U.S. officials to help to facilitate a ‘lasting and durable peace’ between Ukraine and Russia, with officials touting the ‘very, very strong’ package presented for negotiations in Berlin over the weekend.

Fox News Digital participated in a briefing with U.S. officials Monday morning to discuss ongoing discussions in Berlin with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, his team, and European security officials.

U.S. officials met with Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian delegation Sunday for nearly six hours, and spent more than two hours with them Monday.

Officials said Trump’s goal is to ‘stop the Russians from moving west.’

‘President Trump’s very focused on reaching a conclusion to this conflict that really stops the Russians from from moving west,’ one official said. ‘Under President Bush, Russia moved west. Under President Obama, Russia moved west. Under President Biden, Russia move west. President Trump really wants to see this as an agreement that ends that, for good.’

Officials also discussed the economic situation for Ukraine, noting that asset manager BlackRock has assembled a team, pro bono, to begin working on the matter, in coordination with the World Bank.

‘We went extensively through all the different financial borders that Ukraine currently faces,’ an official said. ‘What President Trump is trying to do is to save Ukraine as a country and make sure that they then have the ability to be, from a military perspective, security perspective, and then make sure that they can become viable.’

The official said the Europeans involved in discussions expressed ‘several times that they see Ukraine as critical for their security,’ and that they ‘need Ukraine to be financially viable and strong in order for it to be a good partner.’

But the officials said that ‘security guarantees were the major focus of the discussions.’

‘It was a very specific, palpable conversation around how to deter any further incursions and to punish — or address — any further incursions,’ an official said. ‘I think Ukrainians would tell you, as will the Europeans, that this is the most robust set of security protocols they have ever seen.’ 

The official touted the current package as ‘very, very strong.’

‘Hopefully the Russians are going to look at it and say to themselves, that’s okay, because we have no intention of violating it,’ the official continued. ‘But violations are going to be addressed with this security package.’

The official added: ‘The Europeans now know that we mean business, and the Ukrainians know it too.’

The package will ensure ‘oversight’ and ‘deconfliction,’ along with ‘anything that will make the Ukrainian people feel safe.’ 

‘It’s just that strong,’ the official said.

Officials said that the basis of the agreement is to have ‘really, really strong Article Five guarantees.’

‘We believe the Russians, in a final deal, will accept all these things which will allow for a strong and free Ukraine,’ an official said. ‘Russia has indicated they would be open to Ukraine joining the E.U., which would be, I think, the biggest expansion of the Euro-free zone since the Berlin Wall — this would be two huge wins for them.’

Officials said that Trump has been ‘very, very clear’ that he is ‘not looking to put pressure on Ukraine.’

‘He has done his best to help define these issues and whatever decision they ultimately make on their territorial issues around these other outstanding issues will be up to them,’ the official said.

Meanwhile, the officials touted the conversations with the European community, specifically the Germans, the English, and the French.

‘I can’t say enough good things about them,’ one official said. ‘Everyone has been dug in to end this conflict. Hopefully we are on the path to peace.’

Another official said this is a ‘full U.S.-European effort to try to come up with the strongest package possible in order to see if we can go back to Russia with something that can close this out.’

The official added that Trump’s focus on the deal has been to ensure ‘robust security so that this war really ends and that this will not happen again’ and to reach an agreement to deal with ‘all of the economic issues for Ukraine so that they have a bright and prosperous future.’

The official also said Trump hopes that Russia can ‘get back into the global economy so that they have incentive not to go back to war in the future.’

The U.S. officials said Monday conversations are ongoing, but touted the ‘multiple different solutions’ they have presented that can ‘bridge the gap between the parties.’

‘We have moved considerably closer in narrowing the issues between the Ukrainians and the Russians,’ one official said. ‘It is a really good faith effort.’

‘Are we prepared to go to Russia if needed? Absolutely. Are we prepared to go to Ukraine if needed? Absolutely,’ the official said.

‘We are under instructions to do what it takes to help facilitate, on behalf of President Trump, a lasting and durable peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation,’ the official continued. ‘And we intend to do our best.’ 

What had been a modest stream of taxpayer dollars to Feeding Our Future suddenly became a flood, surging 2,800% in a year, an abrupt spike now at the center of mounting scrutiny and oversight concerns.

