![\"DOJ](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/571202745_122251264466073835_1916440407197907293_n.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has issued a direct warning to California officials and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over their threats to impede federal immigration enforcement and arrest ICE agents.<\/p>\n
In a formal letter sent Thursday, Blanche told Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and Pelosi that federal officers are lawfully executing their duties, and any attempt to interfere is both \u201cillegal and futile.\u201d<\/p>\n
The extraordinary letter follows public remarks from Pelosi and Rep. Kevin Mullin, who on Wednesday threatened to arrest federal agents if they violated California law during an anticipated immigration raid in the Bay Area.<\/p>\n
Pelosi and Mullin accused the Trump administration of \u201cabusing law enforcement power\u201d and claimed that President Donald Trump\u2019s agents could face state prosecution.<\/p>\n
Reports of a planned mass immigration raid in the Bay Area are an appalling abuse of law enforcement power,\u201d Pelosi and Mullin said in their joint statement. \u201cWhile the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not. \u2026 The people of San Francisco will continue to stand with the patriotic immigrants who are the constant reinvigoration of America.\u201d<\/p>\n
Blanche responded swiftly, posting on X that his office had sent the letter ordering California Democrats to stand down.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe just sent them a letter: Stand down or face prosecution,\u201d Blanche wrote. \u201cNo one threatens our agents. No one will stop us from Making America Safe Again.\u201d<\/p>\n
Reports of a planned mass immigration raid in the Bay Area are an appalling abuse of law enforcement power,\u201d Pelosi and Mullin said in their joint statement. \u201cWhile the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not. \u2026 The people of San Francisco will continue to stand with the patriotic immigrants who are the constant reinvigoration of America.\u201d<\/p>\n
Blanche responded swiftly, posting on X that his office had sent the letter ordering California Democrats to stand down.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe just sent them a letter: Stand down or face prosecution,\u201d Blanche wrote. \u201cNo one threatens our agents. No one will stop us from Making America Safe Again.\u201d<\/p>\n
We urge you and other California officials to publicly abandon this apparent criminal conspiracy, to stop threatening law enforcement, and to prioritize the safety of your citizens,\u201d Blanche wrote.<\/p>\n
The dispute marks one of the sharpest confrontations yet between the Trump administration and California officials, who have long clashed with federal authorities over immigration enforcement.<\/p>\n
Pelosi\u2019s statement drew outrage among conservatives, who accused her of inciting resistance to federal law. Supporters, however, defended her remarks as a stand for state sovereignty and immigrant rights.<\/p>\n
Federal officials have not disclosed details of the planned operation in the Bay Area, though sources familiar with the matter told several outlets that the enforcement action could target sanctuary jurisdictions accused of harboring criminal non-citizens.<\/p>\n
As of Friday morning, neither Newsom\u2019s office nor the California Attorney General\u2019s office had issued a public response to the DOJ warning.<\/p>\n
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller went on a tear during a Friday evening appearance on Fox News\u2019 \u201cHannity\u201d program following the senseless assassination of conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk earlier in the week.<\/p>\n
Miller told host Sean Hannity that the murder will lead to an all-out effort by President Donald Trump\u2019s administration to root out and \u201cdismantle\u201d left-wing \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d who he believes are responsible for fomenting violence and attacks against right-leaning groups and individuals.<\/p>\n
His remarks come on the heels of the arrest of Tyler Robinson, 22, of Utah, who investigators believe holds left-wing views and may have become radicalized in recent years to the point of allegedly committing the murder.<\/p>\n
Miller specifically blamed violent rhetoric coming from members of the Democratic Party, several of whom have referred to the president as \u201cHitler\u201d and his supporters as \u201cfacists\u201d and \u201cthreats to democracy\u201d for years.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Democrat Party, its pundits, its allies, the educators, for 10 years have waged a campaign of eliminationist rhetoric against President Trump, against Republicans, against MAGA, against Trump officials. It has been willful and deliberate, Sean. The rhetoric that you played, the messages that you played in that clip are the same exact rhetoric and messages that are used by the assassins, that are used by the two assassins who tried to kill Donald Trump, that are used by the assassin who claimed the life of my friend, an American hero, Charlie Kirk. This is willful and deliberate radicalization,\u201d Miller began.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey know what they\u2019re doing. Our universities, in many cases, have become incubators for extremism. They\u2019ve become the equivalent of madrasas for jihadism. There is a domestic terrorism movement in this country. When you see these organized doxing campaigns where the left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they\u2019re Nazis, says they\u2019re evil, says they have to be removed, and then prints their addresses, what do you think they\u2019re trying to do? They are trying to inspire someone to murder them,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is their objective. That is their intent. And when you see online, Sean, as we\u2019ve seen for the last few days, tape after tape after tape of federal workers, bureaucrats, staffers in the Pentagon, educators, professors, healthcare workers, nurses celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk \u2014 these are radicalized people. There is a domestic terrorism movement in this country,\u201d Miller continued before sharing a personal anedote from Kirk shortly before he was killed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his Creator in heaven was he said that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence. That was the last message that he sent me before that assassin stole him from all of us. And we are going to do that,\u201d said Miller.<\/p>\n
