A new poll has revealed growing disapproval of Donald Trump, with a surprising number of voters favoring another impeachment. Trump remains the only U.S. president in history to be impeached twice—first in 2019 over his phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and again in 2021 for inciting the January 6 Capitol riots. Though acquitted both times, his controversies continue to divide the nation.
According to a Lake Research Partners poll commissioned by Free Speech For People, 46% of likely voters in swing Congressional districts support impeaching Trump again, with 45% expressing “strong support.” In addition,
Constitutional attorneys leading the Impeach Trump Again
campaign have outlined
With swing-district voters increasingly dissatisfied, the poll highlights growing momentum behind renewed impeachment calls.
Federal officials announced this week that nearly half of all immigrants in the greater Minneapolis area were found to have committed some form of immigration fraud.
The findings came during a September enforcement sweep and included cases involving sham marriages, falsified death certificates, and other schemes, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edley.
“But the revelation was no great surprise to those of us who have followed the settlement of some 100,000 Somali immigrants in Minnesota over the past three decades,” writes Scott Johnson for the New York Post.
In 2008, the State Department temporarily suspended a family reunification program used by Somali immigrants after DNA testing revealed that about 80 percent of claimed family relationships were not valid.
Officials have cited the episode as an example of persistent concerns over immigration fraud within the community.
“And when it comes to “bizarre schemes,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) serves as Exhibit A,” Johnson noted.
Omar (D-Minn.) has faced longstanding allegations that she married her brother in order to help him obtain legal status in the United States, accusations she has not directly addressed, Johnson added.
In 2016, while Omar was running for the Minnesota state legislature, questions surfaced on a local Somali discussion board suggesting that she had a religious, but not legal, marriage with Ahmed Hirsi, the father of her children.
Public records, however, showed that in 2009 she had legally married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, whom several members of the Somali community identified online as her brother. Omar remained legally married to Elmi during her 2016 campaign, though her campaign website listed Hirsi as her husband and made no mention of Elmi.
It appeared that Omar had married her brother for some fraudulent purpose.
As if to put an exclamation point on the scam, the Omar-Elmi marriage license was executed by Wilecia Harris, a Christian minister, despite the couple’s Muslim faith.
When I asked the Omar campaign about her marriages, a criminal defense attorney responded with a message accusing me of bigotry — and failing to respond to my questions.
This has been Omar’s modus operandi ever since.
To this day, the reason for her marriage to Elmi — from whom, she says, she separated in 2011, but which didn’t officially end until 2017 — remains unclear.
One Somali source told the Daily Mail that Omar claimed she was trying to help her brother get US student loans.
Other Somalis in Minneapolis told me that Elmi had been living an openly gay lifestyle in London, as amply depicted in then-public social media posts.
The marriage, they believed, was a family ploy to remove him from his life in London (to which he later returned).
In 2018, Omar was elected to Congress. Midway through her first term, documents from a state campaign finance investigation revealed that she had filed joint tax returns with Ahmed Hirsi while she was still legally married to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Internal campaign records also showed aides debating how to address questions about her marital history.
Campaign consultant Ben Goldfarb privately noted that the situation was difficult to explain without making it more confusing.
Omar has consistently denied that Elmi is her brother, calling the allegations “baseless.” However, investigators who have reviewed available records have said they found no evidence supporting her denials, pointing instead to public documents, photographs, and social media posts that indicate a sibling relationship.
When the Minneapolis Star Tribune assigned two reporters to investigate the matter in 2019, they requested interviews with Omar and her family members. She declined, Johnson noted.
Immigration violations are only part of the legal issues involving members of Minnesota’s Somali community. Several local Somali residents were implicated in the Feeding Our Future case, the largest COVID-19 fraud uncovered in the United States, with losses to taxpayers exceeding $250 million, he wrote.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson, who has overseen the two Feeding Our Future trials to date, has also described broader Medicaid fraud schemes involving Somali defendants. Thompson has estimated that those cases could ultimately amount to billions of dollars in losses.
