Author name: RVM News

Trump Foe Boasberg Rocked by Impeachment Articles Over Arctic Frost
News

Trump Foe Boasberg Rocked by Impeachment Articles Over Arctic Frost

/

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, is formally introducing articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg over the judge’s role in the federal investigation known as “Arctic Frost.”

As Fox News reported, Gill’s resolution, being introduced Tuesday, accuses Boasberg of abuse of power in connection with orders issued during the investigation led by former special counsel Jack Smith.

Republican lawmakers and allies of President Donald Trump have increasingly criticized Boasberg after documents revealed that he approved subpoenas and other investigative measures involving Republican members of Congress.

“Chief Judge Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis. He is shamelessly weaponizing his power against his political opponents, including Republican members of Congress who are faithfully serving the American people within their jurisdiction,” Gill told Fox News Digital.

“Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel. I am proud to once again introduce articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The impeachment resolution contains one count of abuse of power, according to the text obtained by Fox News Digital.

“Ignoring his responsibility to wield the power of his office in a constitutional manner, Chief Judge Boasberg granted Special Counsel John L. Smith authorization to issue frivolous nondisclosure orders in furtherance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation project codenamed ARCTIC FROST,” the resolution states.

“These nondisclosure orders covered Members of Congress who were acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

The renewed push against Boasberg follows the release of redacted Arctic Frost documents by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, late last month.

The records included subpoenas seeking phone records belonging to 10 senators and one House member.

The documents also showed that nondisclosure orders were sent to Verizon and AT&T directing the telecommunications companies not to inform the lawmakers that their records had been subpoenaed. Verizon complied with the order, while AT&T did not.

According to the documents, Boasberg signed both the subpoenas and the gag orders.

The revelation has prompted criticism from Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who described the investigation as “worse than Watergate” and called it a serious abuse of prosecutorial authority.

The precise information Boasberg reviewed before approving the orders remains unclear. Under the Stored Communications Act, federal judges have discretion when determining whether to approve such orders rather than automatically signing off on them.

Much of the underlying material connected to the investigation remains classified or heavily redacted, making it difficult to determine what information was presented to the judge.

Republican lawmakers whose records were targeted have argued that the subpoenas could implicate the Constitution’s speech or debate clause.

The provision, found in Article I, Section 6, protects members of Congress from certain legal actions connected to their legislative responsibilities.

The constitutional protections are considered absolute for legislative acts, although courts can disagree over which activities qualify as legislative acts.

Gill’s impeachment effort is not the first time Boasberg has faced scrutiny from Republicans or criticism from Trump and his allies.

Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers considered impeachment resolutions against Boasberg after he issued an order temporarily pausing the Trump administration’s deportation flights carrying migrants to El Salvador.

Gill and other Republicans pursuing impeachment at the time ultimately backed away from the effort after House Republican leaders indicated that impeaching federal judges was not necessarily the most effective way to bring about a policy change.

The latest resolution represents a renewed effort by Gill to hold Boasberg accountable, this time focusing specifically on his involvement in the Arctic Frost investigation and the orders involving congressional records.

The case also places renewed attention on the role of federal judges in approving investigative demands involving members of Congress.

Republicans have argued that lawmakers conducting official legislative business have constitutional protections that must be respected during federal investigations.

Gill’s resolution will now add another congressional impeachment effort against a federal judge to the broader political and legal disputes surrounding the Trump administration, federal courts, and the Justice Department.

Delta Jet Races Back Minutes After Takeoff as Pilot Faces Medical Emergency
News

Delta Jet Races Back Minutes After Takeoff as Pilot Faces Medical Emergency

/

A Delta Air Lines flight bound for Orlando, Florida, returned to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport shortly after takeoff Monday after the crew reported a medical emergency involving a pilot, as reported by The New York Post.

Delta Flight 1208 departed Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) at approximately 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 31. About four minutes into the flight, the crew requested to return to the airport, according to FlightAware data.

A Delta spokesperson confirmed to Fox News Digital that the aircraft returned to MSP because of a reported medical issue involving one of the pilots.

“The crew followed established procedures to return to MSP where the aircraft landed safely,” Delta said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital.

“As safety comes first at Delta, we are focused on supporting the pilot and our customers to ensure onward travel.”

The aircraft was a Boeing 757-300 carrying 178 passengers and seven crew members, according to the airline.

An air traffic control recording captured a crew member requesting an immediate return to the airport because of the pilot’s condition.

“We need to return to the field,” a crew member said in the recording, according to reports. “Nature of the emergency: We have a potential pilot incapacitation. … We would like to return immediately.”