The explosive growthoccurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the organization exploited a federally funded children’s nutrition program run by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), siphoning off money intended to feed low-income kids. It now stands as the nation’s largest COVID-19 fraud case.

Data from the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor sheds light on how the scheme went unchecked for so long, finding that the MDE oversight was ‘inadequate’ and that its failures ‘created opportunities for fraud.’

State records chart the rise in payments and reveal how the fraud ballooned in plain sight.

According to data from the state audit, payments to Feeding Our Future began in 2019 at $1.4 million. That figure rose to $4.8 million the following year before topping out at $140.3 million in 2021, a staggering 2,818% increase.

Even before the pandemic, Feeding Our Future was already an outlier. 

By the end of 2019, it sponsored more than six times the number of Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) sites as its peers.

When federal nutrition dollars surged during COVID-19, that gap only widened. While funding to all meal sponsors increased, Feeding Our Future’s growth far outpaced the rest of the system. 

According to the legislative auditor, in 2021, nearly four out of every 10 dollars sent to nonprofit meal sponsors in Minnesota flowed to Feeding Our Future alone.

Taken together, the numbers show that Feeding Our Future was expanding faster, adding more sites and collecting a vastly larger share of federal meal funds than any comparable organization, long before state regulators intervened.

And the oversight failures were just as striking.

Flawed applications sailed through, complaints were never investigated, and the nonprofit kept expanding despite repeated red flags.

What’s more, in the wake of a years-long $250 million welfare fraud scheme, Minnesota taxpayers will now finance a pricey state-level cleanup effort, effectively paying for the failure twice after state officials missed warnings.

Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota has said in the past that he is ultimately accountable for the fraud that took place under his administration.

With less than a week before the Department of Justice must release a tranche of case files related to Jeffrey Epstein, Democrats have continued to seize on the politically expedient topic, which has roiled the Trump administration and caused fractures in the Republican Party.

On Friday, House Democrats released 19 photos from Epstein’s estate that included several images featuring President Donald Trump and other public figures. The White House blasted the move and reiterated its position that the Epstein matter is a ‘Democrat hoax.’

Friday’s disclosure came as Democrats have claimed all year that Epstein’s case has newfound salience because Trump, once among Epstein’s many wealthy friends before Epstein was accused of trafficking underage girls, tried to suppress the files when he took office. Republicans counter that Democrats had full access to the documents for four years under the Biden administration and neither released them nor uncovered information damaging to Trump.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital claims of Democratic inconsistency ‘are seriously detached from reality’ and pointed to his own investigations dating back to 2019 into former Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s handling of a 2008 plea deal with Epstein.

Raskin argued the Democratic Party has not shifted, but rather that the Trump administration has.

‘Trump abruptly killed the ongoing federal investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators when he took office,’ Raskin said, alleging the administration undertook a ‘massive redaction project’ to hide evidence of Trump’s ties to Epstein. The forthcoming file release is expected to contain significant redactions and include reasons for each one.

‘Democrats have always fought to support an investigation of Epstein’s co-conspirators,’ Raskin said. ‘We have always been on the side of full transparency and justice for the victims.’

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., repeated that point Friday after the photos were published, saying, ‘All we want is full transparency, so that the American people can get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’

The heightened Democratic push for transparency comes after years during which the party showed more intermittent interest in Epstein’s case, which some Democrats have attributed to the sensitivity of seeking information while Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking case was pending and while some of Epstein’s victims were pursuing litigation.

But the Democrats’ new, unified fixation on Epstein this year came as Republicans struggled to manage the issue.

The files became a political thorn for the administration after Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chaotic rollout in February of already-public files by the DOJ, which enraged a faction of Trump’s base who had been expecting new information.

The DOJ said at the time that it would not disclose further files because of court orders and victim privacy and said the department found no information that would warrant bringing charges against anyone else. In a turnabout, however, Bondi ordered a review, at Trump’s direction, of Epstein’s alleged connections to Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton.

The president, who was closely associated with Epstein but was never accused of any crimes related to him, also relented to monthslong pressure to sign a transparency bill last month that ordered the DOJ to release all of its hundreds of thousands of Epstein-related records within 30 days. Among the most vocal supporters of the bill was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., which resulted in her highly public falling out with the president, whom she once fervently supported.

