The Judge Was Just Announced in James Comey’s Case
The criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, one of Donald Trump’s most prominent adversaries, will be handled by the newest judge on the federal bench in Alexandria, Virginia.
Court records show that U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee confirmed in 2021, was randomly assigned Thursday to oversee the matter after a grand jury indicted Comey on charges of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
Comey’s indictment represents the culmination of years of conflict with Trump, who has frequently accused the former FBI director of abusing his office during the 2016 election and early stages of the Russia investigation.
Comey has said publicly since the indictment, “I’m not afraid” and insisted he is innocent.
He is scheduled to be arraigned on Oct. 9 in Alexandria.
Nachmanoff, 57, has a long history in federal courts in northern Virginia. Before his appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, he spent six years as a magistrate judge and more than a decade as a public defender.
He was recommended for the federal bench by Virginia’s two Democratic senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and confirmed by a narrow 52-46 Senate vote, with only three Republicans—Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski—supporting his nomination.
As a magistrate judge in 2019, Nachmanoff presided over the arraignment of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two associates of Rudy Giuliani who faced campaign finance charges connected to Giuliani’s efforts to dig up damaging information about Joe Biden in Ukraine. He released both men on $1 million bond.
His career before joining the judiciary reflected a commitment to defense work in some of the country’s most high-profile cases.
As a federal public defender, Nachmanoff’s office represented al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui and Somali pirates captured after attacking a Navy vessel in 2010. In one notable case argued before the Supreme Court, Nachmanoff successfully pressed for judicial discretion in sentencing drug defendants whose punishments were inflated by crack cocaine laws.
The justices ruled 7-2 in favor of his position, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing the majority opinion.
His background as a defense attorney has drawn attention now that he will oversee proceedings against a former FBI director facing felony charges.
Critics note that Nachmanoff’s past career representing controversial defendants could influence his judicial approach, while supporters argue that it shows a long-standing respect for due process and civil liberties.
Comey, who led the FBI from 2013 until his dismissal by Trump in 2017, has defended the bureau’s handling of investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails during the 2016 campaign, but also authorized surveillance that Republicans later denounced as politically motivated.
After his firing, he became an outspoken Trump critic, drawing condemnation from conservatives who accused him of politicizing federal law enforcement. Trump has openly said he views Comey as part of a “deep state” effort to undermine his presidency.
The indictment charges that Comey misled Congress in sworn testimony and attempted to obstruct an inquiry into the FBI’s conduct.
He will be represented at trial by Patrick Fitzgerald, a former federal prosecutor known for his work in the Valerie Plame leak investigation and the prosecution of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The Justice Department team pursuing the case is led by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, recently elevated to the post and now heading one of the most politically sensitive prosecutions of the Trump era.
With Nachmanoff on the bench, the Comey case will unfold before a judge whose career has spanned both defense and prosecution, and whose decisions could shape the legal boundaries of executive power and accountability.
Ghislaine Maxwell received preferential treatment while incarcerated at a federal prison in Texas, according to a former nurse at the facility. Noella Turnage, who has worked for the Bureau of Prisons since 2019, identified herself Monday as the whistleblower who previously provided some of Maxwell’s correspondence to members of the House Judiciary Committee, Newsweek reported.
“I actually emailed them from work, from my Bureau of Prisons email address, and said, ‘Hey, this is who I am, this is where I work, and I have some things I think you might be interested in, and documents you may be interested in,’” Turnage told KBTX. “I didn’t even specify what it was.”
A staff member for Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, responded to Turnage within 30 minutes, she said. The 46-year-old added that she has since participated in multiple follow-up calls regarding her disclosures.
“I have not shared them with anyone other than the committee,” Turnage said of Maxwell’s emails, some of which she showed to a reporter this week, KBTX reported.
Over the summer, Maxwell confirmed to the Department of Justice during a series of sit-down meetings that she did not witness Donald Trump exhibit inappropriate behavior on the occasions that she met him.
Maxwell had met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for a total of nine hours late last month. According to her attorney, she had been forthright during questioning and did not “plead the fifth.”
According to ABC News’ sources, Maxwell reportedly said that Trump had “never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern.”
As for Turnage, she said she provided Maxwell’s correspondence after facing retaliation from Bureau of Prisons officials for reporting what she described as poor working conditions and the alleged mistreatment of inmates at Federal Prison Camp Bryan.
She said her complaints resulted in her reassignment to the facility’s “phone room,” where her responsibilities included monitoring inmate telephone calls and emails, Newsweek noted.
“They call it prison jail,” Turnage told KBTX. “I would be looking for any evidence that they’re doing something they shouldn’t be. Like, are they trying to smuggle in drugs? Are they doing this? Are they whatever? But these women aren’t risking that, not for the most part. And same as emails, you’re monitoring for anything they shouldn’t be doing. Usually on the phone, the biggest thing you run into is they’ll call a family member who then conference calls somebody else that they’re not supposed to be talking to.”