The crew declared an emergency so the aircraft could receive priority handling from air traffic controllers, according to the Delta spokesperson.

The plane subsequently landed safely at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Delta then arranged for a replacement flight crew so passengers could continue their journey to Orlando.

The flight ultimately reached Orlando later that evening, according to Delta.

The incident resulted in the aircraft returning to its departure airport only minutes after beginning its scheduled trip. The airline did not provide additional details about the pilot’s medical condition.

The Aug. 31 incident comes after another recent airline medical emergency involving multiple crew members.

A Frontier Airlines flight traveling from Cleveland to Fort Lauderdale declared a medical emergency several weeks earlier after four flight attendants experienced headaches and nausea shortly before the aircraft was scheduled to land.

The pilots requested that emergency medical personnel meet the Airbus A321 at the gate at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, according to air traffic control communications.

That aircraft landed without incident, with emergency responders waiting at the airport. The cause of the flight attendants’ illnesses was not immediately known.

The two incidents involved different airlines, aircraft and circumstances, but both resulted in flight crews taking emergency measures while airborne.

In the Delta case, the crew followed established procedures after reporting the potential pilot incapacitation and requested an immediate return to Minneapolis.

The emergency declaration allowed air traffic control to give the aircraft priority as it made its way back to the airport.

Delta’s flight was carrying 178 passengers in addition to its seven crew members. After the Boeing 757-300 landed safely, the airline replaced the crew and continued the trip rather than canceling the flight.

The aircraft’s flight path showed the short trip away from Minneapolis before its return to MSP on Aug. 31.

Delta emphasized that the airline’s focus following the incident was on the affected pilot and passengers and ensuring that travelers could complete their journey.

The flight’s eventual arrival in Orlando later that evening allowed passengers to reach their destination after the unexpected interruption.

No additional information about the pilot’s medical emergency was provided by Delta, and the airline did not indicate that passengers or other crew members were injured.

The incident underscores the procedures airlines and flight crews use when a medical problem affects a member of the operating crew.

In this case, the crew identified the issue shortly after departure, notified air traffic control, declared an emergency, and returned to the airport.

The flight was then able to continue later with a replacement crew, bringing the 178 passengers to Orlando that evening.

Maduro and Wife Claim Immunity in Brazen Bid to Bury Drug Charges [WATCH]
News

Maduro and Wife Claim Immunity in Brazen Bid to Bury Drug Charges [WATCH]

/

Former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are asking a federal judge in New York to dismiss the charges against them, arguing that Maduro is protected by sovereign immunity and that the indictment does not establish proper jurisdiction, as reported by Fox News.

The request was filed Wednesday as Maduro and Flores continue to face federal charges stemming from allegations that Maduro used his political position to facilitate cocaine trafficking and other criminal activity.

Maduro’s attorneys argue that the case presents an unprecedented legal situation because the United States is seeking to prosecute a foreign leader who, at the time the charges were brought, was recognized by Venezuela as its sitting head of state.

“No American court has ever presided over the criminal trial of a foreign leader who was recognized by their own country as the sitting head of state at the time the charges were brought. That is not an accident of history. It reflects a rule older than the common law: heads of state are exempt from the criminal process of any national court but their own,” a memorandum filed by Maduro’s lawyers states.

“That immunity flows not from goodwill that can be withdrawn on a whim, but from the perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction with respect to Mr. Maduro, who is recognized by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as its head of state,” the document continued.

The Southern District of New York unsealed a fourth superseding indictment against Maduro and Flores in January 2026. Maduro was charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy, while both he and Flores face charges of cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

According to the indictment, Maduro allegedly used his positions in Venezuela, first as a deputy in the country’s National Assembly and later as president, to work with major international drug trafficking organizations to facilitate the movement of cocaine into the United States.

Maduro’s attorneys dispute those allegations and contend that actions identified in the indictment were undertaken as part of his official responsibilities as Venezuela’s head of state.

“The official character of these acts — such as issuing diplomatic passports, deploying the military, and announcing Venezuelan foreign policy — is apparent from the face of the Indictment. Because these actions were undertaken in his official capacity on behalf of a foreign sovereign, he may not be required to respond in this Court to the Indictment’s characterizations of his motives and intent in taking these actions,” the document reads.

The legal team is also challenging the case on due process grounds. According to the motion, Maduro “vehemently denies that he had anything to do with drug trafficking or intended to benefit anyone engaged in terrorism.”

The defense argues that the charges fail to adequately demonstrate that the alleged conduct occurred in, or was directed toward, the United States in a manner sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The motion specifically addresses the federal narcoterrorism statute, which was enacted in 2006 as part of the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.