The Epstein saga has also plagued the administration because some of Trump’s allies, now in top roles in the DOJ, once promoted the existence of incriminating, nonpublic Epstein files, including a supposed list of sexual predators who were his clients. FBI Director Kash Patel, for instance, said in 2023 the government was hiding ‘Epstein’s list’ of ‘pedophiles.’ But the DOJ leaders failed to deliver on those claims upon taking office.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., meanwhile, faced accusations from Democrats that he kept the House in recess for about two months to avoid votes on Epstein transparency legislation. Johnson shot back that Democrats had, in his view, been lax on the Epstein case until this year.

‘We’re not going to allow the Democrats to use this for political cover. They had four years,’ Johnson told reporters at the time. ‘Remember, the Biden administration held the Epstein files for four years and not a single one of these Democrats, or anyone in Congress, made any thought about that at all.’

The House Oversight Committee has also spurred infighting over how Epstein material has been handled, as it has been actively engaged in subpoenaing, reviewing, and releasing large batches of Epstein-related records from both the DOJ and Epstein’s estate, including Friday’s photos.

In response to the photos, which were released by committee Democrats, committee Republicans said the Democrats ‘cherry-picked’ them and that they ‘keep trying to create a fake hoax by being dishonest, deceptive, and shamelessly deranged.’

Erika Kirk has announced that she is to meet privately with commentator Candace Owens marking the first direct conversation between the two after a period of public discussion and differing perspectives that emerged after her late husband’s death.

Kirk shared the update in a brief statement on X on Sunday, saying both women had agreed to pause all public commentary until after the meeting.

‘Candace Owens and I are meeting for a private, in-person discussion on Monday, December 15,’ Erika said.

‘@RealCandaceO and I have agreed that public discussions, livestreams, and tweets are on hold until after this meeting. I look forward to a productive conversation. Thank you,’ Erika added.

The planned discussion between Erika and the former Turning Point USA employee reflects an effort by the women to address weeks of mounting tensions over conspiracy theories online in a more thoughtful and personal setting.

At a recent CBS town hall Erika expressed the emotional toll of widespread online speculation surrounding her husband’s passing, ‘Stop. That’s it. That’s all I have to say. Stop.’ when asked what she had to say to people making unfounded claims.

‘When you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family, when you go after the people that I love, and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they’re in on this, no,’ Erika also said on ‘Outnumbered’ Dec. 10.

The relationship between the two women has deteriorated sharply in recent months, despite their earlier history of collaboration and personal friendship.

The recent events have placed them on different sides of a sensitive moment and their decision to meet privately shows signs of a mutual desire to speak directly while reducing misunderstandings and avoiding further speculation.

Kirk, who now leads TPUSA, has been focused publicly on preserving her husband Charlie Kirk’s legacy since his tragic death in September.

After more than eight years of Democrat lawfare against President Trump, his aides and his allies, the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi is bringing much-needed accountability — which is what American voters demanded in our last presidential election. But Democrat activist judges are doing what they do best: weaponization and sabotage.

In South Carolina, Clinton-appointed Judge Cameron Currie — handpicked by a Biden-appointed judge — wrongly disqualified Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, the bold and fearless prosecutor who had secured an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey for lying and obstruction of a Senate investigation into his politicization, weaponization, and corruption of the intel agencies and law enforcement to go after political enemies and protect political allies. The government is appealing that decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Now, another Clinton-appointed judge in the District of Columbia, Colleen Kollarr-Kotelly, has interfered even more egregiously with the government’s case. This ruling threatens the separation of powers essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately.

Comey was indicted on two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstruction of Congress. The indictment stemmed from the events surrounding Operation Crossfire Hurricane, more colloquially known as the Russiagate hoax. Comey used his longtime friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, as a conduit to leak material unfavorable to President Trump to media outlets. In addition to being a law professor, Richman was a government contractor. He and Comey communicated frequently via email on government and private accounts. Communications on a government email account enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy — the standard under the Fourth Amendment as a result of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States (1967) — because the government can monitor its own email servers.