Under President Trump\u2019s leadership, I don\u2019t care how \u2014 it could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection, but we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, that are committing acts of wanton violence. It has to stop,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd my message is to all of the domestic terrorists in this country spreading this evil hate: You want us to live in fear? We will not live in fear. But you will live in exile. Because the power of law enforcement under President Trump\u2019s leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and if you\u2019ve broken the law, to take away your freedom,\u201d Miller vowed.<\/p>\n
The debate over Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris has escalated following President Donald Trump\u2019s decision to revoke her security detail.Democrats have loudly protested the move, calling it dangerous and politically motivated. But Senator Jim Banks (R-Ind.) cut through the noise with a simple reminder of precedent: \u201cFormer VP Mike Pence lost his secret service detail six months after he left office which is standard. Why should Kamala Harris be treated different?\u201dHis question goes straight to the heart of the issue. The United States has a long-standing practice when it comes to post-office protection for presidents and vice presidents.While former presidents retain lifetime Secret Service protection, vice presidents are typically given security for a limited period after leaving office. The suggestion that<\/p>\n
Harris deserves an exception reveals not a concern for security, but a blatant double standard fueled by partisan politics.<\/p>\n
From Trump\u2019s perspective, this is about restoring fairness, consistency, and common sense to how Secret Service protection is handled. Harris should be treated the same as her predecessors, not elevated to special status simply because she is a Democrat.Historically, vice presidents do not receive indefinite Secret Service protection. After leaving office, their detail continues for a limited period, generally six months, before being withdrawn.This ensures that immediate threats during their transition back to private life are addressed, but it also reflects the reality that vice presidents do not carry the same symbolic or strategic significance as presidents.Mike Pence is the most recent example. He served as Donald Trump\u2019s vice president from 2017 to 2021. Six months after leaving office, Pence\u2019s Secret Service detail was withdrawn, exactly as the law prescribes.<\/p>\n
No Democratic leaders at the time called foul. No one insisted Pence deserved indefinite protection. The policy was applied fairly, and Pence accepted it as part of the transition out of public service.Now, however, Democrats are demanding that Harris be given a privilege Pence never received. Their sudden concern has nothing to do with precedent and everything to do with politics.The Secret Service is tasked with protecting current and former presidents, their spouses, current vice presidents, and certain other high-ranking officials. Its resources are not unlimited. Every additional detail requires agents, vehicles, and logistical support.Expanding Harris\u2019s protection indefinitely not only deviates from standard policy but also drains resources that could be dedicated to those truly at risk\u2014such as current officeholders and sitting presidents.<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s decision to revoke Harris\u2019s protection is not vindictive; it is a recognition that resources must be allocated according to law, precedent, and need, not political favoritism.Democrats\u2019 outrage over this decision exposes how little they respect these constraints. To them, Harris deserves special treatment regardless of tradition or fairness. But in reality, Secret Service resources should be deployed where they are needed most, not where they serve partisan optics.Harris\u2019s defenders argue that, as the first female and first African-American vice president, she faces unique threats that justify extended protection. While it is true that high-profile political figures often receive security consideration, precedent matters.If every \u201chistoric\u201d vice president were granted indefinite protection, the system would collapse under the weight of exceptions.<\/p>\n
Moreover, Harris remains a prominent public figure, with the ability to hire private security just like any other former official. Nothing prevents her from taking measures to ensure her safety.But she is no longer in office, no longer wielding executive authority, and no longer entitled to Secret Service protection beyond the standard period.The precedent is clear: Mike Pence lost his detail six months after leaving office. Joe Biden, when he served as vice president under Barack Obama, also lost his detail after the designated time period. Harris is not entitled to a different standard simply because her party currently controls the Democratic establishment.For President Trump, the issue is not personal animus toward Harris but consistency in applying the law. If Pence was required to transition away from Secret Service protection, then Harris must do the same. Anything less undermines the credibility of the system and further politicizes what should be an impartial process.Democrats accuse Trump of playing politics, but in reality, they are the ones injecting politics into the discussion. They demand exceptions for Harris not based on principle, but because she is one of their own.<\/p>\n