“The narcoterrorism statute, which was enacted in 2006 in connection with the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT ACT, was intended to target foreign conduct. Recognizing that its power to police the rest of the world is not unlimited, Congress included a jurisdictional element that authorizes the use of the statute to prosecute foreign conduct under only five enumerated scenarios in which the foreign conduct is connected to the United States. Ignoring those parameters set by Congress, the Indictment fails — even by tracking the statutory language — to allege any basis for jurisdiction over the solely foreign conduct it alleges,” the motion states.

The United States officially declared Maduro an illegitimate president in 2019 after he claimed victory in Venezuela’s disputed 2018 presidential election.

Despite the long-running political dispute between Maduro’s government and the United States, the case now centers on whether a U.S. federal court can prosecute him for the conduct alleged in the indictment and whether sovereign immunity shields him from criminal proceedings.

Maduro and Flores were captured in Caracas during a U.S. military operation in January 2026 known as Operation Absolute Resolve. They were subsequently extradited to the United States to face prosecution in federal court in New York.

Captured Maduro Grins and Flashes Peace Signs in First Photos From Brooklyn Prison

Maduro appeared at the Daniel Patrick Manhattan United States Courthouse on Jan. 5, 2026, for an initial court appearance on federal charges that included narco-terrorism, conspiracy, drug trafficking and money laundering.

The couple’s defense is now asking the court to dismiss the case before trial. Maduro is scheduled to appear in court in November for oral arguments supporting the motion to dismiss.

The legal proceedings will determine whether the federal case against the former Venezuelan leader and Flores can move forward or whether the court accepts their arguments regarding sovereign immunity, jurisdiction, and due process.

Fox News Digital contacted the legal team representing Maduro and Flores as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for additional comment.

NYPD Hunts Suspect Who Hurled Furniture at 90-Year-Old Woman [WATCH]
News

NYPD Hunts Suspect Who Hurled Furniture at 90-Year-Old Woman [WATCH]

/

New York City police are searching for a man accused of assaulting a 90-year-old woman on a Brooklyn sidewalk Monday morning, with surveillance footage appearing to show the encounter.

The incident occurred at approximately 9:47 a.m. Aug. 31 outside 501 Brighton Beach Ave. in the Brighton Beach neighborhood, according to the New York City Police Department.

Police said the elderly woman was walking along the sidewalk when an unidentified man approached her. Investigators allege the man threw a piece of furniture in her direction, causing her to fall before he fled the area on foot.

Surveillance video obtained by News 12 appears to show the suspect pushing what looks like a discarded baby crib containing debris along the sidewalk. As the woman walked past, the man allegedly lifted the object and threw it at her.

The footage appears to show the woman falling to the pavement after the incident. The suspect then continued walking away from the area.

Emergency medical personnel responded to the scene and transported the woman to NYC Health + Hospitals/Coney Island, police said. She was listed in stable condition.

Authorities have not identified a motive for the alleged assault. It was also not immediately clear whether the woman knew the man being sought by investigators.

The suspect remains at large.

The NYPD has released a surveillance photograph of the man as detectives continue working to identify him. Police described him as wearing a dark-colored hooded sweatshirt, black pants and white sneakers at the time of the incident.

The department is asking anyone who may have information about the man’s identity or whereabouts to contact the NYPD Crime Stoppers Hotline at 1-800-577-TIPS (8477).

Tips can also be submitted through the Crime Stoppers website or by sending a message to @NYPDTips on X. Police said all calls and tips will be kept confidential.

The investigation comes as authorities continue to seek information about an alleged assault involving an elderly victim in a busy Brooklyn neighborhood. Police have not announced an arrest or identified a suspect by name.

The location identified by police is near the intersection of Brighton Beach Avenue and Brighton 5th Street in Brooklyn.

The NYPD has not publicly disclosed additional information about the circumstances leading up to the alleged attack or provided a possible explanation for why the woman was targeted.

Authorities are asking members of the public who witnessed the incident or recognize the individual shown in the surveillance images to come forward.

The investigation remains ongoing, and the suspect had not been taken into custody as of the latest information provided by police.

Fox News Digital contacted the NYPD seeking additional information about the investigation.

Mamdani Influencers Scramble to Defend Secret City Hall Spin Network [WATCH]
News

Mamdani Influencers Scramble to Defend Secret City Hall Spin Network [WATCH]

/

Several social media influencers connected to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration are publicly defending their relationships with City Hall after the existence of a private Signal group involving nearly 200 content creators came under scrutiny, as reported by The New York Post.

The influencers have acknowledged that they receive information, event notices, policy details, and other material from the mayor’s office.

Some have openly described their willingness to promote information about the administration to their followers.

