A bit of a head's-up on what is coming later -- I listened to the oral argument in the Tariffs case from this past week before the SCOTUS. I made me laugh at all the prognosticators -- including on the right -- whose takeaway was "The Admin. faces skepticism over its assertions of power, even from conservative Justices." When the Sol. Gen. is the first to argue, raise your hand if you think the inclination of the Justices is to stand up and applaud before he utters a word, and then in their questioning simply say "We agree with you completely. Don't trouble yourself to say anything." OF COURSE they are going to ask questions that are phrased with skepticism. Even when they agree with a particular litigating position, it is always the Court's practice to pull at the threats and push to the boundaries to see where the extremes are and if the argument still holds up. This is not cynical -- it's part of probing both sides. The only reason for the reactions I read is that when you have a 6-3 court and the SG represents a position that is -- superficially -- in alignment with the 6, probing questions are always going to cause the OTHER side to say "See how much trouble you're in -- even your side disagrees." I'll go through some of the questions and answers in an article coming up in a few hours. But, for the most part, none of the arguments advanced by Sotomayor or Jackson had any traction with other Justices -- and Justice Barrett seemed to go out of her way to blunt any point made by Justice Jackson. I think this should worry those who think the Justices are aligned against the Admin -- AND I think it shows the issues Justice Barrett has with Justice Jackson exposed at the end of the last term are still there. One feature of Justice Jackson's questioning remains consistent -- her questions almost always include within their text or context her view of the issue. Here questions of the Neal Katyal arging against the Administration were uniformly softball questions right in line with his arguments.

Look for a DOP Seal - it's the confirmation of origin label. I agree with the US point, which is why I seek it out. ALWAYS be weary of olive oil that says "Packed in Italy or Imported from Italy"

OK, I gotta go to bed but I'm having a hard time not joy-scrolling through all of the Democrat meltdowns over the shutdown they started coming to an end. Those meltdowns--which are basically universal and with no dissenting voices--show what a big win today was for President Trump and the country. Many of you laughed when he talked about sending the health insurance subsidies to the People. That, together with his relentless calls to end the filibuster, caused the Dems to cave and suffer a massive defeat. Enjoy it.

USDA calls out the states who pulled 100% of SNAP benefits in violation of law:

N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James filed a motion alleging selective prosecution as court staff fled the courthouse in fear of a lightning strike...OK, I made up that last part, but James objecting to selective prosecution is like Jay Jones objecting to rage rhetoric...

Tonight’s The Night! Premier Episode of Straight To The Point 6pm Eastern Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon Breaks Major News on Iryna Zarutska’s Murder in Charlotte, North Carolina And More….

Right. Media deceived viewers about J6. BBC apology accepted. More apologies expected….

Eye Rounds are $6- $8 per lb right now. I posted this 2 years ago, the recipe lives on. andrewgruel.substack.com/p/r…