Trump is simply applying the rules equally, ensuring that all vice presidents\u2014Republican or Democrat\u2014are treated the same.This is the essence of fairness. Rules do not change depending on who holds the office. Standards must be upheld regardless of political affiliation. Trump\u2019s decision reflects a return to that fairness, rejecting the Democratic impulse to make Harris an exception.The hypocrisy is glaring. When Mike Pence\u2019s Secret Service protection expired, Democrats were silent. When Biden lost his protection as vice president in 2017, they said nothing. Only now, when Harris is affected, do they cry foul.<\/p>\n
This selective outrage reveals the true motive: politics, not principle. Democrats do not care about precedent or fairness; they care only about shielding Harris from accountability and presenting her as a victim of Trump\u2019s supposed cruelty. But the facts show otherwise. Trump\u2019s decision is rooted in law, precedent, and equal application of standards.Senator Jim Banks captured this perfectly: \u201cWhy should Kamala Harris be treated different?\u201d The answer is simple: she should not.Ordinary Americans understand the importance of fairness and consistency. They see through the political theater. To them, the question is simple: if Pence and Biden lost their detail after six months, why should Harris be any different?Public opinion polls have consistently shown that Americans are tired of double standards in politics. Whether it\u2019s law enforcement, free speech, or now Secret Service protection, people want rules that apply equally to everyone.<\/p>\n
rump\u2019s decision resonates with this desire for fairness. By revoking Harris\u2019s detail, he is standing up for a principle that transcends partisanship: equal treatment under the law.At its core, the debate over Harris\u2019s Secret Service detail is not about security\u2014it is about entitlement. Harris\u2019s allies insist she deserves indefinite protection because of her \u201chistoric\u201d status.But security should never be doled out based on political symbolism. It must be based on objective need, legal precedent, and the efficient use of limited resources.Trump\u2019s critics argue that the revocation puts Harris at risk. But Harris, like all former officials, has the means to hire private security. The Secret Service was never intended to serve as a permanent taxpayer-funded security force for every former vice president. To claim otherwise is to turn a public service into a political perk.<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s decision on Harris\u2019s security detail is more than a bureaucratic adjustment\u2014it is a message. It signals that under his leadership, government will not bend to political favoritism. Standards will be upheld, even when Democrats scream in protest.This approach is consistent with Trump\u2019s broader message of restoring law, order, and fairness. Whether on immigration, federal spending, or crime policy,Trump has consistently emphasized the need to enforce rules evenly and reject special treatment. The Harris case is just the latest example of Trump applying that principle in practice.The uproar over Kamala Harris\u2019s Secret Service protection reveals the deep double standard in American politics. Democrats who were silent when Mike Pence and Joe Biden lost their details now demand indefinite protection for Harris. Their outrage is not about safety; it is about politics.Senator Jim Banks was right to call out the hypocrisy: \u201cWhy should Kamala Harris be treated different?\u201d The answer is clear\u2014she should not. President Trump\u2019s decision to revoke her Secret Service protection is consistent with precedent, fair in principle, and a necessary step to ensure resources are allocated responsibly.In the end, this is not about Harris herself. It is about whether America will apply rules equally or allow politics to create exceptions. Trump has made his choice clear: fairness and consistency must prevail.Harris, like every other former vice president, is subject to the same standard. Anything else would undermine the rule of law.<\/p>\n
For Trump and his supporters, this is not cruelty\u2014it is justice. It is a reminder that in America, no one is above the rules, not even Kamala Harris.<\/p>\n
Former President Barack Obama opened up about his marriage amid divorce rumors. Speaking to students at Hamilton College on Thursday, he said wittily that he\u2019s working to recover from a \u201cdeep deficit\u201d in his marriage to Michelle.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was in a deep deficit with my wife,\u201d\u00a0he\u00a0said. \u201cSo I have been trying to dig myself out of that hole by doing occasionally fun things.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The buzz around their separation spread so far that some media outlets claimed Barack Obama was dating\u00a0Friends<\/em>\u2018\u00a0star Jennifer Aniston. The\u00a0<\/em>actress, however, denied the rumors during an appearance on\u00a0Jimmy Kimmel Live<\/em>, saying she has only met the former president once.<\/p>\n Previously, Barack Obama hinted about how his presidency affected his relationship to his wife.<\/p>\n \u201cLet me just say this: It sure helps to be out of the White House and to have a little more time with her,\u201d he said in an interview on\u00a0CBS Mornings<\/em>\u00a0in 2023.<\/p>\n Michelle\u00a0has also opened up about the rumors. Speaking on her podcast,\u00a0IMO<\/em>, which she co-hosts with her brother Craig Robinson, the former first lady said, \u201cBarack, you know, he had to adjust to what \u2018on time\u2019 was for me.