The private group, known as the “NYC Creators Announcement” chat, was revealed earlier this week in a report by the Columbia Journalism Review.

The arrangement is expected to receive further scrutiny during a New York City Council oversight hearing scheduled for Sept. 22.

One of the influencers who discussed her connection with the administration was Lisa Chin Mollica, a 48-year-old Brooklyn resident who operates the progressive, anti-Trump Instagram account “Vote In Or Out,” which has 1.1 million followers.

Mollica acknowledged that she has regular contact with City Hall’s media team and described receiving a steady supply of information and access.

“I genuinely do not know how such a small team manages to communicate with so many of us,” Mollica wrote to her followers.

“It is a constant stream of information, events, policies,” she added, saying that she was “genuinely happy to do it.”

Mollica said City Hall provides her with policy information, event notices, background material, and access. She also said she has never been paid by Mamdani’s team.

Her Instagram account describes itself as providing “news” along with other “perspectives” and previously created a non-partisan, fact-checked voter guide during the 2020 election.

The account also regularly posts anti-Trump and anti-ICE material while publishing posts focused on Mamdani administration initiatives.

One Sept. 2 post promoted the city’s new policy concerning artificial intelligence in public schools and featured Mamdani discussing the policy at a press conference.

One commenter challenged Mollica’s explanation that she does not work for Mamdani, writing: “You might not work for Mamdani, but the bias is very much real.”

Mollica’s account has also reposted material from other influencers participating in the Signal group.

The Columbia Journalism Review researchers reported that some of the digital content creators involved in the network had been paid by city agencies for outreach campaigns.

However, the researchers found limited information about the contracts. Mamdani’s team did not provide answers to questions about the arrangement beyond defending the use of Signal.

The administration also did not respond to questions Thursday about whether it used the Signal network to counter coverage of the CJR report.

Other influencers have also publicly discussed their involvement.

Cassie Willson, who has 314,000 Instagram followers, posted a screenshot Thursday of what appeared to be a $10,000 check and joked that she had received it from the Mamdani campaign.

“If they had actually done their research, they would have found this very real check that I have in my New York City apartment that I got from the Mamdani campaign,” Willson said.

She then praised the administration’s outreach to New York City creators.

Since Mamdani became mayor, she said his team has done “an amazing job of connecting with a bunch of New York City-based creators to tell us about stuff that’s going on in the administration like when they roll out new policies or programs.”

“A program or policy is only as good as the number of people who know about it, right?” she said.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Cassie Willson (@cassiewillson_)

Willson also defended Mamdani after the mayor faced criticism for leaving Little Italy off an immigrant enclave map.

She posted about an Italian festival in Williamsburg and questioned its authenticity because it included foods such as funnel cakes and empanadas.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Cassie Willson (@cassiewillson_)

Another influencer, Ariana Afshar, has also defended her relationship with the administration. Afshar, 30, has 433,000 Instagram followers, and her LinkedIn profile listed her as living in the Bay Area of California.

“I just cover the news and anything I say is because I genuinely love Mamdani’s administration,” Afshar wrote in an Instagram post Thursday.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by اريانا (@arianajasmine___)

Miral Sattar, a 47-year-old publishing entrepreneur who operates the book-focused Instagram account @miralreads, acknowledged working with the Mamdani administration while maintaining that officials do not dictate her content.

“Sometimes I ask them for clips because I saw something I want to cover,” Sattar said.

Sattar said she has supported Mamdani since the beginning of his mayoral campaign.

“I was posting about Zohran before he was mayor. My kids and I canvassed for him when he was polling at basically 1%,” she said in an Instagram post to more than 28,000 followers.

Megan Klink, 28, who runs the progressive-policy podcast “Pretty Informed Girls,” also defended the network while criticizing traditional news organizations.

Klink described the Signal group as a “wonderful ecosystem of influencers and creators” and praised members of the mayor’s office.

“The people that work in the mayor’s office are incredibly f–king good at their jobs,” Klink said.

“They have created this wonderful ecosystem of influencers and creators and all sorts of people who are able to get out information that legacy media won’t cover,” she said.

Klink specifically cited what she characterized as insufficient coverage of warming centers. The Post and other news organizations, however, had reported on warming centers during the winter cold front.

The growing attention surrounding the influencer network has raised questions about the relationship between government communications and independent social media content.

City Hall’s use of the private Signal group is expected to face additional examination when the City Council holds its scheduled oversight hearing Sept. 22.