THE PRECEDENT AT STAKE: WHY JUDGE WALKER'S DECISION WILL DEFINE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR POWERFUL OFFICIALS Full forensic analysis with all source documents: ➡️whitecollarfraud.com/2025/11… Think about it this way: Imagine a defendant saying "Yes, Judge Walker, I did murder that person, but the prosecution is vindictive because the President hates me." The existence of political motivation doesn't erase the documentary evidence. If it did, every powerful person prosecuted by a political opponent would be immune from accountability. That's the precedent Abbe Lowell is asking Judge Walker to establish. Lowell just filed a 50-page motion to dismiss the federal indictment against Letitia James. His constitutional arguments are sophisticated. His factual claims are provably false. Judge Walker is about to make a decision that will determine whether documentary evidence matters when powerful officials cry "political persecution." Here's what's really at stake—and why this case will define American justice for the next generation: THE TRAP LOWELL SET: If Judge Walker dismisses this case despite 40 years of documentary evidence, he'll establish that ANY powerful official can escape accountability by claiming "my political opponent is targeting me." Think about what happens next: ▪️Corrupt governor indicted for bribery? "Politically motivated!" ▪️Senator caught on tape taking bribes? "Weaponization of justice!" ▪️Mayor with mountains of financial fraud evidence? "Revenge prosecution!" Judge Walker's ruling becomes their blueprint. THE FALSE CHOICE LOWELL WANTS JUDGE WALKER TO ACCEPT: Lowell frames it as: ▪️Dismiss = protect constitutional rights ▪️Proceed = validate revenge prosecution That's a false dichotomy. The real question: Did Letitia James commit federal crimes spanning 40 years through five presidencies starting during the Reagan administration? The documents answer that question—regardless of who brought the charges or why. LOWELL IS BETTING JUDGE WALKER WON'T LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS His motion makes three specific factual claims about the Peronne Avenue property. Every single one is false and provably so: LOWELL'S CLAIM #1: "Only $800 in benefits" ▪️THE DOCUMENTS SAY: The federal indictment explicitly calculates $18,933 in benefits—not $800. ▪️But it gets worse. James's 2023 financial disclosure shows: 🔹Property value: $100,000-$150,000 🔹Disclosed mortgages: $250,000-$400,000 🔹Loan-to-value ratio: 167% to 400% No legitimate lender issues loans at 250%+ of property value. This is mathematically impossible. Independent title search revealed: ✗ Freedom Mortgage (disclosed): DOESN'T EXIST ✗ National Mortgage (disclosed): DOESN'T EXIST ✓ OVM Financial ($109,600): EXISTS but HIDDEN from financial disclosures for 5 years (2020-2024) She's reporting phantom mortgages while concealing the real one. That's not a mistake—that's systematic fraud. LOWELL'S CLAIM #2: "Only $1,350 in rent" ▪️THE DOCUMENTS SAY: This claim confuses NET rental income (after deductions) with GROSS rents received. These are different lines on Schedule E. ▪️Thompson testified she paid NO rent. The New York Times confirmed Thompson "did not pay rent." Here's the trap Lowell walked into: ▪️If Thompson paid $0: TAX FRAUD (James falsely reported rental income and expenses) + MORTGAGE FRAUD (violated mandatory personal use requirement) ▪️If Thompson paid $1,350/year ($112/month): TAX FRAUD (below-market family rate = must report as personal use days; James reported ZERO) + MORTGAGE FRAUD ▪️If Thompson paid market rent: MORTGAGE FRAUD (full-time rental violates Second Home Rider) ▪️Every possible scenario proves federal crimes. There is no innocent explanation. LOWELL'S CLAIM #3: "No clear definition of occupancy requirements" ▪️THE DOCUMENTS SAY: This is objectively, demonstrably false. ▪️Fannie Mae Selling Guide (August 5, 2020—effective when James signed): 🔹"Second Home Properties must: 🔸be occupied by the borrower for some portion of the year 🔸not be rental property 🔸the borrower must have exclusive control" Freddie Mac Bulletin 2019-7 (which created the Second Home Rider James signed): ▪️"The Borrower keeps the property available primarily (i.e., more than half of the calendar year) as a residence for the Borrower's personal use" ▪️"Available primarily" means 182.5+ days minimum. This isn't ambiguous. It's mathematics. What James actually did: ▪️Signed Second Home Rider: Sworn declaration of personal use (Aug 17, 2020) ▪️Filed Schedule E: "ZERO personal use days" + "rental real estate" (2020 & 2021) ▪️Told insurance: "Owner-occupied non-seasonal use" (2020) ▪️Told NY State: Classified as "Investment" (2020-2024) Four contradictory sworn statements about the same property. They can't all be true simultaneously. THE 40-YEAR PATTERN THAT DESTROYS "POLITICAL PERSECUTION": ▪️1982-1983: Queens fraud (Reagan administration - Trump private citizen) ▪️2001-2021: Brooklyn fraud (Bush, Obama - Trump not in politics) ▪️2011: Federal HAMP fraud (Obama - Trump not in politics) ▪️2020-2024: Peronne (currently charged) ▪️2023: Sterling Street (one month before prosecuting Trump) You cannot blame political revenge for a 40-year criminal pattern. JUDGE WALKER'S OPTIONS: ▪️Dismiss on vindictive prosecution? Doesn't prevent superseding indictments on other properties. Creates precedent: "Cry persecution, escape accountability" ▪️Deny the motion? Pattern evidence comes to trial. Preserves principle: Evidence matters more than who brings it. ▪️Dismiss with prejudice? Doesn't stop superseding federal charges, state prosecutions, IRS enforcement, or bar disbarment. WHAT I'M PUBLICLY PREDICTING: As a forensic accountant who worked with federal law enforcement for 30+ years: ▪️ If dismissed, prosecutors file superseding charges on Queens (1982), Brooklyn (2001-2021), Sterling (2023), wire fraud (5 years false disclosures), and RICO (40-year enterprise). ▪️Potential exposure: 200+ years. THE TWO QUESTIONS: ▪️Constitutional: Did prosecution violate due process? ▪️Factual: Did James commit federal crimes for 40 years? Judge Walker can address constitutional questions WITHOUT ignoring documentary evidence. Even if he finds constitutional violations, that doesn't erase: ✓ 10+ false Brooklyn statements (2001-2021) ✓ Federal HAMP fraud (2011) ✓ Four contradictory Peronne statements (2020-2021) ✓ Five years phantom mortgages (2020-2024) These are public records. Verifiable by anyone. THE BOTTOM LINE: ▪️The legal community is watching. Prosecutors across America are watching. Every powerful official facing investigation is watching. ▪️Judge Walker's ruling will answer: 🔹Does evidence matter when constitutional process claims are raised? 🔹Or is "politically motivated prosecution" the new immunity for the powerful? His decision will be studied in law schools, cited in future cases, and remembered by history. The question isn't whether Trump wanted revenge. The question is whether documentary evidence spanning 40 years proves federal crimes. The documents answer: Yes.