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou know, I\u2019ve got this husband who\u2019s like, when it\u2019s time to leave, it\u2019s 3, he\u2019s getting up and going to the bathroom,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd I was like, dude, dude, a 3 o\u2019clock departure means you\u2019ve done all that, you know? It\u2019s like, don\u2019t start looking for your glasses, you know, at the 3 o\u2019clock departure.\u201d<\/p>\n Michelle also opened up about her life after her daughters have moved out.<\/p>\n \u201c[Life] is whatever I want, Sophia, It\u2019s whatever I want,\u201d she said, adding that life of an \u201cempty nester\u201d is liberating.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s the first time in my life all of my choices are for me,\u201d she said on Sophia Bush\u2019s podcast,\u00a0Work in Progress<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s the thing that we as women, I think\u2026 we struggle with disappointing people. I mean, so much so, that this year people were\u2026 they couldn\u2019t even fathom that I was making a choice for myself that they had to assume that my husband and I are divorcing,\u201d she explained.<\/p>\n Former President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama are addressing rumors about a divorce head-on\u00a0in an episode of her podcast\u00a0released Wednesday.<\/p>\n \u201cShe took me back!\u201d Barack Obama said on the \u201cIMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson\u201d podcast. \u201cIt was touch and go for a while.\u201d<\/p>\n Speculation about the former first couple\u2019s marriage has run rampant in recent months. Some of the rumors picked up steam after several public appearances where Michelle Obama\u00a0did not join her husband, including President Donald Trump\u2019s inauguration in January.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s so nice to have you both in the same room together,\u201d said Robinson, who is Michelle Obama\u2019s brother, to the couple. Michelle responded, \u201cI know because when we aren\u2019t, folks think we\u2019re divorced.\u201d<\/p>\n Robinson recounted a story when a woman at an airport approached him to ask about their marriage. \u201c\u2018What did he do?\u2019\u201d Robinson said she asked him.<\/p>\n \u201cThese are the kinds of things that I just miss,\u201d Barack Obama said. \u201cSo I don\u2019t even know this stuff\u2019s going on and then somebody will mention it to me and I\u2019m like what are you talking about?\u201d<\/p>\n Michelle Obama continued on saying, \u201cThere hasn\u2019t been one moment in our marriage where I\u2019ve thought about quitting on my man. And we\u2019ve had some really hard times and we\u2019ve had a lot of fun times, a lot of adventures and I have become a better person because of the man I\u2019m married to.\u201d<\/p>\n The former first lady previously has addressed the speculation about her marriage and her decision not to attend Trump\u2019s inauguration.<\/p>\n \u201cMy decision to skip the inauguration, what people don\u2019t realize \u2014 or my decision to make choices at the beginning of this year that suited me were met with such ridicule and criticism,\u201d she explained on an\u00a0episode of her podcast\u00a0earlier this year. \u201cPeople couldn\u2019t believe that I was saying no for any other reason that they had to assume that my marriage was falling apart.\u201d<\/p>\n The Obamas married in 1992 and have two daughters, Malia and Sasha.<\/p>\n The former president, who was raised by a single mother, shared why he believes he would\u2019ve had more difficulty raising a son than daughters.<\/p>\n \u201cI think I might have been more judgmental, harder,\u201d he said. \u201cI like to think I would\u2019ve been more self-aware, enough to combat that, but I just think father-son relationships, for me particularly, if I don\u2019t have a dad around to show it to me might\u2019ve been more difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n Both Obamas also reflected on how parents and communities need to focus on nurturing young men and acknowledged the political shift seen with that group. Trump made inroads during the 2024 presidential election with appeals to younger men in particular, though he\u2019s\u00a0started to face criticism\u00a0within the podcast \u201cmanosphere\u201d since taking office.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you\u2019re not thinking about what\u2019s happening to boys and how they are being raised, then that can actually hurt women, and I would argue that some of the broad political trends we\u2019ve seen not just in this country but around the world have to do with this sense of boys, men not feeling as if they are seen, feeling as if they count,\u201d Barack Obama said.<\/p>\n He continued, \u201cThat then makes them more interested in appeals by folks who say, \u2018You know what, the reason you don\u2019t feel respected is because women have been doing this or this group has been doing this or that group\u2019s been doing this.\u2019 And that is not a healthy place to be.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe rightly have tried to invest in girls to make sure that there\u2019s a level playing field and then they\u2019re not barred from opportunities,\u201d he added. \u201cBut we haven\u2019t been as willing, I think, to be intentional about investing in the boys, and that\u2019s been a mistake.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has issued a direct warning to California officials and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over their threats to impede federal immigration enforcement and arrest ICE agents….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5782,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-breaking-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t