Chicago Islamic Scholar Shatters the Left’s Cozy Coexistence Fantasy [WATCH]
News

Chicago Islamic Scholar Shatters the Left’s Cozy Coexistence Fantasy [WATCH]

/

A Chicago-based Islamic scholar is drawing attention after arguing that Islam did not come to the United States simply to coexist with other religions, but instead seeks to establish Islam as the superior faith and make Sharia law part of that vision, as reported by Townhall.

The comments come amid a broader debate over the role of Islamic religious practices and Sharia-compliant institutions in American public life.

Critics have pointed to examples involving financial services, schools and government policies as evidence that Islamic religious requirements are receiving greater accommodation.

The scholar’s remarks directly challenge claims from some on the political left that concerns about Sharia law in America are unfounded.

“Unfortunately, these days, we don’t repeat this enough, or we don’t have this doctrinal concept firm in our minds that Islam did not come to coexist,” he said.

“The Prophet Muhammad said, ‘Islam is always superior and should never be surpassed.’ Islam is raised high, and nothing is raised above Islam.”

The scholar continued by arguing that Islam should not be understood simply as one religion among many competing faiths.

“We can’t think of Islam that it came to live with these other religions in the sense that Islam is a religion among those religions and they have a share with the truth and they have a share of justice and they have a share of the correct worship,” he said.

“Islam came to correct all of that. Islam came to remove the oppression of all those religions. And it is the only truth, and it is the only way to justice.”

The remarks come as questions about Sharia-compliant practices have surfaced in several parts of the country.

In Minneapolis and elsewhere, businesses and governments have offered financial products described as “Sharia-compliant.” Such financial arrangements are structured to follow Islamic religious principles.

The issue has also reached public schools. Critics have raised concerns about schools offering all-Halal meals, while California is preparing to add Islamic holidays to its school calendar.

Muslims make up approximately one percent of California’s population, according to the source material.

Another example cited in the debate involves Abdul El-Sayed, who has said that he is required to follow Sharia law until the day he dies.

The question surrounding these developments is not whether American Muslims should be permitted to practice their religion.

Religious freedom is a foundational principle of American life.

Rather, the debate centers on how far government institutions should go in accommodating religious practices and whether those accommodations can eventually influence public policy.

The Chicago scholar’s comments add another dimension to that discussion because he explicitly rejected the idea that Islam came merely to coexist alongside other religions.

His statements instead describe Islam as a faith intended to correct other religious traditions and establish what he considers the only legitimate path to truth and justice.

Those comments are likely to fuel an already contentious political argument over immigration, religious freedom, public institutions and the influence of religious law in the United States.

Supporters of greater accommodation for Muslim Americans are likely to argue that allowing religiously compliant food, financial products or holiday observances is consistent with the nation’s longstanding protection of religious practice.

Critics, meanwhile, are questioning where accommodation ends and the adoption of religious standards by government institutions begins.

The debate also reflects a larger disagreement over the cultural direction of the United States.

Some conservatives have warned that Americans must defend the country’s constitutional system and Judeo-Christian cultural heritage while maintaining protections for people of every faith.

The Chicago scholar’s remarks provide fresh material for that debate, particularly because his stated view of Islam’s relationship with other religions goes beyond simply asking for the freedom to practice Islam.

His comments describe Islam as possessing exclusive religious truth and a mission to correct other religions.

As Islamic religious practices receive attention in schools, financial institutions, and government settings, the question of how those practices should be accommodated is likely to remain part of the national conversation.

JD Vance Flattens Kaitlan Collins Over Cringeworthy Question About Slain Airman [WATCH]
News

JD Vance Flattens Kaitlan Collins Over Cringeworthy Question About Slain Airman [WATCH]

/

CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins questioned Vice President JD Vance about the military benefits available to the family of a fallen American airman. Still, the exchange quickly turned into a debate over how those benefits are determined, as reported by Red State.

The interview centered on Maj. John “Alex” Klinner, a 33-year-old U.S. Air Force airman who was one of six service members killed March 12 when a KC-135 Stratotanker crashed in western Iraq while supporting Operation Epic Fury.

Klinner left behind his wife, Libby, and three young children.

“The widow of an airman who was killed in the Iran war says she’s having trouble getting the benefits that they should have access to because it has not been officially declared a war,” Collins told Vance.

“Can you and the president personally ensure that the family of Alex Klinner gets all the benefits they deserve?”

Vance appeared surprised by the question and asked for clarification about the fallen service member.

“So, what’s her name? You said his name was Alex Klinner?” he responded.

The exchange subsequently drew attention from liberal media outlets and critics who portrayed Vance’s response as suggesting a lack of concern for the Gold Star family.

The circumstances surrounding Klinner’s benefits, however, involve more than whether Congress has formally declared war.