Turnage said that Tanisha Hall, the warden of the federal prison, personally handled all incoming mail addressed to Maxwell.
Maxwell — who is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s international sex-trafficking operation — also received “private, catered-style visitation arrangements” at the minimum-security facility, according to KBTX.
“There was the whole thing about closing down the compound for her to have a visit,” Turnage told the outlet.
Maxwell’s relatives were permitted to attend private meetings, often disguised as legal consultations, claims Turnage.
“I guess maybe they can bring everybody and say it’s a legal visit?” she continued. “I don’t know, but they’re going to have an area cornered off for you, so it won’t be a problem coming in. They’re going to provide drinks, coffee, snacks, and all this stuff.”
Some of Ghislaine Maxwell’s outgoing correspondence appeared “coded,” with irregular spacing and formatting that differed from messages sent by other inmates, according to Turnage.
The veteran Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employee printed some of Maxwell’s messages and examined them at home. After noticing a Wall Street Journal report in early October about the favorable treatment that Epstein’s former associate allegedly received at the federal prison, Turnage shared the emails with Raskin’s office.
The Supreme Court delivered a strong and necessary rebuke to judicial overreach this week, siding with the Trump administration in its battle to uphold fiscal responsibility during the government shutdown.
In a move that protected the separation of powers, the High Court temporarily blocked a lower court’s outrageous attempt to force the Trump administration to pay full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits despite the absence of appropriated funds.
This was not just a legal victory—it was a constitutional one. President Donald Trump’s administration correctly argued that it cannot spend what Congress has not authorized, and the Court agreed.
At issue was a Rhode Island judge’s demand that the administration raid limited contingency funds to provide full SNAP benefits in the middle of a government shutdown that Democrats have prolonged.
That judge’s order would have set a dangerous precedent: allowing the judiciary to force the executive branch to fund entitlements beyond what Congress appropriates. Trump’s team rightly challenged it.
The administration stood firm. It refused to play into Democrat theatrics and declared that SNAP would be funded based on what legally exists—not what progressive judges or left-wing activists wish for.
This is what real leadership looks like. Trump’s America First agenda does not bend the knee to judicial activism or budgetary blackmail.
Despite liberal outrage, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an administrative stay on the lower court’s order—confirming that the administration has the right to appeal and pause unlawful mandates.
The Supreme Court’s move ensures that unelected judges cannot usurp Congress’s power of the purse by forcing emergency expenditures that have no basis in law.
For weeks, Democrats have weaponized government shutdown politics, using essential services like SNAP as political hostages to demand concessions on unrelated spending.
The Trump administration has offered commonsense solutions. Fund critical programs through proper channels, reopen government, and stop holding the American people hostage.
Instead, left-wing courts tried to shame the administration into unlawfully raiding contingency funds. That is not governance — that is economic sabotage.
This administration is protecting taxpayers, defending constitutional limits, and ensuring programs like SNAP are funded through legitimate appropriations — not judicial diktats.
President Trump has shown time and again that his administration won’t be bullied into lawlessness, even when Democrats and their judicial allies demand it.
Let’s not forget: this crisis was caused by congressional Democrats who refused to pass a clean funding bill. They chose shutdown over compromise.
Now, they want to blame Trump for their failure to govern? That’s not just dishonest — it’s disgraceful.
The USDA had already begun working to distribute partial SNAP payments using what limited resources were available, showing the administration’s commitment to support struggling families within the law.
But Democrats don’t want solutions. They want spectacles. They’d rather stir outrage than engage in serious governance.
States like Pennsylvania, Oregon, and California rushed to comply with the judge’s ruling — not because they had to, but because they wanted to score political points against the administration.
Yet Trump held the line. His administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court was not about denying aid — it was about defending the rule of law.
And once again, Trump was right. The Court understood that real leadership means respecting constitutional boundaries, not rewriting them from the bench.
Justice Jackson’s stay gives the administration breathing room to make its case, and protects the executive branch from being railroaded by a hyper-political lower court.
This moment highlights exactly why Trump’s judicial appointments mattered—because constitutional sanity must prevail when government overreach runs wild.
BREAKING: Anna Paulina Luna Claims The Biden DOJ DESTROYED…
Representative Anna Paulina Luna has leveled explosive information against the Biden Department of Justice, claiming that critical materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have been deliberately destroyed.
This assertion, if proven true, would represent one of the most damning instances of governmental obstruction and cover-up in recent history.
Luna, who chairs a congressional task force focused on federal transparency, has stated unequivocally that she possesses evidence implicating high-ranking officials in the DOJ.
According to her, these officials not only failed to disclose materials related to Epstein but actively destroyed them to conceal the extent of powerful individuals’ involvement in Epstein’s criminal network.
She introduced legislation titled the SHRED Act, aimed at imposing severe penalties on government agents who destroy or conceal federal records. The proposed bill calls for 20 years to life in prison for anyone caught eliminating evidence in cases of national significance.