Six years ago, even Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg, a judicial disgrace about whom we often have written, signed a warrant authorizing the search and seizure of emails on Richman’s computer and iCloud account and his account at Columbia. Richman was able to review all emails and withhold the information he deemed privileged from all but one account. Now, Richman — who was the recipient of many emails from Comey and the sender of many emails to him — has sought to reclaim those emails pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). This rule allows an individual to ask a court to reclaim his property obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and/or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Shockingly, Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion and has ordered the FBI to destroy the emails by 4 p.m. on Monday.  Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling ordered the destruction of emails obtained pursuant to a warrant signed by another (Obama) judge six years ago.  She claims that the seized information relates to a new investigation; however, she is basing this assertion on a decision by Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick issued a suppression-like decision even though suppression was not briefed by the parties — yet another example of blatant and unlawful judicial sabotage by partisans in robes.

Collar-Kotelly has ordered that a copy of the emails be given to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in Virginia. This salvation of a copy of the emails, however, does not lessen the impact of Kollar-Kotelly’s horrible ruling. The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if Currie’s dismissal ruling survives on appeal. The statute-of-limitations law allows the government only six months after an indictment’s dismissal, suspended during the appellate process, to seek a new indictment. The inability to view this evidence would substantially increase the time necessary to seek an indictment.  Even if a higher court reverses Currie, the government’s inability to review the emails to use as evidence and prepare for trial would massively hamper its case.

Kollar-Kotelly’s decision is more disturbing because it implicates the separation of powers. Usually, Rule 41(g) comes into play where a defendant has had property wrongly seized, and he moves to reclaim it. Here, Comey is not seeking to reclaim anything; Richman, a then-government contractor with whom Comey communicated extensively about government business, is seeking this evidence. Richman has run to a partisan Democrat judge not even involved in the criminal case — and not even in the same district — to procure the destruction of crucial evidence in that case in an obvious effort to assist his friend Comey. Comey cannot challenge the warrant against Richman because he lacks standing to do so. Incredibly, Kollar-Kotelly suggested that Richman could move to quash this evidence in Virginia.  She’s going way out of her way to help Comey. Judges presiding over cases often have excluded evidence against defendants as having been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is, however, extraordinary for a different judge — especially in a different district — to interfere in and dramatically hamper the prosecution’s case based on a claim by a third party of a wrongful search and seizure, especially when the evidence the government wishes to use consists of communications between that third party and the defendant — a defendant who was a senior government official.

The government obtained the evidence it wishes to use against Comey pursuant to a lawful warrant, even one signed by a highly partisan Obama-appointed judge. Now, a Clinton-appointed judge who is not presiding over the case — and is not even in the same district — is blatantly trying to aid Comey by preventing the government from using that evidence either to re-indict Comey or try him if the original indictment is reinstated. This ruling contravenes the normal way in which Rule 41(g) applies. The Clinton judge’s staggering timeline — destruction by tomorrow afternoon — also illustrates her agenda. She should have stayed a ruling of such magnitude to allow the appellate process to play out.  Instead, she has put the government in an incredibly precarious position: having to obtain a stay from either the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court in just a few hours. Kollar-Kotelly’s order had no legal basis, and a higher court must put a stop to it.

Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling is part of a larger pattern. Leftist judges like Obama-appointed D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan — who presided over President Trump’s January 6-related case, Boasberg, who signed off on the national disgrace that was Operation Arctic Frost, and many other Democrat judges did nothing to stop and did much to escalate the lawfare waged against President Trump, his aides, and his allies. Now, the Justice Department is seeking legal accountability for lawfare perpetrators like Comey. Currie and Kollar-Kotelly have endeavored to prevent — or, at the very least, drastically decrease the chances of — such legal accountability. Courts do not order the FBI to destroy evidence in pending investigations, except when the evidence is harmful to a lawfare perpetrator like Comey. The inconsistency between the treatment afforded lawfare perpetrators and lawfare targets threatens the very legitimacy of the federal judiciary. If higher courts do not reign in these rogue judges, Congress must do so through oversight, withholding of funds from judicial appropriations, and impeachment.  A system where the judiciary enables lawfare and then shields its perpetrators from legal consequences is unsustainable, and higher courts must put a stop to it.