Klinner’s widow has said that a casualty assistance officer told her that certain additional combat-related benefits were unavailable because the United States had not formally declared war on Iran.

Among the benefits she identified were hostile-fire or imminent-danger pay and combat-zone tax exclusions.

A formal congressional declaration of war, however, has not been required for U.S. military personnel to receive combat-related pay and benefits during numerous military operations.

The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. American service members nevertheless received various combat-related benefits while serving in conflicts and military operations involving Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations.

Another significant detail in Klinner’s case concerns how he died.

According to the Air Force, Klinner was supporting Operation Epic Fury when the KC-135 aboard which he was traveling crashed in western Iraq on March 12. All six airmen aboard were killed.

U.S. Central Command specifically said the crash was not caused by hostile fire or friendly fire.

That distinction is relevant to the dispute over the additional benefits raised by Klinner’s widow because some of the compensation in question involves hostile-fire or imminent-danger pay and combat-zone tax exclusions.

Libby Klinner said a casualty assistance officer told her those benefits were unavailable because there had been no formal declaration of war.

The Air Force has since begun reviewing the family’s benefits.

According to the information provided to NOTUS, Air Force officials contacted Libby Klinner and said they were examining the matter to ensure she receives “all eligible benefits she and her family are entitled to.”

Klinner later said the director of mortuary affairs had contacted her and that her benefits were being audited.

That review means the family’s concerns have not simply been dismissed. Instead, military officials are examining whether an administrative error or other issue resulted in benefits being withheld or calculated incorrectly.

Former naval aviator Stephen Hamilton criticized Collins’ framing of the issue.

“Did you bother to do any research before looking like an idiot asking about something that didn’t occur?” he asked.

Hamilton’s criticism was not that the Klinner family could not have encountered a legitimate benefits problem. The Air Force itself has confirmed that it is reviewing the case.

Rather, the issue is whether the absence of a formal declaration of war automatically explains why the family may not have received particular combat-related benefits.

The available information indicates that military compensation is governed by specific eligibility requirements rather than simply by whether Congress has issued a formal declaration of war.

The exchange also took a broader turn when Collins asked Vance about the military confrontation with Iran.

“Will this war be over by the midterm elections?” she asked.

“I wouldn’t call it a war,” Vance replied.

That response generated another round of attention, shifting the discussion toward the administration’s terminology for the ongoing military confrontation with Iran.

Klinner’s military record also underscores his experience in American military operations. During his Air Force career, he deployed four times and accumulated 362 combat hours and another 181 combat-support hours.

For his widow and three children, the central issue remains whether they are receiving every benefit for which they qualify.

The Air Force has said it is auditing the family’s benefits, which could determine whether an administrative mistake occurred and whether additional compensation is owed.

The situation therefore presents two separate questions: whether the Klinner family has received everything to which it is legally entitled, and whether the lack of a formal declaration of war has any bearing on specific benefits.

The Air Force’s review is expected to address the first question. Meanwhile, the televised exchange between Collins and Vance has placed the second question in the political spotlight.

For a family dealing with the loss of a service member, the outcome of the benefits review will matter far more than the competing political arguments surrounding the interview.

President Trump Taps True Warrior Hung Cao to Lead Navy After Four Months at Helm [WATCH]
News

President Trump Taps True Warrior Hung Cao to Lead Navy After Four Months at Helm [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he is nominating acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao to permanently serve as secretary of the Navy, calling the retired Navy captain a “true WARRIOR” and urging the Senate to move quickly on his confirmation, as reported by Fox News.

Cao has served as acting secretary for the past four months, overseeing the Department of the Navy, which includes both the Navy and Marine Corps.

His tenure comes as the Trump administration works to expand U.S. shipbuilding and strengthen the nation’s maritime capabilities.

Donald Trump Storms to Yet Another Golf Tournament Victory at His Own Club

“I am pleased to nominate a true WARRIOR, Hung Cao, to become the next Secretary of the Navy,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“We need Patriots like Hung leading our Navy and Marine Corps, and I can think of no one better than him to make sure our Great Navy and Marine Corps remain the FIERCEST and BEST Force the World has ever seen,” the president continued.

Trump also called on the Senate to act quickly, pointing to Cao’s experience already leading the department during his four months as acting secretary.

“The Senate needs to confirm this Warfighter, ASAP, so he can continue the fantastic work he has been doing over the past 4 months,” Trump wrote.

Cao responded to the nomination shortly afterward, thanking Trump and outlining priorities that include shipbuilding and homeland defense.

“Thank you, Mr. President. It’s an honor of a lifetime to lead the great warriors of the Navy and Marine Corps team,” Cao wrote on X.