After days of anxiety and fear, a missing girl was discovered in a remote forest—only for the situation to take a shocking turn. The child, who had vanished nearly a week earlier without a trace, was located by search teams in a dense, secluded area, weak and terrified but miraculously alive. While her discovery initially brought relief, the celebration turned to horror when investigators revealed an unsettling truth: her mother had played a role in her disappearance.
Authorities explained that the case began as a standard missing persons investigation, prompting an extensive search involving volunteers, police, and aerial teams scouring the rugged terrain day and night. The breakthrough came when a group of searchers stumbled upon the girl, hidden under leaves and trembling. Her tearful statements led detectives to a heartbreaking conclusion—her own mother had orchestrated the ordeal.
Shortly after the girl’s rescue, police arrested her mother. While the investigation continues, early reports suggest the abduction may have been linked to personal struggles or mental health concerns. Officials are now working with child welfare and medical experts to provide the girl with care and stability. The community remains shaken by the revelation that the person who should have protected her instead put her in danger.
As the girl begins her recovery, an outpouring of support has emerged, with vigils and messages of hope arriving from across the nation. Though the emotional wounds will linger, her survival has become a symbol of strength. Authorities have pledged to seek justice while ensuring she receives the safety and healing she deserves—far removed from the dark woods where her nightmare unfolded.
But when your neighbors are constantly destroying your fence, it might be time to reconsider your fence strategy.
That’s precisely what one father decided to do after his unruly neighbors repeatedly damaged his fence.
The story was shared by his daughter on Reddit, revealing that the problematic neighbors were, in fact, distant relatives.
“We live in a small private neighborhood, and the neighbors are related to us in a distant way,” she explained.
“Everyone here is a bit of a nutjob, and they were constantly arguing over property lines for decades, even before my brother and I were born.”
Initially, the family had allowed their neighbors to use a small part of their land to navigate the road more safely without damaging their property.
The daughter illustrated the situation, explaining that their property line formed a square surrounded by roads on two sides.
We let our neighbors use one square meter of our land so they could use the road more safely and avoid damaging our property,” she wrote.
The neighbors continually ran over the lawn, refusing to acknowledge the fence built to delineate the property line.
Despite the family’s efforts to maintain their property, the neighbors acted as if the fence didn’t exist, driving over it repeatedly.
The breaking point came when the family installed some hedges, only to have a massive truck, ordered by the neighbors, destroy them.
“The truck driver ran over our fence. No one wanted to pay for the damage, and we had to replant the plants and replace part of the metal fence. This was the third time it happened, and that’s when my father decided to take revenge.”
He dug up the property line marker and filled the disputed area with rock-filled barrels, much to the neighbors’ dismay.
The neighbors were furious and threatened to call the police—a move that didn’t exactly intimidate him, given his profession.
They even brandished an ax at him, although details on this incident were scant.
Sure enough, the neighbors continued driving over the property, but now they were damaging their own cars in the process.
In the first six hours alone, three cars hit the barrels, sustaining significant damage.
Despite this, the neighbors didn’t seem to learn their lesson.
Over the course of a year, the barrels took such a beating that they eventually became worthless.
However, the father had another plan to escalate his revenge.
“One peaceful afternoon, my father and I cemented that whole part of the land and placed some lovely flowers on top.
Now, when they hit the concrete, they can smell our flowers of victory and defeat.”
The complex intersection of political activism, campaign finance law, and legislative responsibility has erupted into a significant legal confrontation that highlights fundamental tensions about the appropriate boundaries between political support and potential legal violations. A recent court ruling has brought these issues into sharp focus, creating a precedent-setting case that examines how fundraising activities intersect with legislative duties and whether certain forms of political support may cross legal boundaries established by state election and ethics laws.
This legal battle represents more than a dispute between political opponents; it reflects broader questions about the appropriate mechanisms for political resistance, the boundaries of permissible fundraising activities, and the enforcement of laws governing the intersection of political activism and legislative responsibilities. The case has attracted significant attention from legal experts, political observers, and advocates on multiple sides of ongoing debates about democratic participation and institutional accountability.