NEW EPISODE: Calling all cooks. Keep it simple. 4 minutes for the perfect chicken "braise".

Am hearing there’s a lot more to the J6 pipe bomb incident. Congressional Republicans are going to go on the offensive…insisting they tried to work with FBI on the J6 issue, but in Sept 2021, the FBI informed them that it would only discuss the J6 pipe bomb incident with the Jan 6th Committee. Jan 6th Committee then failed to investigate the incident.

after going through dozens of 'healthy treats' sold for dogs from MANY diff brands, I have come to the conclusion, they are all cheaply made and slowly poison. SO, we will will be making all of out treats, since Logan loves snacks and we need to get his weight up. Meats and organ treats will be from @AmberLakeFarm and @Mathew_of_LWFAH and I will be posting recipes for home baked snacks w berries and veggies. working on one now, will be making it after we get back from Vegas. yes, I just ordered the 'mold' for these. a.co/d/986wIPx (paws not bones)

Nothing surprising about it. Judge Immergut has been consistent in her view from the very start -- she had the case 48 hours when she issued the first TRO that came to the same conclusions as her Findings of Fact. She's a creature of Portland law enforcement - state and federal prosecutor, state and federal judge. Her ruling is a defense of the people she has worked with in Portland for 20+ years. The last article I wrote got very little traction - no surprises there any longer. Ninth Circuit will never review it in time -- ball is now in SCOTUS with the Illinois case.

In assessing the current state of the economy, domestic affairs, and foreign affairs, one empirical fact needs to be kept front and center: We are where we are as a result of the fact that for 12 of the past 17 years the Democrats have run the Govt, and for the past 10 months they have spared no effort to frustrate efforts to make policy changes by the Trump Admin.

I may not like the decision by the President, but the “They were transporting cocaine.” excuse is 🥜 Do we not care about our fellow humans?

They were so desperate to stop Pres Trump's 2024 bid, that they massively overreached. I was in the middle of giving evidence to Special Counsel Durham against Brennan, Comey, Halper, Steele and co when they raided President's home, seized all the Hillary Plan and Crossfire Hurricane docs which they already secretly re-classified, and charged the President under Espionage Act. Stopped the Durham criminal investigation in its tracks because all Crossfire Classified documents suddenly became classified, preventing Durham team from using them in prosecutions. Threatened witnesses, myself included. Grand Juried Kash Patel, who was responsible for declassifications. Now they are going to face trials in Florida, where the Mar-o-Lago Raid took place.

The ACA inflated costs with regulation, then billed taxpayers. If subsidies went straight to people without repealing the ACA, the money would still go to insurance companies. Fund HSAs for low cost catastrophic plans & routine care. That’s how you get choice & affodability.

Special Counsel Durham's team were going to bring Conspiracy charges. They were stopped by the Biden admin. But now they are back, helping Kash Patel and Lindsey Halligan. THAT'S the conspiracy case you are going to see in Florida. Hillary Plan, Russiagate, Mueller, Arctic Frost, Mar-o-Lago Raid, Burn Bags. All parts of the same Conspiracy against President Trump.

This might just be the biggest scandal and conspiracy in American history. Many heroes were involved in bringing this to light. Some we can name in coming days. Some who want no recognition. And there’s much more to this yet to be told. theblaze.com/news/former-cap…

Obamacare passed the House and the Senate without even one single Republican vote. If you are mad about insurance premiums, blame the Democrats because the taxpayers do not want to subsidize health care. It is and always was a bad plan. So, let's reopen, Congress, and fix it!