“I’m grateful for your leadership and support as we continue to get after shipbuilding and ensure the defense of the homeland.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Cao would formally take responsibility for the Department of the Navy, which oversees both the Navy and Marine Corps.

Cao is a retired Navy captain who spent 25 years in uniform after graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy.

His military career included special operations assignments and deployments to combat zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

After leaving military service, Cao entered politics. He made an unsuccessful congressional bid in 2022 before seeking a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia in 2024 against Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine.

Trump endorsed Cao during the 2024 Senate campaign and highlighted his military background. Cao ultimately lost the race to Kaine before joining the Trump administration.

Cao later took over leadership of the Navy in an acting capacity earlier this year.

He has remained in that position for approximately four months while the administration has pursued its broader defense and shipbuilding agenda.

The nomination now sends Cao’s future at the department to the Senate, where lawmakers will determine whether to confirm him to the permanent position.

Cao’s nomination comes as the Navy faces continued attention over fleet size, shipbuilding capacity and America’s ability to maintain maritime strength.

The Trump administration has made expanding domestic shipbuilding and strengthening the U.S. military central parts of its defense priorities.

During his time as acting secretary, Cao has also addressed issues involving the Navy and broader national security matters.

In May 2026, he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing focused on the Department of the Navy’s posture and its request for funding under the fiscal year 2027 defense authorization process.

The hearing took place at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on May 19, 2026.

Cao’s background as a longtime Navy officer and his experience in special operations have been central to his public profile since entering politics.

His nomination also marks a return to the political arena for a figure who previously sought elected office before moving into the Trump administration.

The White House and the U.S. Navy did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.

If confirmed, Cao will transition from acting secretary to formally leading the Department of the Navy and will be responsible for overseeing the service branches under the department as the administration continues its focus on shipbuilding and homeland defense.

Ted Cruz Delivers a Stunning Hell No to Supreme Court Appointment [WATCH]
News

Ted Cruz Delivers a Stunning Hell No to Supreme Court Appointment [WATCH]

/

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has rejected speculation that he could eventually be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying he would strongly prefer to remain in politics rather than accept a lifetime position on the nation’s highest court, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

Cruz discussed the possibility during a recent appearance on the “Hang Out with Sean Hannity” podcast.

Host Sean Hannity asked the Texas Republican about the recurring speculation that he could be considered for a Supreme Court nomination.

Cruz’s response was direct.

“So look, my answer is not just no, but hell no. And listen, I don’t say that lightly. I mean, it’s a big deal. The court is an institution I revere,” Cruz told Hannity.

“And a lot of people are surprised, because I’ve spent an awful lot of my professional life around the court, in the court. And for so many people, it is their life dream to do,” he added.

Cruz’s name has been raised as a possible Supreme Court nominee several times over the years, including by President Donald Trump.

Trump has previously joked that Cruz could be an unusual nominee because lawmakers from both parties would supposedly support the move for the same reason.

Trump said Cruz would be the only nominee to receive “100% of the Democrat vote, 100% of the Republican vote” because lawmakers would want to “get him out” of Congress.

Despite the speculation, Cruz said he does not want the position.

The senator has extensive legal experience that has kept him closely connected to the federal judiciary. Before entering politics, Cruz graduated from Princeton University and earned his law degree from Harvard Law School.

Following law school, Cruz clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who served on the Supreme Court from 1972 until his death in 2005 and became chief justice in 1986.

Cruz later worked in private practice before entering government and eventually winning election to the U.S. Senate.

His legal background has made Cruz a frequent participant in debates involving constitutional law and the Supreme Court. He has also argued cases before the court during his legal career.

Cruz entered the Senate after winning an election in Texas and has since established himself as a prominent Republican voice in Congress.

His political career has included a presidential campaign and continued involvement in national Republican politics.

The Supreme Court speculation has persisted partly because of Cruz’s legal background and familiarity with the institution.

His decision to remain in elected office, however, appears to rule out any interest on his part in accepting such an appointment, at least based on his latest comments.

Cruz emphasized that his rejection of the idea should not be interpreted as a lack of respect for the Supreme Court.

He specifically described the court as an institution he reveres while explaining that the position itself does not appeal to him.

The distinction is notable because a Supreme Court seat is often viewed as one of the most prestigious positions available to an American lawyer.

Justices serve lifetime appointments, subject to the constitutional process of presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

Cruz instead indicated that he prefers the political arena, where he currently represents Texas in the Senate.

The comments came as Cruz continues his work in Congress and remains a recognizable figure among national Republicans.

Trump’s previous comments about Cruz becoming a Supreme Court justice have also contributed to the recurring discussion.