“Even if they are conducting a criminal investigation, you should probably pick up the phone and call us,” Luna told Fox News. “We have been more than patient.”
These developments come amid growing conservative suspicion that the Biden administration has no interest in unmasking Epstein’s full network. The notion that key records could be gone forever only intensifies fears that justice is being buried under a bureaucratic rug.
Luna’s office has reportedly sent multiple requests to the Department of Justice demanding clarity on the handling of Epstein-related materials. So far, those inquiries have been met with either vague responses or complete silence.
The congresswoman did not mince words in her public statements, suggesting that the DOJ’s behavior constitutes a deliberate act of obstruction. If true, such actions could violate federal law and trigger an entirely new legal battle.
“The Biden DOJ has obstructed Congress, ignored subpoenas, and now appears to have destroyed critical evidence,” Luna said. “This is corruption at the highest level.”
Critics argue that this is yet another example of double standards in Washington. “Had this been a Republican-led DOJ accused of destroying documents in a child sex trafficking case, the media would be apoplectic,” one conservative commentator noted.
For years, the Epstein case has symbolized the deep rot within America’s elite circles. The financier’s suspicious death in prison and the subsequent lack of high-profile indictments have fueled accusations of a widespread cover-up.
Now, Luna’s allegations breathe new life into those concerns. If records were indeed destroyed, the implications are profound. It would mean that the DOJ, under Biden, actively shielded criminals from justice.
What’s more troubling is that these destroyed materials could have named prominent individuals—politicians, celebrities, and global financiers—who participated in or enabled Epstein’s crimes.
In this context, Luna’s SHRED Act isn’t just legislative symbolism. It is a clarion call for accountability in an era marked by elite impunity. Her bill seeks to ensure that future officials think twice before erasing truth from the historical record.
Despite Luna’s repeated calls for transparency, there has been no formal response from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The silence speaks volumes to many who believe the DOJ is stonewalling on purpose.
Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers have rallied behind Luna. A growing number of Republicans in the House and Senate are voicing support for investigations into the DOJ’s handling of Epstein evidence.
Some have even floated the idea of appointing a special counsel to probe the matter independently. Given the stakes, such a move may be the only path forward to restore public confidence.
This latest scandal further erodes the credibility of an already battered Department of Justice. From the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco to the political targeting of conservatives, the agency has been repeatedly accused of partisanship.
Now, with Epstein documents allegedly destroyed, the DOJ’s credibility is in tatters. Public trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild.
The American people deserve the truth. And if Luna’s allegations are accurate, they deserve justice, no matter how high the guilty parties sit.
BREAKING: Tom Homan Reveals an Investigation is Underway Into AOC For…
Border Czar Tom Homan confirmed that a federal investigation is underway into Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for allegedly employing a criminal illegal alien and helping others evade federal immigration authorities.
Speaking from his post as one of President Trump’s top immigration officials, Homan revealed that ICE has launched a formal probe after multiple allegations emerged against the congresswoman.
“This is a live federal investigation. We’ve asked ICE to take immediate action,” Homan said during a televised interview.
The individual in question is reportedly an undocumented alien with a criminal record, unlawfully hired by AOC’s office.
According to internal reports, the employee had multiple encounters with law enforcement and should have been deported years ago.
Homan stressed that AOC’s potential interference with ICE operations could amount to obstruction of justice.
“This goes beyond hiring an illegal alien. There’s evidence she actively helped shield this person from deportation,” he stated.
Conservative leaders are sounding the alarm, warning that this may be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to far-left officials flouting immigration laws.
AOC has long been known for championing sanctuary cities and attacking border agents, often labeling them as “racist” and “oppressors.”
Now, critics say her reckless rhetoric has crossed over into potentially criminal behavior.
“If a sitting congresswoman used her office to harbor an illegal alien, that’s a clear violation of federal law,” Homan declared.
Sources inside ICE say agents have already gathered documentation and begun interviewing individuals connected to the case.
Evidence suggests AOC may have leveraged her political power to block enforcement action against the individual she employed.
House Republicans are demanding accountability, with several calling for a formal ethics investigation into her conduct.
“This is what happens when radicals gain power. They think the law doesn’t apply to them,” said Rep. Andy Biggs.
Democrats quickly circled the wagons, accusing Homan of launching a political smear campaign.
But Homan stood firm, reminding the public that the law is the law and political office offers no immunity from prosecution.
“This isn’t about politics. It’s about national security and public trust,” he said.
Homan emphasized that ICE agents are working independently and that the White House is not interfering in the investigation.
“We are following the facts. If those facts point to criminal activity, then action will be taken,” Homan confirmed.
Legal experts say AOC could face charges ranging from unlawful employment to obstruction of federal agents, depending on the evidence.
Citizens outraged by the news are demanding swift justice and a full public accounting of the congresswoman’s actions.
Homan urged Americans not to let political ideology blind them to the seriousness of the allegations.
“We must restore the rule of law,” he concluded. “No one, no matter how powerful, is above it.”