Aggregator
Giants 2026 Training Camp Preview: What To Watch For | Blue Rush
The Dodgers were right to go to the White House
Dave Portnoy goes scorched earth on USA Today columnist over controversial Caitlin Clark take: ‘Fire this lady’
Justice Department Withdraws Subpoenas Of New York Times Journalists
Authored by Timothy Frudd via The Epoch Times,
The Justice Department has withdrawn subpoenas for three reporters from The New York Times following criticism from a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian indicated on July 23 that he would have granted the request from the newspaper to reject the subpoenas if the Justice Department had not withdrawn them.
Subramanian said that the government was required to ensure that it could not obtain the information it sought from any other sources before subpoenaing journalists.
“Subpoenas are not the first thing you do; they are the last thing you do,” the judge said.
The Justice Department issued subpoenas to three journalists at The New York Times on July 10 after the newspaper published a report on alleged concerns about the new Air Force One, the plane used by the president, which was donated by the Qatari government.
The report alleged that the new aircraft lacked advanced security features, including anti-missile capabilities. It also said the Secret Service had urged President Donald Trump to use the old Air Force One as he departed from the NATO summit in Turkey earlier this month.
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton, who was nominated by Trump to be the next director of national intelligence, issued the subpoenas.
During the July 23 hearing, Subramanian questioned government lawyers regarding the steps they took in their investigation. He cited rules protecting against violations of the First Amendment and said the department’s actions had turned the law “on its head.”
“When you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I would normally do is ask the parties to show causes why sanctions should not be issued,” the judge said.
A Justice Department spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email on July 23 that Subramanian threatened the government attorneys with sanctions unless the subpoenas were withdrawn. The spokesperson said the judge also blocked the government from “presenting the meticulous process of this investigation.”
“The grand jury has a right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation,” the spokesperson told The Epoch Times. “This judge’s conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense-blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation.”
Despite withdrawing the subpoenas on Thursday, the Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that the investigation remained ongoing.
“Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime,” the spokesperson added.
In a statement on July 11, David McCraw, the senior vice president and deputy general counsel for The New York Times, criticized the subpoenas as an “attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.”
The Justice Department’s rapid response account responded by saying that the department had an important role to ensure that people entrusted with classified information did not share it. “To be clear, reporters are not the targets; those leaking classified information are,” the department said.
On July 15, The New York Times asked a court to toss out the grand jury subpoenas. In a motion unsealed on July 20, the paper also said the Justice Department issued subpoenas to obtain phone records of the publication’s journalists and some of their family members.
“Two of the subpoenas seek records beginning on January 1, 2026, long before the events that are purportedly the basis for the Department’s investigation,” the publication wrote in a letter. “That timeframe strongly suggests that the Department is using this investigation not to focus on any purported concerns arising from the July 8 and 9 articles, but instead to forage for information about the Journalists’ source relationships more broadly.”
During his confirmation before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 15, Clayton maintained that the Southern District of New York’s office followed protocol when issuing the subpoenas.
“I’m confident that the procedures that we have in place to protect the First Amendment and protect the freedom of the press and not result in intimidation of journalists or the like were followed,” he said.
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 19:15NBA star Anthony Edwards marries Shannon Jackson — months after child support scandal
NBA star Anthony Edwards marries Shannon Jackson — months after child support scandal
Google fined €890m by EU for favouring its own apps over rivals
San Francisco’s never-ending beach ‘boondoggle’ heads back to voters
2 men stabbed during fight with stranger blocks from Times Square: cops, sources
Family in viral migrant shelter beat down sues NYC, cops for excessive force
Angel Chivilli could be unexpected Yankees bullpen answer as ‘pleasant surprise’ keeps earning trust
Democrats’ shameful refusal to fund the Pentagon is making AOC the heart of the party
Are Comeback Wins Becoming the Liberty’s Identity? | Liberty Lately
Dangerous sexually violent predator is suddenly released back into small California city
This science-backed volumizing shampoo is your one-way ticket to Hollywood hair
This science-backed volumizing shampoo is your one-way ticket to Hollywood hair
Mamdani admin wants sweeping powers to OK new bike and bus lanes — deepening fight over NYC streets
James Carville Calls On Democrats To Cave On Voter ID
The SAVE America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship along with valid ID for federal elections and tighten mail-in voting rules, remains stalled in Congress due to the Democrats' filibuster in the Senate, even though the underlying idea is among the most popular in American politics.
Gallup found 84 percent of Americans favor requiring photo identification at the polling place, and 83 percent favor proof of citizenship for first-time registrants - including 98 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of independents, and 67 percent of Democrats. Pew Research Center put photo-ID support at 83 percent, with 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats behind it and only 16 percent opposed. Rasmussen found 77 percent of likely voters calling photo ID a reasonable measure to protect election integrity. Thirty-six states already request or require identification for in-person voting.
As CNN's Harry Enten put it: "The bottom line is this: Voter ID is NOT controversial in this country."
A bill with that kind of consensus isn't controversial, yet Senate Democrats keep blocking it. Now longtime Democratic strategist James Carville is looking at those numbers and has decided his own party needs an exit ramp. On his podcast, Politics War Room, he told Democrats to stop fighting voter ID and find a way out of a fight he believes is already lost.
The trigger for the conversation was New Jersey. Carville's co-host Al Hunt opened by noting the right had seized on Gov. Mikie Sherrill's disclosure that roughly 6,600 noncitizens were registered to vote in the state, fewer than 400 of whom cast ballots.
"Voter fraud in the United States is an infinitesimal problem," Carville said. "I don't even... to the extent, I guess you could say it exists, anything could exist, it exists on such a minuscule scale, and it's been proven time and time and time again."
That is where most Democrats stop - the problem is too small to bother with. Carville kept going.
"But I don't know if we're not better off saying, okay, we'll take that alternative ID, bring your gas bill or your light bill or something," he said. "Because for whatever reason, it polls at 75%."
He pointed to his home state of Louisiana, where voters already have to show a driver's license at the polls, and asked why the national party keeps treating that standard as an emergency. A rule allowing alternative documents such as a gas or electric bill still polls at 75 percent - a number that should give pause to a party that has spent a decade calling identification requirements a modern poll tax.
"We are not gonna win the war" on some kind of ID, Carville said. "I never had a problem with it. I'm just saying of all the things... if every poll shows 75 or better, saying we should have some kind of ID to vote... just quit fighting it and go along with it and move to the next thing."
Hunt pushed back, arguing that most states already have ID requirements and criticizing the SAVE America Act directly. Carville was quick to draw the same line. "I'm not talking about the SAVE Act, I'm not talking about the SAVE Act at all," he said. His proposal was narrower: "Whatever the law in Louisiana is, make it the national law."
It is worth being precise about what the New Jersey episode actually was, because it is not quite the case for the policy Carville is conceding. Those 6,600 people had pressed "no" when a Motor Vehicle Commission keypad asked whether they were U.S. citizens, and a software defect registered them anyway. They held valid state identification - that is why they were at the MVC. An ID check at the polling place catches someone voting under another person's name. It does not catch a state agency overriding what an applicant told it.
Which is rather the point of Carville's argument. He is not claiming voter ID would fix anything. He is saying it costs Democrats nothing and they are losing the fight anyway - that a party cannot win by declaring war on a basic expectation shared by nearly every voting bloc, and that the energy would be better spent on arguments it can win.
The concession is notable coming from this particular program. Politics War Room has hosted the Brennan Center's Michael Waldman to argue that widespread voter fraud is a myth and to pick apart the SAVE Act. Carville still believes the first part. He has simply stopped believing it matters.
Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 18:50