Trump has mentioned Cruz in connection with the court while joking about the political reaction such an appointment could produce.

For now, however, Cruz has made his position clear. Asked whether he would accept a Supreme Court appointment, he said his answer would be “not just no, but hell no.”

youtube.com/watch?v=gokBWpUzHTk&time_continue=267&source_ve_path=OTY3MTQ&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F

The comments provide a rare glimpse into how Cruz views the prospect of trading an elected political career for a lifetime position on the nation’s highest court.

Leftist Podcaster Groans Illegal Alien Crime Stories Are Exhausting, Calls Enforcement Humiliating [WATCH]
News

Leftist Podcaster Groans Illegal Alien Crime Stories Are Exhausting, Calls Enforcement Humiliating [WATCH]

/

A CNN panel erupted Tuesday after podcast host Leigh McGowan described repeated discussions about Americans killed by illegal immigrants as “exhausting,” prompting a sharp response from Federalist reporter Brianna Lyman, as reported by Fox News.

The exchange occurred on CNN’s “NewsNight” as panelists debated immigration policy and the case of Pierre Damas Bel, a 20-year-old Haitian-born college student in Ohio whose family said he died by suicide Monday after being required to wear an ankle monitor following the loss of his Temporary Protected Status.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol said Bel died after walking into traffic on Interstate 70. The incident remained under investigation.

During the discussion, Lyman argued that the panel should also focus on Brianna Connolly, a 33-year-old Massachusetts woman who was killed at her Framingham home.

“Well, temporary does mean temporary, so eventually this individual may have been ordered to be removed,” Lyman said on the “NewsNight” panel.

“I think it’s kind of insulting that we’re talking about this immigrant instead of Brianna Connolly from Massachusetts who was strangled last week by an illegal alien. Why is the focus never…”

McGowan interrupted Lyman as she brought up Connolly’s death.

“Oh my God!” she said. “It’s so exhausting. Over and over again.”

Lyman immediately pushed back, arguing that the subject was far different for families who had lost loved ones.

“It’s exhausting for you because your daughter wasn’t the one strangled,” Lyman said. “But it’s not exhausting for the parents of Americans who watch their children get murdered by illegal aliens.”

The argument centered on the broader political debate over immigration enforcement and the consequences of crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

Lyman later criticized McGowan’s remarks in a statement to Fox News Digital, arguing that the political left has become more concerned about discussions of illegal immigrant crime than the crimes themselves.

“Leftists are objectively pro-crime, which is why Democrat-run cities are all riddled with crime. It’s the same reason why illegal alien crime doesn’t anger them, but Americans mentioning it does,” she said.

“There is something deeply sick about a political movement that treats murdered Americans as an inconvenience.”

Maria Espinoza, national spokesperson for The Remembrance Project, also criticized McGowan’s reaction and said families who have lost relatives deserve compassion.

“Ms. McGowan clearly has no compassion or a place in her heart for the pain — her own fellow citizens’ pain and suffering — when their child/loved one is murdered by an illegal alien,” she said.

“Every murder was 100% preventable. One has to question the inner makings of those who express ‘exhaustion’ from a mother’s living nightmare of burying their precious child. And the salt in their wound as these mothers mourn are people like McGowan.”

On Tuesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement identified Flavio Alcantra Dias, 43, as a Brazilian illegal immigrant accused in Connolly’s death at her Framingham home.

The Department of Homeland Security said Dias illegally entered the United States in April 2019 and that an immigration judge terminated his immigration proceedings in October 2024 “based on a technicality.”

Federal officials also said Dias had previously been arrested for DUI and aggravated assault.

The CNN dispute unfolded as the Trump administration continued efforts to terminate Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants.

The Supreme Court had cleared the administration to end the protections while related litigation continued in federal court.

A DHS spokesperson also responded to the CNN exchange, accusing the network of minimizing the concerns surrounding illegal immigrant crime.

“Is anyone surprised by the falsehoods that come out of that network anymore?” a spokesperson for the department said.

“It’s incredibly on brand for someone at CNN to be so far-removed from commonsense and decency that they dismiss a criminal illegal alien MURDERING yet another American as nothing more than an inconvenience to their left-wing narrative. Too often the media ignores the victims of illegal alien crime and their stories. These victims and their families are why we work around the clock to arrest and deport illegal aliens from our communities. As Secretary Mullin often points out, every death at the hands of an illegal alien is 100% preventable—and we will stop at nothing to enforce the law.”

The exchange has since drawn attention to the competing arguments over immigration enforcement, Temporary Protected Status, and how the media covers crimes involving illegal immigrants.


Scroll to Top