Tarrant County District Judge Megan Fahey issued a temporary restraining order that represents a significant legal development in the ongoing tension between political activism and regulatory compliance. The ruling, issued on a Friday evening, demonstrates the urgency that state authorities have attributed to addressing what they characterize as violations of established legal frameworks governing political fundraising and legislative support activities.
Judge Fahey’s written decision outlined specific concerns about “unlawful fundraising practices” and the “utilization of political funds in a manner that either directly violates or causes Texas Democratic Legislators to violate [the law].” This language indicates that the court found evidence suggesting not only direct legal violations but also the potential for inducing others to violate established legal requirements.
The judicial finding that “Consumers have and continue to suffer irreparable harm through these unlawful acts because they are making political contributions that are being used to fund personal expenses and violate state law” reflects concerns about donor protection and the appropriate use of political contributions. This consumer protection angle adds an additional dimension to the case beyond simple election law violations.
The timing of the ruling, coming just hours after the petition was filed, suggests that the court viewed the allegations as presenting urgent circumstances requiring immediate intervention. Temporary restraining orders are typically issued only when courts find evidence of ongoing harm that requires immediate cessation of allegedly problematic activities.
The underlying legal dispute stems from activities related to Democratic legislators who left Texas to prevent quorum for voting on redistricting legislation, creating a unique situation where political support for legislative absence intersected with various legal frameworks governing campaign finance and political activities. This context is crucial for understanding both the specific allegations and their broader implications.
Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office initiated the legal action as part of what appears to be a broader investigation into the financial support networks that enabled Democratic legislators to maintain their absence from the state capitol for extended periods. The scope of this investigation suggests that state authorities view the situation as involving potentially systematic violations rather than isolated incidents.
The specific activities under scrutiny include funding for air travel, lodging, logistics, and daily fines associated with the legislative absence. These categories of expenses raise different legal questions, as some might be considered legitimate political activities while others could potentially constitute personal benefits that violate campaign finance
The involvement of multiple organizations and funding sources in supporting the absent legislators has created a complex web of financial relationships that state authorities argue may violate various laws governing political contributions, personal use of political funds, and coordination between different political entities.
Powered by People, the nonprofit organization at the center of the legal challenge, represents a type of political advocacy group that has become increasingly common in American politics. These organizations often operate at the intersection of issue advocacy, voter engagement, and direct political support, creating complex legal and ethical questions about their appropriate activities and funding sources.
The organization’s mission and activities, as described in public materials and court documents, focus on voting rights advocacy and election-related activism. This type of work typically enjoys significant constitutional protection under First Amendment principles, though it must still comply with various regulatory frameworks governing political activities and fundraising.
The allegations suggest that the organization’s activities in support of absent legislators may have crossed legal boundaries by providing what authorities characterize as personal financial benefits rather than legitimate political advocacy. The distinction between permissible political support and impermissible personal benefits represents a crucial legal issue that affects numerous political organizations and activities.
The organization’s fundraising practices and donor communications have also come under scrutiny, with allegations suggesting that donors may have been misled about how their contributions would be used. This consumer protection angle adds complexity to the case and potentially affects how courts and regulators view the organization’s activities.
Texas election and ethics laws establish complex frameworks governing political contributions, their permissible uses, and the obligations of various political actors to comply with reporting and substantive requirements. Understanding these frameworks is essential for evaluating the merits of the current legal challenge and its broader implications.
Campaign finance laws generally prohibit the use of political contributions for personal expenses or benefits, though the boundaries of this prohibition can be complex when political activities involve travel, lodging, and other expenses that might have both political and personal components. The application of these rules to support for absent legislators presents novel legal questions.
Ethics laws governing the conduct of public officials and those who support them create additional layers of regulatory complexity. These laws often include provisions about conflicts of interest, the acceptance of gifts or benefits, and the appropriate relationship between public duties and private support.
The coordination rules that govern relationships between different political entities add another dimension to the legal analysis. If multiple organizations or individuals coordinated their support for absent legislators, this coordination might trigger additional regulatory requirements or restrictions that could affect the legality of their activities.